WG 156: E-navigation for Inland Waterways

Published

The PIANC Working Group 156 (WG156) on “e-Navigation for Inland Waterways” originated from the PIANC Working Group 125 (WG125) which dealt with updating the PIANC RIS Guidelines of 2004.

When in 2011, the PIANC Working Group 125 finished its report it came to the conclusion that River Information Services (RIS), might benefit from concepts in the maritime world like e-Navigation, e‑Maritime and Vessel Traffic Management (VTM). In addition it turned out that in several regions, e.g. the Westerscheldt River, the interaction between seagoing and inland transport was increasing.

The most important interactions are:

• The number of mixed traffic areas as well as the traffic density itself was constantly increasing. This situation with inland barges and seagoing vessels operating next to each other call for a harmonization of the services and information used for management of the traffic;
• The growing need for intermodal transport and specially inland navigation could benefit from a more harmonized information exchange between maritime and inland waterborne transport.

Further, as inland navigation is a niche market, the modality could benefit from learning from technological developments in the maritime world.

It was obvious that there was a need to investigate these themes and that it should be done on a global level. For this reason PIANC was the most suitable organization to support such type of research and consequently the PIANC Work Group 156 was initiated with its kick-off meeting on 23rd of September 2013 in Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Since all the members of WG156 have a background in the RIS environment, the investigations were very much based on an inland point of view. As WG156 progressed the more interesting themes and topics relating to the interaction with IWT became clearer as the WG156 members gathered more insight and knowledge on the level of maritime expertise, which was lacking at the start of WG156. The method used to solve this problem was doing much more desktop research work and participating the “e-Navigation Underway Congress” in February 2016 (ref ??). During this congress a meeting was organized about the questions of WG156 with Maritime experts like Omar Frits Eriksson, John Erik Hagen, Michael Baldauf and Bill Cairns. It became clear that e-Navigation in the Maritime World is in full progress but still a lot of developments have to startup.

The basic methodology to investigate the state of art in the e-Navigation environment and come to findings and results which are applicable for the RIS world, was based on the fact that the maritime world has a long record of knowledge, service and experience. So the main question to be addressed by PIANC Work Group 156 was “What can the RIS world learn from the Maritime world in order to have inland waterway transport benefit and can this support intermodality between the two modes of transport”. The result of this comparison is called “e-Navigation for Inland Waterways”. This e‑Navigation for Inland Waterways shall be a significant input for the future development of RIS, as in the upcoming updates of the PIANC RIS Guidelines by WG 125 and the European RIS Directive as well as significant input for the DINA (Digital Inland Waterway Area) initiative of the European Commission. 

 

Table of Contents

1 Foreword

2 List Of Abbreviations

3 Introduction4

3.1 Origin Of Wg156 And Concepts

3.2 Objectives Of Pianc Working Group 156 (Terms Of Reference)

3.3 WG156 Approach

4 Status And Framework For River Information Services

4.1 Short Introduction To Ris

4.2 Ris Related Bodies And Organizations

4.3 Relevant Ris Initiatives

5 Status And Framework For E-Maritime And E-Navigation

5.1 Introduction

5.2 E-Maritime And E-Navigation Related Bodies And Organizations

5.3 Relevant Maritime Initiatives

6 Findings/Results Of E-Navigation For Inland Waterways

6.1 Definition And Considerations Of E-Navigation For Inland Waterways

6.2 Whether Ris Could Benefit From The Developments In E-Navigation

6.3 Interoperability Between E-Navigation And River Information Services

6.4 Cost, Benefits And Risks Of E-Navigation

6.5 Possible Opportunities For Improving Transport Efficiency, Logistics And Administrative Processes

7 Conclusions

7.1 Introduction

7.2 General Conclusions

7.3 Lessons Learned E-Maritime

7.4 Lessons Learned E-Navigation In The Maritime World

8 Recommendations

9 List Of References

10 Annex

10.1 Ris Initiatives

10.2 E-Navigation Initiatives

10.3 Comparison Of Msp And Ris Services & Vice Versa

List of Members

Belgium

Dierik Vermeir (Chair)

Piet Creemers

Tim Van Ghyseghem

Germany

Nils Braunroth

USA

Brian Tetreault

Richard Lockwood

Patricia Dijoseph

Austria

Juergen Troegl

Mario Sattler

ProDanube

Robert Rafael

The Netherlands

Cas Willems

Jeffrey Van Gils

Czech Republic

Jan Bukovsky

France

Gernot Pauli