U.S. Department of Transportation

ITS Program Advisory Committee Meeting

Day 1

Monday, November 26, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Topic]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

Welcome and Introductions 3

ITS Program Overview 13

Identifying Trends in ITS (Panel Discussion) 101

Advisory Committee Questions and Discussion 146

Opportunity for Public Comments 163

Wrap-up and Guidance for Day 2 Activities 163

**Welcome and Introductions**

Shelley Row: First of all, let me say welcome and thank you all for
being here. This is the ITS Advisory Committee meeting, and we are very
pleased to have you all here. Everyone here is a busy person and we
appreciate that you are willing to take time out of your schedules to
contribute your time, attention, and your thoughts to giving us your
ideas about the ITS program.

We\'re going to start with introductions of everyone, so that you all
have a chance to know who is here on the Committee, as well as others
who are here with us in the room. I\'ll start, I\'m Shelley Row, and
I\'m the Director of the ITS Joint Program Office here in RITA, the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

Paul Brubaker: I\'m Paul Brubaker, I\'m the Administrator of RITA.

Randall Iwasaki: Randy Iwasaki, Chief Deputy Director at Cal Trans.

Thomas Lambert: I\'m Tom Lambert, I am the Senior Vice President and
Chief of Police for Houston Metro.

Bryan Mistele: Bryan Mistele, CEO of Inrix.

Tomiji Sugimoto: I\'m Tomiji Sugimoto, Vice-President of the Honda R&D
America.

Joseph Sussman: Joe Sussman, on the faculty of MIT.

Amy Cole: I\'m Amy Cole with Citizant, I\'ll be your note taker today.

Charlie Velez: I\'m Charlie Velez from Citizant Corporation.

Steve Albert: Steve Albert with Western Transportation Institute and
Montana State University.

Joseph Averkamp: Joe Averkamp, ITS America.

Ann Flemer: Ann Flemer, Deputy Director of Operations for the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Robert Denaro: Bob Denaro from NAVTEQ.

Scott Belcher: Scott Belcher, ITS America.

Mike Schagrin: Mike Schagrin, ITS, Portland office.

Joyce Bader: Joyce Bader, I\'m with Citizant.

Jaye Lappin: Jaye Lappin from the Program Office.

Kate Hartman: Kate Harman, Joint Program Office.

Brian Cronin: Brian Cronin, ITS Program Office.

Marcia Keys: Marcia Keys, ITS Direct Program Office.

Joe Larsee: Joe Larsee, Deputy Director, ITS Program Office.

Rick Schuman: Rick Schuman, Inrix.

Joe Peters: Joe Peters, Federal Highway R&D.

Jeff Paniati: Jeff Paniati, FHA.

Laurie Flaherty: I\'m Laura Flaherty, Office of Emergency Medical
Services at MSAA.

Susan Slye: Susan Slye, ITS Joint Program Office.

Tom Schaffnit: Tom Schaffnit, Honda R&D.

Steve Bayless: Steve Bayless, Office of the Secretary.

Greer Woodruff: Greer Woodruff, Vice-President for safety for J.B. Hunt
Transport.

John Worthington: John Worthington, President of Transcore.

Shelley Row: Well, thank you everyone, and let me just state the
obvious, one of the obvious things, is that we are very crammed, cramped
in this room, so we don\'t have a lot of space in this facility for
larger meetings. So, we have two of our Advisory Committee members who
are over here, so you guys just speak up and we\'ll try to move
everybody into the table so that we have an easy way to communicate with
everyone. We will have bigger rooms in the future.

And at this point, I also wanted to give our Administrator an
opportunity to say a few words. Paul is new to RITA, comparatively, and
\--

Paul Brubaker: Not any more. I\'ve been here, what, almost four months.
But at any rate, I wanted to \-- this is the second time I\'ve talked to
the group. The first time I was literally just getting my feet wet, and
now I think they\'re pretty much soaked up to the knees.

So, I just appreciate everybody coming in, and I know you guys came some
distances here, and apologize about the Sunday night travel for those of
you who had to put up with the Thanksgiving schedule, that was a
logistic oops on our part. So, we\'ll be careful not to make that error
again. But we do appreciate you trudging through the airports and coming
here, however you got here.

So, let me just say that these are some interesting times for the ITS
Program. You know, we are ramping up what has been, what I call the
legacy aspect of the program, and you\'re going to get a briefing in
detail of the existing programs right now just to sort of give you a
taste of what we\'ve done in the past. And I know many of you are
familiar with the individual programs, but we thought it would be smart
to at least give you that as background before we dive into a discussion
of the what could be. And I think that\'s really going to be the
critical contribution that this group can make going forward.

There\'s another thing that we were a little remiss in here, and I \--
again, we apologize for that \-- but we\'re going to settle this up here
very shortly. And that is, we have to appoint a chairman out of the
group. You know, it likely be a pretty thankless task, but something
that I\'m sure, if anybody is interested in our if we\'ve, getting close
to locking into somebody let me know, because I\'m pretty interested in
making sure that the next time we have a meeting, that whoever\'s the
chairperson actually winds up running it and figuring out how to go
forward on what the agendas is going to be and actually setting the
agenda.

As you know, right now there\'s lots of opportunity for leveraging
technologies. I keep coming back to the Secretary\'s priorities of
safety, system performance, and 21st century solutions. Really what
we\'re talking about here in the ITS program is leveraging that
technology to improve, immeasurably, safety and system performance, tons
of implications for that across the economy, across the transportation
infrastructure, as you know. And what I\'m looking for out of this
particular group or what we\'re looking for as a Department, is some
real creativity in how to apply technology going forward, help us lay
out that vision going into the next reauthorization cycle, of how to
best apply what we know and what we anticipate the world of technology
is going to look like to our transportation infrastructure, to help
improve system performance, and certainly measurably through safety.

As you may be aware of, there\'s probably some rumors floating around
out there about VII, and we are going through some realignment of the
VII Program, mostly to \-- in light of the Secretary\'s priorities \--
to demonstrate that capability sooner, so to show that we can use VII to
have a measurable impact on improving system performance. We also want
to take an incremental approach toward deployment, and we want to
develop \-- and you guys can help us do this \-- develop a creative
vision for the future of VII as one of the component programs within the
ITS portfolio.

So, we would very much appreciate everybody being as creative as
possible at this session. You know, obviously you guys bring a lot of
experience and varied backgrounds to the table, but it\'s exactly the
kind of input that I think we need, in order to take this program to a
completely different level.

So, again, thanks for your service here. We\'re going to make sure that
the input provided by this group gets put into some implementable
program, and I just want to thank you all very much. And I\'m going to
have to excuse myself, I\'ve got to get upstairs and do about a half
dozen other things here, but I do appreciate your willingness to serve
here.

So, thanks again, and I look forward to hearing what comes out of here
tomorrow. Okay. Thanks everybody.

Shelley Row: Thanks, Paul.

There are a couple, just housekeeping items, before we dive in. The way
that the program is structured, is we have you this afternoon and most
of the day tomorrow. What we want to have as an outcome from our time
together is to, first of all, start with day one, and filling you in
with the current program and making you smart in terms of the current
program. And there will be time for discussion in that as well, and for
you to ask questions so that you understand what goes on now.

And then tomorrow, we\'ll be looking at what are the implications for
the future of the program. We will go through a facilitated discussion,
Joyce Bader is here with us, and she will be helping us tomorrow to
facilitate conversation among the Advisory Committee members, to look at
the trends that we see, the vision that we would have if ITS was wildly
successful in our community, opportunities and barriers, and then
finally, what are the implications for the ITS program within the U.S.
DOT.

So for today, we will have more presentation material than we will have
tomorrow, but still have some opportunity for discussion, but expect
even further discussion tomorrow. Okay.

So that\'s where we\'re headed for in the next day and a half. And feel
free at any point, to ask questions, we\'re here for you to learn as
well as for you to provide input to the program. That\'s the whole point
of us being here.

A couple of logistical things, we are starting at 8 o\'clock tomorrow.
As many of you have probably discovered, it takes a little while to
navigate the security into the building. We would suggest that you
arrive at the building at about 7:30, we will have people at the
entrance to help get you into the building and into the room for
tomorrow\'s discussion.

We do not have breakfast arranged for tomorrow, so \-- there is a
Starbucks on the corner of the building \-- so just plan accordingly. We
do, however, have lunch arranged so that you don\'t have to go out of
the building, and we can make maximum use of our time. There are
logistical challenges with that as well, we will have people here to
help escort you to where we will have lunch set up for the Committee
members. And we do expect to end, certainly no later than 4 o\'clock
tomorrow, for those of you who have flights tomorrow.

I think that was all of my introductory things. Is there anything that
I\'m forgetting? Okay. All right.

Okay, any questions from you all, just as we get started?

\[No response.\]

Shelley Row: It\'s too easy.

\[Laughter.\]

Shelley Row: You know, I might suggest, I think I\'m going to \-- I
would like for you guys to come up to the table first if you would. I
know Paul is not going to be back later today, so why don\'t someone
come up here and then we\'ll just slide over and see if we can \-- that
will work. Okay, that\'s better.

**ITS Program Overview**

Okay, well let\'s go ahead and get started. What we\'re going to start
is an overview, a little bit on the history, why don\'t we go the first
slide. We\'re going to talk a little bit about the history of where
we\'ve been and where we are. And primarily tomorrow, we\'ll talk about
where we\'re going. Today is really intended to give you an orientation.
There is a bit of a history lesson, because we feel like it is important
to understand some of that context, it may have informative pieces in it
that helps us understand where we might want to go in the future as
well.

Feel free though, to interrupt and ask questions. Again, that\'s what
this is for and we want you to have an ample opportunity to understand
our current program.

We do have a number of the JPO program managers who are here, so when we
talk about the specific programs, they\'re here to provide any
information in detail about those program areas. So we\'re prepared and
we want you all to feel comfortable and ready to learn.

Okay, let\'s take a trip down memory lane, shall we. The ITS Program
started actually ISTEA. Before 1991, there was Mobility 2000 working
group, it was convened by FHWA. There was a recognition at that time
that building enough new infrastructure to address the growing
congestion concerns was difficult and not the only option that was
available. And there was a recognition that technology, very likely,
offered some new opportunities that had not been fully explored in the
past.

At the time that this conversation was happening, most of the focus, had
been, particularly in the public sector, on building facilities and
maintaining facilities. A discussion about the performance of the
network, about the operations of the network really had not been front
and center at this point in time, that\'s actually pre-1991.

Let me get to the ISTEA era. This is from 1991 to 1998, it\'s the first
piece of the legislation that contained the ITS program in it. This is
where the initial program vision was established, and in your reading
materials, we actually provided you with all this past legislation and
there\'s actually some interesting material in there that, again, might
be important for us as we move forward.

There was clearly a highway and mobility and metropolitan orientation to
it. There was a lot of multi-modal \-- multi-modalism in there, but
again, a pretty strong metropolitan orientation to the program.

Technology experimentation \-- you see the last bullet on there, that
was really oriented around field operational tests, over a 100 field
operational tests were launched during this period. It was a time of
taking defense industry conversion technology in large part, and saying
how or if it could apply in the transportation environment.

We began to see, over the life of ISTEA, a gradual broadening of the
program, particularly around institutional issues. What originally, we
thought, might just be a technology story became much more than that. We
discovered very quickly that there were procurement issues, there were
issues about how traditional State DOT or a local DOT grappled with
technology, and those were some difficult things, and it became a fairly
important part of the program.

We did see IVHS, a number of us in here remember Intelligent Vehicle
Highway System, that became the Intelligent Transportation System. So we
did have that migration, which reflected a more multi-modal ideal of
what ITS could be.

The ITS Joint Program Office was actually established in 1994. The way
it was established, it was, contained within the Federal Highway
Administration, although it had a lot of input with Federal Transit,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, what was then the CDO
program, it became Federal Safety Administration. But it was housed
within the Federal Highway Administration, but it had a dotted line
relationship, recording relationship to the Deputy Secretary.

Okay. This is a milestone chart of some of the major things that
happened in this era. Some of you may even remember some of these, the
TravTek operational test in Florida. I see somebody going, \"Oh, yeah.\"
That was a big deal, a personal test, one of our early travel
information showcases.

One of the, those early strategic planning documents that you see in the
early part of the program, those were structured around all of our
alphabet soups, ATMS, Advanced Traffic Management Systems, ATIS,
Advanced Travel Information Systems, APTS, Advanced Public
Transportation Systems, all of those alphabet soups. And that was the
organizational structure of the program at that time. So many of the
programs within the JPO were organized around traffic management,
transit management, commercial vehicle operations, and segregated in
that way. That changes over time as you will see.

The Priority Corridor Program came about very early in the program.
There were four priority corridors that were selected. The legislation
actually specified the criteria for those. Those corridors were in
Southern California, Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee corridor, I-95 \-- this is
where that program started \-- and Houston was a priority corridor. We
started the development of the National Architecture, and it was
completed in 1996, and you\'ll see later on, in the current program,
that we are still actively maintaining that architecture that was
developed in this time period.

The CVISN program was initiated, this is the deployment, the development
and the deployment of commercial vehicle infrastructure for ITS, and
that program still is ongoing today and is managed actively by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

In 1996, we began to see a need to promote deployment, and one of the
ways that was deemed to be a way to showcase what the deployment of ITS
technology could do, was through the Model Deployment Initiatives. Four
model deployments were selected; Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio, and New
York City were model deployments where a fair amount of resources went
into those locations to deploy, integrate, operate ITS, to showcase what
it could do in terms of operation of the system.

The Standards Program was initiated, you\'ll hear more about that. That
is a program that still is ongoing today. We\'ve advanced a lot since
these early days.

Operation Timesaver certainly ought to be mentioned. This was Secretary
Pena\'s goal of deploying ITS in the top 75 metropolitan areas around
the country. It became 78 metropolitan areas, but at the time this goal
was announced, there were 75 metropolitan areas. It was clearly a
deployment goal that was set by the Secretary. At that time, the
deployment tracking program was established to track how well we were
meeting and progressing toward that goal.

You will see later on, that program as well, continues today. And we
actually have the numbers on where we got to, even though that that
program ended and was not rekindled, some time ago.

And I\'m sure many of you remember the Automated Highway System
demonstration that was conducted in 1997, that was also a requirement of
the legislation, and that demonstration happened in California.

That\'s a summary of ISTEA. We\'re going to move onto TEA-21. Any
thoughts, questions about ISTEA, comments, many of you, I\'m sure,
remember this probably better than I do. Anything, big ticket items that
are missing? Okay. All right.

Let\'s move on to TEA-21. This is the next piece of legislation and we
see those dates, 1998 to 2005. When you read this piece of legislation,
you can see in the language that the writers of the legislation believed
that ITS has emerged as a good thing, it actually states that it is
shown as a good thing, you\'ll hear our benefits to it. So at least in
that time period, there seems to be some, kind of a turning of a corner
in terms of the relevance of ITS.

There\'s clearly a deployment focus in this piece of legislation. It was
at this point that the ITS deployment and integration program was
created. This was \$100 million and up, that was specifically for the
deployment of ITS. As many of you remember, it was very quickly,
completely earmarked. It also contained a commercial vehicle program.
There was 10 percent that was designated for rural ITS deployment, but
again, the entirety of it actually was fully earmarked.

At this point, again, we see kind of a broadening of the goals. We had
been, as the deployment, model deployments indicated, we had been
promoting the deployment of ITS technologies. Here you begin to see a
shift of, not only deploying, but integrating the technology, so we
weren\'t just deploying ATMS and ATIS, a stovepipe system, but they were
actually integrated. And you will see in some of the slides later on
that we began to track, not only the deployment of ITS, but we also
tracked the integration of the ITS components.

The institutional issues continue to emerge \-- procurement, systems
engineering become a big issue here. Again, we were dealing with public
agencies who were accustomed to building roadways, and were not
accustomed to systems engineering approached for technology. So a lot
emerged there, in terms of training and development. Legal issues,
privacy issues, transportation planning, is very clear in this piece of
legislation, the incorporation of ITS in the transportation planning.

ITS and the FCC, two areas there, 501, which we were successful in
getting, and 5.9, a dedicated spectrum, which we were also successful in
receiving, dedicated for FCC.

We note here, that ITS begins to become visible to the public, E-Z Pass,
General Motors OnStar program, 511, ITS for use in security and
evacuations, many of those issues emerged as well. We are, in this time
period we\'re still doing operational tests, very heavy focus still on
operational tests. And I neglected to mention, in the previous
legislation, as well as in this one, the legislation requires
evaluations of all operational tests.

So we have, at this point, and actually it occurred in previous
legislation, a program assessment program that is developed, which is
ongoing today, that is geared in a couple of different areas. One is to
do evaluations of these programs, as was required in both ISTEA and
TEA-21, as well as to do some of the deployment tracking and gathering
of information. Both pieces of legislation required an informational
clearing house, where we gather information and make it available to the
public. That is there and it also continues today.

Okay, Charlie.

Again, a timeline that shows some of the highlights under TEA-21.
You\'ll see there that the DSRC-dedicated spectrum was approved by the
FCC in 1998. You begin to see some broadening of the program focus, you
have road weather, on-the-road-weather program was established in this
time period, the inter-modal freight was added in recognition of the
growing importance of freight in this country, 511 approved by the FCC.
Today we have about 40 active 511 programs around the country. The
public safety program was initiated, the operations dialogue, many of
you were involved in the operations dialogue, which was intended to
spread the awareness and create a growing sense of understanding of the
importance to operate the network, in addition to continuing to build
and maintain it.

A key piece of regulation was the architecture consistency rule-making
that happened in this time period, which required anyone using Federal
funding for ITS deployment to have architecture that was consistent with
the national architecture. That has been a very significant piece of
regulation, today there are over 300 regional architectures that are in
existence.

The iFlorida program was initiated, again, another very large-scale
operational test to demonstrate the usefulness of fully integrated ITS
deployment.

And then we transition. There was a discussion within the Department \--
I was not personally here at that time, Jeff was leaving this part of
the program, so feel free to jump in, Jeff \-- where there was an
interest in restructuring the way the internal Joint Program Office
programs were oriented, to instead of doing a number of small projects,
that are sort of still ITS, traffic management oriented and transit
oriented, to look at large activities where there would be high
leverage, high benefit, high payoff, and to scope the program that we
were doing few major initiatives that had the potential for a big
impact.

The ITS Management Council, which is an internal body, were the ones who
approved, ultimately, nine new major initiatives that were established
in 2004.

These are some of the, sort of the key features, the premise behind the
major ITS initiatives. Each one of the initiatives has this set of
characteristics that underpins it, problem-driven and results-oriented,
that they directly support the department\'s goals of safety,
congestion, and mobility, connectivity. They are all multi-modal in some
aspect. They all have a role for the public and the private sector. I
think is reflective of what we see in the legislation as well, a clear
orientation to that public-private partnership. And each initiative
pushes the frontier of ITS to a new place that we were not currently
seeing in current activities, and then it does represent significant
research and development activities.

All of them, kind of had to pass through those gates to receive
approval. Those initiatives are still the basis of the current program.
So once we finish our, you know, trip down memory lane, what I\'m going
to describe to you are each of those nine initiatives, and then one that
has recently been added, which is the congestion initiative, as well as
some of the other background programs.

Let me just pause there and see if you all have any questions or
comments, and also, Jeff, do you have anything to add on the background
to that?

Jeff Paniati: No, I think you\'ve got it.

Shelley Row: Okay. Any questions or comments on these initiatives?

Joseph Sussman: Do you want to enter into some dialogue at this point or
is there a few things that come to mind. I didn\'t know whether you want
to get through all this or would like to engage.

Shelley Row: Like what?

Joseph Sussman: Whether you\'d like to engage on some of these
questions.

Shelley Row: Well, I\'m happy to engage.

Joseph Sussman: So, one thing that struck me, is I looked at the
program, not simply this bullet point, but the actual research that\'s
undertaken, is it seemed to me to be very low-key, to put it politely,
on the question of environment. There\'s a lot of discussion of safety,
congestion kind of activity, important goals all, but to have a major
transportation program without environmental concerns struck me as a bit
strange in 2007.

Shelley Row: It\'s an interesting point when you read the legislation as
well, actually the environmental piece is in there. It\'s not been front
and center of the program though, as you note.

Jeff Paniati: Shelley, maybe just from a historical standpoint, I think
the environmental issue had come up over the year, I think, and the
program always tried to take an environmentally-neutral stance. Because
some would argue that you are creating more single car driving through
the ITS program, which is environmentally negative, others would cite
benefits such as IPTC and others that are clearly environmentally
positive.

And so, this kind of back and forth, I think, at least within, kind of
the earlier days of the program, it was if we can take a path that
appears to be or is an environmentally-neutral path, that\'s the path
that the program had followed, focusing more on the goals of safety and
mobility, really, and staying away from the environmental and, to some
respect, the energy issue.

Those have come up more, I think, in the recent years and I would agree
where we sit today, I think, it is clearly a goal that needs to be
discussed in more depth, but that was historically the way the program
tried to, basically deal with environment, just kind of stay neutral on
it.

Shelley Row: Would you like to introduce yourself Al?

Alfred Foxx: I\'m Alfred Foxx, I\'m the Director of Transportation for
Baltimore City.

Shelley Row: Welcome. We appreciate you being here.

Alfred Foxx: Thank you. Sorry I\'m late.

Shelley Row: Any other comments, and we\'ll continue down a little bit
more history and before we \-- and then take another pause before
continue the program.

Okay, Charlie, let\'s go to the next slide.

So, SAFETEA-LU, as the current legislation that we\'re working under
and, again, you have a copy of that legislation, as well. Again, the
program is structured with the major initiatives, a few high payoff,
higher risk initiatives, and it goes to a revision of philosophy to
focus again on a few big issues.

We do still have a focus on operational tests. Interestingly, the
requirement for evaluation is no longer contained in this piece of
legislation, although we still continue that focus, as well, because the
evaluation is how we get information that we can share with others about
deployment and lessons been learned.

There are a number of supporting technology or technical assistance
activities. Again, it\'s interesting when you do a side-by-side
comparison of the previous legislation with this one, in some of the
scoping statements, the deployment language is eliminated because, in
this legislation, we no longer have the ITS deployment program. That was
the \$100 plus million a year that was earmarked. That is no longer in
existence with this piece of legislation, so some of that language is no
longer in this piece of legislation, but you do see more emphasis on
technical assistance, technology transfer sorts of things.

A lot of the language is identical in this legislation to the previous
one. Although the program assessment, the information clearing house,
architecture and standards, all of that is consistent across all the
pieces of legislation.

Internally, as you all know, the ITS Joint Program Office was moved to
RITA, and we have just, relatively recently, completed that move
physically, starting, I guess the end, it\'s been right at a year where
we\'ve actually now moved over to RITA.

The other couple things I wanted to point out is, we have also added to
the nine initiatives that you saw \-- that you will see \-- but we\'ve
added the congestion initiative, signature program for the Secretary of
Transportation. We will talk a little bit more about that, but that has
also been something that\'s happened during this time period as a
significant program area. We are in the process of adding a rural safety
program, that will be announced very shortly. That will be another part
of the ITS, or will have an ITS component to it as well.

The other thing that I would mention, is that in this piece of
legislation, one of the things that\'s different from the previous
legislation, there is a specific road weather program. It\'s basically
an internal earmark where we specify how much money to spend on a road
weather program. So that program, not only do we have it previously, but
it was earmarked in this particular piece of legislation.

Charlie Velez: Shelley, may I interrupt, we have extra copies of the
presentation for note taking.

Shelley Row: I mentioned that when the Secretary, Secretary Pena,
established the Operation Timesaver, the deployment goal, the ITS Joint
Program Office initiated a program to track deployment, with the intent
of tracking progress to that goal. That tracking program still
continues, so what you see on the screen is the current status of those
top 78 metropolitan areas, in terms of high, medium, and low deployment.
What you can see is how it\'s progressed from 1997, when that goal was
established, through 2005.

What we\'ve also shown you in the blue table, are just a few of the
statistics that come out of the deployment tracking work, just for
illustrative purposes, for those of you may not be aware that that
information is out there. It\'s the only data of its sort, that I\'m
aware of, that's available for free access, that actually uses the
information of how much deployment is, in fact, out there.

In this particular case, we\'ve extracted data about freeway miles with
real-time traffic data. The caveat on that one, is that\'s
publicly-owned real-time traffic data, in case you were wondering.
Arterial miles, covered by surveillance cameras, toll collection,
fixed-rate transit AVL, and then freeway conditions that are
disseminated to the public. We do this deployment statistics work every
couple years.

Jaye Lappin: Prior to 2006 is being put on the website now. The 2007
survey just went out.

Shelley Row: And we do get \-- this will be later on \-- we get over a
90 percent response rate, due to the support from the FHWA transit field
staff. So this is an example of the kind of statistical data that we
have.

Randall Iwasaki: Shelley, do we have freeway miles that don't have
access to the public DOT?

Shelley Row: Well, I\'m thinking of those that have private data. Was
that your question?

What this question asked is, if you\'re a State DOT \-- so when it goes
to Cal Trans, is how many miles does Cal Trans have with real-time
traffic data and collection technology?

Randall Iwasaki: Okay.

Shelley Row: So if you\'re getting data from a private provider, it
would not necessarily be reflected in those numbers.

Randall Iwasaki: Okay.

Shelley Row: Yeah.

Steve Albert: Shelley, under ISTEA and probably TEA-21, when you start
looking at the historical initiatives, 1993, the Priority Corridors
Program, 1995, Metropolitan Employment Initiatives, 1996, Operation
Timesaver, 1997, HHS, and I can probably go through the same type of
things through TEA-21. I wonder, since those were so
metropolitan-driven, how did those generally influence rural areas, in
their employment, and what is the state of practice in terms of rural
deployment, with a slide like this? If we could get that, it would be
nice to see a perspective of, have we seen evolution in the migration
that we thought would happen from urban to rural, or has it not
happened?

Shelley Row: That\'s a good question. I don\'t know \-- Jaye, do you
know off the top of your head if we have statistics on rural ITS?

Jaye Lappin: I will look at that.

Shelley Row: Okay. Steve, you\'re very close to that community. What is
your thought?

Steve Albert: My thought and testimony, I guess, has been predominantly,
most of the deployment has happened in urban areas. We haven\'t seen the
migration that we thought would happen in many of these rural areas.
Now, obviously there\'s a lot of issues associated with that, whether
it\'s institutional, whether it\'s champions, whether it\'s money.

But I don\'t think it\'s happened and I think it\'s important, as an
advisory group here, when we begin talking about a national system, that
we keep in mind the national system, not a bunch of holes where the
urban areas are, and the rest of the United States being left vacant,
where 60 percent of the fatalities are and 80 percent of the road miles
are. So I\'m hoping we can kind of keep some of those issues in balance.

Shelley Row: Other thoughts, comments?

That\'s the history section. We\'re going to move now into more depth on
what is going on in the current program. So, if you have any comments or
observations, thoughts that this brings up for you, in terms of where
we\'ve been.

Ann Flemer: Shelley, do you recall what was left off? I\'m just curious.

Shelley Row: I don\'t have any perspective on that.

Ann Flemer: Jeff, I was just asking if when you consolidated down to the
nine initiatives, do you recall what was left off the table? Because I
know your intent was to try to consolidate the focus.

Jeff Paniati: Well, it really wasn\'t, it was more, prior to that time
we had more of a program focus. So we had a, you know, kind of a coming
from the old ATMS, ATIS, we didn\'t quite use that acronyms quite the
same way, but we had travel information program, we had a public safety
program, we had a rural program, we had, you know, a variety of
different programs.

And the feeling on the part of the Management Council is that those
programs \-- and our current Secretary was our then FHWA administrator,
who was actively involved in the discussion. The feeling was that those
programs resulted in us, I think, in her words, \"Using the peanut
butter approach,\" we were doing, having HD in a lot of different areas
across those programs, but we weren\'t really taking on, kind of, major
initiatives, major activities.

And so, the direction from the Management Council, not only Secretary,
then Administrator Peter, but others on the management council, was
let\'s go out and let\'s look within these programs, but let\'s look for
specific initiatives that would meet the character that Shelley had up
there.

And so, we went through a pretty deliberative process, which involved
all the modes, basically pitching ideas on what might make good
initiatives and working through the staff and through the strategic
planning group, this was a, kind of a career-level, associate
administrator, office director level, to screen out and identify those
initiatives that we thought had the character that the management
council was looking for, and ultimately brought them to the management
council and had their blessing to go forward.

So that was kind of the process, it really shifted us from programs to
initiatives, and that was a pretty major change.

Shelley Row: Other thoughts, comments from the group? Okay, let me pause
there and welcome another one of our members. Mike, would you introduce
yourself?

Michael Replogle: Yes, I\'m Michael Replogle, I\'m Transportation
Director for Environmental Defense, also President and Founder of the
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, based here in
Washington, D.C.

Shelley Row: Welcome.

Michael Replogle: Thank you.

Shelley Row: And you got here at a good time. We\'ve just finished with
the history of the program and some of the major milestones in that
history, and we\'re going to move into now, a description of what the
current program is about. So we\'re going to take another dive down, in
terms of detail, on the current program.

**ITS Major Initiatives and Technology Transfer Programs**

I\'m grouping it into two big chunks of activity. One is a description
of each one of the major ITS initiatives, and those are the initiatives
that Jeff was just describing, that formed the vast majority of the
program today. There is another group of activities that are really
technology-transfer oriented. Many of them have their genesis in those
past legislations, but they\'ve got \-- they\'ve had very good work in
them and they have continued to work through the legislations, as we
have seen today.

So, we\'re going to brief you on both pieces of that. We felt like that
it was important for you to have a pretty robust understanding of what
exists today, in order to help frame our discussion for where we go
tomorrow.

Okay. And just so you\'re aware, I\'m going to pause after each one of
these initiatives, again, because we do have people in the room who can
provide further information. So, don\'t feel like you have to wait to
the very end if you have a question, we will give you that opportunity
after each initiative.

Okay. And these are in alphabetical order.

**CLARUS** \-- CLARUS is our road weather, part of our road weather
program. This is the major initiative that pertains to road weather. The
purpose of CLARUS is to both develop and demonstrate the ability \-- as
you can see here \-- high resolution, integrated weather data.

As many of you probably know, weather data today, while there\'s a lot
of it, it has arrived in our community as a service to the air
transportation. So the way we\'ve gotten the weather data we have today,
was in, what was needed for air. We do not have nationwide, robust,
integrated weather observing data specific to the roadway network. We
have small pockets of it in environmental sensor stations.

So what CLARUS is attempting to do, is to integrate those existing
environmental sensor station data into one observing network that can be
integrated with other NOAA data, other weather data, that then, once you
have that information, you can create very, now-casting they call it.
So, you can forecast what is immediately coming up on that piece of
roadway.

That\'s important for several reasons, one is, it informs the
maintenance supervisors specifically how to address the roadway network,
which is a tremendous thing, there\'s a lot of money spent, and Randy,
I\'m sure you can tell us there\'s a lot of money in resources that goes
into maintaining for weather conditions. This actually gives real data
that\'s useful for that.

Travelers, one of the big things that travelers want, many of you know
this more than I do, is weather information, and to the extent we can
give it to them tailored to their roadway and their trip, that\'s very
helpful. Because right now, it\'s very broad brush and not very
tailored.

So that\'s what CLARUS is intended to do. We were working with State
DOTs and jurisdictions who have specific road weather data, integrating
it into one data base, making it available to create some of those
applications, to prove its usefulness with the idea that it will
ultimately be transferred to NOAA. It is not the intent of U.S. DOT to
own and operate a weather-observing system. That is, actually, what NOAA
does, and makes that data available to the private sector for the
development of applications, and we expect to do the same thing, to make
that data available to the private sector, who will be the ones that we
would expect NOAA to have the applications for the public, as well as
for the transportation community.

Bryan Mistele: Shelley, is their any sourcing of data for this from the
private sector, because there\'s three of four companies that are
putting stations all over the country, to get ground-based information?

Shelley Row: That\'s a good question. I\'m not sure, Bryan, is the
honest answer. I\'m not sure to what extent that we are integrating
private data, and I think it probably depends on the nature of the
agreement. If that private data is available to the State DOTs, then
we\'re getting it, but I don\'t know about just privately-owned data.

Do you know, again?

Jeff Paniati: I think a lot of the private weather companies are the
ones that are doing the work for the State DOTs. So, as Shelley said,
when they\'re doing it on behalf of the State DOT, putting in
environmental sensor station, that becomes part of this network. To the
extent they\'re doing it for their own commercial purposes, separate
from any, you know, public entity funding, it would not be part of this.

To the extent that the National Weather Service has access to that data
though, it then becomes part of the forecasting that is used ultimately
to do the road weather forecast. So, even though it might not be part of
the network, the data might involved, if it is available to the National
Weather Service.

Shelley Row: We are trying to take a lead here from the National Weather
Service who collects data and makes it available in the raw form, and
then it is widely used by any number of weather forecasting companies.
And that\'s what we want to do, but specific to the road weather
network.

Charlie.

Greer Woodruff: I\'ve got one other question.

Shelley Row: Oh, sure.

Greer Woodruff: Has there been any consideration given to integrating,
perhaps the snowplows or the DOT resources that are out clearing the
roads, to give you up to date information about which roads have
increasingly been cleared or which deteriorate as the weather continues
and then could be readdressed?

Shelley Row: That's a good question.

I know that data is being captured and they use it in another part of
this program to make decisions for the support system. I\'m not sure how
that is being integrated into this data set. This data set is largely
based on the ground-based observations. That\'s a good question.

Steve Albert: There have been individual projects that have done that,
and whether the roads have been plowed, or the last time they\'ve been
plowed, but it is not part of CLARUS.

Randall Iwasaki: We track all of the roads in California, not only when
we plow, but how much sand we put down.

Shelley Row: That is the environmental sensor station data and it is
standardizing that.

Randall Iwasaki: We want that information. You want to know when to
apply sand and salt.

Jeff Paniati: This is not a road surface conditions system, it is meant
to be a forecasting system of weather, at the road level, which can be
combined with the information you\'re talking about to do road surface
maintenance management and that is what is being done through the
maintenance and support system by a variety of States. But, we\'re not
trying \-- the goal of this wasn\'t to set up a surface \-- road
pavement surface condition forecasting system \-- it was really at the
road level, that then it would be used in a variety, by a variety of
different State DOTs and also by a lot of private sector folks that
wanted to use that same data and repackage it for other uses.

Steve Albert: Does NOAA have a significant role in this?

Shelley Row: That has been a bit of a struggle, frankly. We continue to
work with NOAA and continue to pursue that. I would have to say, I was
involved in a pre-cursor to this program years ago, and that
relationship has grown a lot over the time. It is not where we want it
to be yet. Discussions are ongoing today. The National Weather Service
now has a goal related to weather, which they didn\'t have before when
we started this work, interestingly.

They have large parts of their program that are dedicated to air weather
needs, to ocean weather needs, but it wasn\'t until we came along that
they began to acknowledge the road weather needs.

It\'s better, they\'re listening, they\'re working with us, they\'re
partnering with us, but we\'re not there yet.

Robert Denaro: I suppose we\'ll get to it, but when does this transfer
occur?

Shelley Row: What is shown up here is 2011. I would like to think maybe
we could do it sooner than that, that\'s an institutional change issue.

Michael Replogle: I guess, in terms of the shortfall of the current
weather forecast system for this, I\'m presuming it\'s principally on
the area of saying, where there\'s going to be sudden fog, or where
snowfall is going to suddenly put you into a hazardous conditions, or
icing conditions. Are those the, sort of, the three key focal points?

Shelley Row: Certain fog is an issue, ice. This is about the surface, it
is less about fog. These are the surface conditions, so you want to know
the temperature at the surface, so you can anticipate icing conditions,
anti-icing treatments are an option, instead of salt or sand, for
example, with the environmental issues.

Wet weather surface is an issue, another part of the road weather
program, not necessarily CLARUS, is about understanding how people
behave and how vehicles perform under those weather conditions.

The way that we manage and operate our transportation network is not
necessarily geared to snow conditions, for example. So, we need to study
how that impacts it, as well. This is more geared toward the ice
temperature, and literally the condition of the surface.

Michael Replogle: So, the key objective at the end of this in, say 2012,
is to have NOAA producing information on the ground or road temperature,
so that that\'s routinely-available information.

Shelley Row: Generally speaking, yes. That they would have a nationwide
network that was openly available for everyone to access on the data
that was available about the surface of the roadway conditions. And it
can be, then, used by anyone who wishes to use it.

Michael Replogle: Just in terms of, sort of, a quick intake of what is
most important and helpful to have, what is the performance outcome
indicator that you could expect to achieve at the end of the initiative
to sort of highlight what would be helpful?

Randall Iwasaki: We actually track storms as they go across California,
and we start staffing our crews. And because the NOAA information is
detailed, you can actually install weather stations throughout
California, you watch those storms go across and back up. And
especially, we will track them. Ike Steve developed the software
packages for the supervisors to make better decisions.

Alfred Foxx: In this program you mentioned weather forecasts, and
you\'ve got 5-day, 15-day forecasts. Will this be doing the same \--
24-hour forecast, 5-day forecast? You mentioned the road conditions,
predicting the temperature of roads that far out \-- is this what that
is attempting to do?

Shelley Row: Yes, and no. That\'s kind of the nature of it, where you
would take the data, the data would be available to forecasters to use
it to create forecasts, however, what we hear from the transportation
community is you need it much more near-term. It is good to know what it
is in five days, and what we think it\'s going to be.

But, now-casting at a micro-scale is what this will allow us to provide.
So, you can specifically estimate your treatment patters, et cetera.

Alfred Foxx: Like was mentioned earlier, we track storms as they\'re
coming through the area \-- what applications we\'re going to do, what
we\'re going to deploy, trucks, et cetera. So, the now-casting \-- I
guess I\'m trying to understand \-- the now-cast gives us what are the
conditions now? It is not forecasting \-- 24-hours, 48-hours, 5 days?

Shelley Row: What this does is give you the data to get to all of that.
And the algorithm developers and forecasters use that data to develop
the various forecasts that would be necessary for you to make decisions
\-- does that help?

Randall Iwasaki: You said it was a range.

Mr. Schuman: There\'s a whole ecosystem in the weather, they call it the
Weather Enterprise, that makes our travel information private-public
interface simple. I think the big picture take-away was, the need here
was a bunch of states \-- primarily in the Northern Tier, have somewhere
between dozens to hundreds of individual sites collecting sensor data
that nobody outside those States will get access to, or the private
contractor running those.

The idea was, wow, wouldn\'t it be great to tap that back into the
network? NOAA, the Weather Service have loads of things going on that
they call supporting national digital forecast database. Trust me, you
don\'t want to get involved in all of that, the idea here is to support
that, and it does focus more on a couple of meters from the road, up.
Which most of the stuff you find is above that. And this won\'t solve
anything, but really, I think what CLARUS is about is creating that
network that allows those \-- what\'s probably thousands, when they\'re
all done \-- to get into that weather enterprise, where right now it
doesn\'t. And that bottom bullet took a lot of effort to get that
answer, for NOAA to say, \"Yeah, you\'re right, we can do this.\" And
the private guys to say, \"This isn\'t going to change my business,
fundamentally.\"

Steve Albert: One of the charges, Shelley, you mentioned earlier that
was very important was leveraging. And I guess, at the heart of
everything CLARUS is doing is about leveraging. To keep it in mind,
we\'re looking for future initiatives, it\'s how do we leverage where we
want to go? I know in the stuff we\'re doing with Cal Trans, Cal Trans
has 17 stations, DSS stations, and they number four to five hundred
meteorological stations operated by other agencies. And the same thing
is happening with CLARUS, it is really a leveraging activity, more than
anything else.

Shelley Row: This data can support many things, that\'s something we\'ll
see emerge over and over again, sometimes that the data is not too
exciting, but if you don\'t have that, then you can\'t build
applications, and you can\'t make use of it.

Okay, let\'s go on to the next slide, on each one, all of these will
follow the same pattern. We\'ll give you a little big of background and
history, and then the funding profile through 2009, and in some of the
cases, the monies don\'t end in 2009, this is one of them. But we\'ve
shown you the funding profile, and also how it is doing for cost and
performance.

Let\'s move onto **CICAS**, this is the **Cooperative Intersection
Collision Avoidance System**, this is actually two programs in one, and
I will do my best to separate them for you.

There are the CICAS violation activities, and the CICAS gap activities.
So, if you look at the bottom, where it says how to achieve, the first
sub-bullet says \"signal and stop sign violation,\" that is what we
refer to as the CICAS violation program. It is literally looking at how
technology and vehicle infrastructure-based technology can warn a driver
as they\'re approaching a signal or a stop sign, about if they are
approaching a signal and stop sign, a signal that is about to turn red.

The last two \-- signalized left-turn assist and stop-sign assist, are
the CICAS gap projects. This can be either for vehicle infrastructure
communications, or infrastructure-based communication. So, the
infrastructure, in fact, can tell if a vehicle is approaching, and can
actually warn you through a sign at the stop sign, through a sign at the
traffic signal, that there\'s oncoming vehicles that you maybe cannot
see, or you might misjudge the distance.

In most cast \-- in both of them, they use technology to address the
intersection safety issue. In both cases, we are seeking to test the
effectiveness of that technology, the driver acceptance of that
technology \-- does it work, doesn\'t it work? How well does it work?

Part of what NITSA\'s role is in all of these types of systems, is the
development of objectives test procedures. When you see NITSA\'s star
rating system, Stars on Cars end-cap \-- some of you guys know what I\'m
talking about \-- those have come from the development of objective test
procedures, so they can repeatedly test and understand if a vehicle, in
fact, meets certain criteria, or it doesn\'t, or it\'s helpful, or it
isn\'t.

So, some of the testing we do here is to develop those test procedures.
Ultimately, we hope to see if the tests go well, that this technology
will be incorporated into NITSA\'s end-cap rating system, their Stars on
Cars program.

The way we\'re doing this is \-- in both cases we have to develop the
background research to understand the situation, understand the
technology, understand what happens on the ground in intersection
collision situations, and then develop a prototype vehicle that would be
used.

Because in this case, we need to have basically real people who do the
testing on these vehicles, so that we know how people respond, we can
understand their behavior, and we can determine whether the technology
is effective in preventing the crash, it\'s distracting, if there\'s any
unintended consequences \-- all of those are extremely important,
they\'re also very difficult to do. And they\'re also expensive to do,
because they involve multiple vehicles, real drivers, and you have to
have a fair amount of data.

In each case, in the violation part of the program that you see under
\"status,\" the prototype vehicles are being developed right now, we are
conducting real-world engineering tests of those prototypes in
California, Michigan and Virginia. We have not started on a field
operational test program, we\'re currently in discussions with NITSA
about \-- do we have the amount of data that we would need? Should we go
forward with the field operational tests? How would we fund it? It is
very expensive. And, is there some possible shared funding that we can
pursue \-- it is a multi-year program.

Under the stop sign assist and the left-turn assist, those are the
CICAS-GAP programs in much the same place. We\'re developing the initial
research, developing the prototype vehicles, and have not yet decided to
do the operational tests at this point.

Is there anything we wish to add to that?

Mr. Schagrin: You mentioned two of three items \-- there\'s the
effectiveness and the consequences \-- it\'s important to understand
issues.

Shelley Row: If we could look at the next slide on the funding profile,
this one is not in the 2009, and in fact, if we decide to move forward
with the field operational testing in these program areas, we would
definitely extend beyond 2009. The numbers in the CICAS-B and the
CICAS-GAP that breaks down the Fiscal Year 2008 funding level, so you
can see relatively how much money is going into the violation work,
versus how much money is going into the CICAS-GAP part of the program.

It\'s a very similar breakdown in Fiscal Year 2009, almost identical
funding allocation for 2009. The thing that is not on here is, should we
choose to move forward with a field operational test, particularly the
CICAS, the violation program, it is a very hefty investment, to the tune
of \$10 to \$15 million for the field operational test.

Michael Replogle: Your slide suggests there are engineering tests
underway in California, Michigan, and Virginia, is there a reason for
spreading those around?

Rick Schuman: We have Detroit and California and Virginia Tech, which
would really lead in the operational test.

Shelley Row: We do partner with the automobile industry in this program,
so we do work with them, they are in different locations.

Any questions, comments, thoughts about the CICAS program?

\[No response.\]

Shelley Row: Okay, the **Congestion Initiative**, I mentioned this one
before, this is our newest initiative, again the signature program for
the Secretary of Transportation, and maybe you\'ve heard about this one.
The premise was that we wanted to see how the combination of transit
tolling technology and telecommunication can combine to address
congestion in metropolitan areas.

The Department went through an extensive solicitation program, and
selected 5, 6 \-- 6 cities with which to partner to implement various
combinations of those. Eventually, all four of those teased, but in
various ways, depending upon the needs of the metropolitan area.

You can see there\'s some of the targeted improvements that were of
particular interest, there was a lot of interest on the use of tolling
or congestion pricing, and its ability to reduce congestion.

Why don\'t you go to the next slide?

At this point, we have selected urban partners, you can see those down
there, there are five of the main partners. We\'re also working with San
Diego on a very focused program. It\'s a little different scale then the
other five. We have one of the award winners here with us in San
Francisco.

One of those things to be aware of from an ITS perspective, we are one
of many funding sources that have gone into making this program a
reality. We are not the main funding source, our \-- the ITS portion of
the Congestion Initiative is targeted to the technology components that
are a part of every one of those urban partner sites.

Let\'s go to the next slide. You can see how the financing is
distributed, it\'s a total of \$100 million that makes it one of our
larger-funded initiatives, and the ITS program, \$5 million of that has
been set aside for evaluation, which is a very important part of the ITS
program.

Obviously, it\'s very important to this initiative, because we went to
be able to share the experiences of this initiative with other States
around the country. It is just now getting underway, the partners have
been named, we\'re working actively with each of those partners, to get
them up and running and working with them to get started. I think every
one of them has some legislative hurdle that has to be crossed, which is
always a challenge.

The evaluation component, which is obviously of key interest to us, is
about to be kicked off, like any day now. We\'ll be starting down the
path to get some \-- to work toward the evaluation scale, as well as
working with each of those sites.

Okay, questions, comments on the Congestion Initiative?

Greer Woodruff: How does a city get selected? I\'m sure a lot apply.
There\'s five here, how do those five get picked? Do they have resources
of their own? Are they already down the path?

Shelley Row: Jeff, do you want to address that?

Jeff Paniati: We actually went through a multi-stage solicitation. We
got 27 initial proposals, that were really evaluated on a series of
criteria, the number one being their aggressiveness in moving forward
with congestions pricing. Of the four Ts, it was very clear in our
solicitation that was, the lead T was to demonstrate that. And then
their ability to support that with a strong transit program, the use of
technology, and to a lesser extent, their ideas and innovation in the
telecommuting areas.

We were looking for aggressive and innovative proposals, and also ones
that could be implemented in 2009. So that was another criteria. And we
took those 27, we evaluated them and down-selected the nine that were
called potential urban partners. We went through negotiation with each
of those nine to really go through. The nine had met the basic criteria
\-- that they could turn it on, they did have pricing, they had the
supporting elements, and that it was a matter of picking the best of the
nine, of the ones that really seemed to have the political support, and
the ability to turn that demonstration on in the timeframe we were
looking for. And in the end, based on that negotiation, we selected the
five.

Mr. Belcher: Jeff, how does your new RFP fit into all of this?

Jeff Paniati: Some of you may be aware, there\'s a second solicitation
that have been issued, it was issued a week ago, it closes at the end of
December, it is titled Congestion Reduction Demonstration, something.
And it is very similar in characteristic to the urban partnership
solicitation \-- it solicits jurisdictions again, for this time three Ts
\-- we\'ve left out the telecommuting part, because we really didn\'t
get a lot of innovation in that area.

We\'d identified all of the Department discretionary programs as
potential sources for funding without committing any of them, because we
don\'t know yet, without the 2008 appropriations, what money we might
have available to us. And it doesn\'t describe a specific schedule for,
or process for going through and evaluating and making awards, we left
it much more open-ended, because there is much more uncertainty right
now.

But we did want to go out, and rather than wait until 2008
appropriations to start the process, we want to go ahead and start it
now, get people thinking, get some of the jurisdictions, frankly, that
maybe didn\'t take the first round as seriously and kind of got caught,
and said, \"Wow, they were serious, and actually did award \$850
million, wow, we didn\'t get any of that, we should have paid more
attention.\" And some of those have come back to us and said, \"We are
really interested in pricing, we really would like a play in this.\" And
we expect some of those jurisdictions to take this more seriously and
give us a different proposal this time around.

Mr. Cronin: The only thing to add to that for this discussion would be
the ITS program is not allocating money in 2008-2009.

Jeff Paniati: That\'s right. We basically assumed what we thought to be
the ITS funds over the next three years, 2007 through 2009, as part of
the original award, so yeah, there would not be the expectation there
would be additional ITS money in this next round.

Joseph Sussman: You all know, of course, that these changes occur on a
much longer timeframe, and the kinds of things that are discussed here,
nonetheless, is there any interest in looking at opportunities for the
lands-use policy and transportation policy as a suggested reduction?

Shelley Row: That\'s a good question, has that come up in discussions?

Jeff Paniati: Some. But I would say, frankly, that the primary focus was
on getting the demonstration and congestion price, or getting
demonstrations of the various forms of congestion. And frankly, the
Administration has a limited amount of time left and is focused on
getting some things heated and moved forward now. And I think when they
have discussions of land use and such a long-term issue, that there have
been discussions of it, but no specific actions or initiatives because
of the limited timeframe to move something forward.

Bryan Mistele: Did you mention, legislatively, things have to happen \--
what does have to happen?

Jeff Paniati: Actually, for the five, Miami has the legislation for the
implementation there. We would expect by mid-next year to have the first
phase of the Miami project underway, the other 4 need legislative
authority of some kind, basically, authority to do the pricing part of
it. And that authority, the prospects for it probably vary from city to
city, and about how politically complex it is to the get authority. The
term sheet that each jurisdiction signed, basically requires them to
have that authority by, basically March/April of 2008, and it\'s
pre-conditioned for expenditure of virtually all of the money that they
got, with the exception of a little bit of up front money we\'re
providing to do some project planning and basic up front work.

But 99 percent of the money is held back, pending getting that
legislation authority, so there are various activity going on, and can
certainly talk about what\'s going on in San Francisco, what\'s going on
in New York has probably gotten the most press, and they established a
Commission there specifically to look at the issue and report back to
the legislature and to the City Council on it, and so it varies from
place to place. We are hopeful, if not fully confident that we\'ll get
it all, but, we\'ve not yet seen the legislative authority that allows
us to go forward in all.

I don\'t \-- we are planning for success, if it happens, we\'ll likely
look at the second round of solicitations, maybe the funding would role
into that, that is not something that has been decided.

My guess is we\'re sitting where we are today, that it\'s likely what we
would do to see what we got from the second round.

Shelley Row: Okay, let\'s move on to the next one. I want to keep us on
schedule, but still deal with your need for information.

The **Electronic Freight Management program, EFM**, the intent of this
project is to use technology to link information across the entire
supply chain, and across various types of transportation. In this
particular example, we are linking up the truck-air-truck supply train,
we\'re doing a field operational test with the limited brands, that\'s
based in Columbus, Ohio, where we\'re literally passing information from
the point of manufacture in China, all the way through the supply chain
until it\'s delivered to their retail or to their warehouses in
Columbus.

It is a non-proprietary system, a web-based system that has been
developed, that allows various vendors who have, at some point, touched
the supply chain to be able to interface and share information. Some of
these types of services makes this now, but they are of a proprietary
nature. Once you make that agreement, then you have the agreement \--
this allows a much more open architecture approach to that type of
sharing of information.

Let\'s go to the next slide. As I mentioned, the operational test is
currently underway. It is going well, we are getting good feedback from
that project, to the point that we \-- a key part of this program is the
adoption strategy of adopting this type of technology in other places.
We do hope to have adoption by 50 transportation entities by 2010.

We are getting good support and interest from others, such as Kansas
City Smart Port, who wants to become a lead adopter of this technology.
There are private sector companies who are interested in taking over the
research that has been done in this area, to convert it into a
commercial product, that would be ongoing. So, again it\'s not our
intent to develop a short-term software, but to get it into the private
sector.

There\'s the cost profile, the bulk of this project has been completed,
we\'re in the process of doing the actual field tests now, and the
evaluation and the remainder of the budget cycle you see here is on the
adoption side of the project.

Any question on EFM?

\[No response.\]

Shelley Row: Okay, let\'s move on to the **Emergency Transportation
Operations, ETO**. This program is actually completed and closed out, so
this is the only one of the major initiatives that is, in fact, done.

The purpose of this initiative was to, again, develop tools and
processes that help transportation agencies prepare and respond for a
no-notice evacuations in disasters or for things like hurricanes, where
you do have notice. But there is still a transportation issue. The
program requires, to be successful, the engagement of a wide range of
stakeholders \-- clearly a transportation agency can not do this
activity by itself, and in fact, transportation systems cannot be the
primary player in this activity, so there\'s a lot of engagement with a
wide range of stakeholders in this particular program.

Some of the activities that were done through the ETO effort, there were
three specific projects that you see listed under \"historical
timeline,\" the use of camera phones to improve incident response \--
that was a test and operations procedures that were developed,
operations and the use of camera phones, you can send it via email to an
emergency responder to help with the emergency preparedness.

Development of a practitioner\'s toolkit for the use of traveler
information during emergencies \-- most of us have lots of different
opportunities for travel information, this was, again, some guidance in
the tool kit for how to make use of that during emergency conditions.

And again, finally, guidance documentation on evacuation planning
methodologies and decision support tools. There are a lot of models that
are in the transportation world today. It is not clear how they apply
and how they can be used to support evacuation plans. So, this activity
studied that and produced some guidance documentation on how to do that
type of methodology for evacuation planning.

This deliverables are complete now, and are being packaged up, I
believe, to make them easily accessible, although they\'re very
accessible right now.

Consequently, the funding is complete as of 2007, no more funding is
necessary for this particular major initiative.

Questions on ETO?

\[No response.\]

Shelley Row: It must be almost time for a break.

Okay, let\'s move on to **Integrated Corridor Management, ICM**, another
large and significant program. Lots of good stuff going on. The thesis
behind Integrated Corridor Management program is to be able to take a
variety of technologies, across multiple modes, and integrate them in a
corridor setting.

So, for example, if you have a major freeway corridor with parallel
arterials, with transit routes along that corridor as well, how can we
effectively use technology to integrate all of those networks \--
arterial, transit, parking \-- and provide information and manage the
whole corridor and optimize transportation in the corridor. Part of this
program is the use of modeling capabilities.

Again, today while we have models for freeway operations, we have models
for arterials systems, we have a lot of different models, we don\'t have
a good way or methodology to hook them all together, to help understand
how you can integrate all of those different technologies within a
corridor across modes to optimize the performance of that corridor.

The way this program is being operated, we solicited and selected 8
pioneer sites around the country \-- are those on the next page? Yes,
there they are. So, we have 8 pioneer sites, those sites today have
completed the concepts of operations already, we have all of those. We
are working with those sites now on completing their requirements
documentation on what would the specific requirements be. This program
has a strong emphasis on systems engineering process, because it is so
complex, all of the different moving parts, literally, that have to be
integrated together.

The requirements documentation is going on now, we expect to select
three of those pioneer sites to further develop the modeling
capabilities, so we can test and validate how we can do that modeling,
again, across the modes in the corridor.

Michael Replogle: What is Con Ops?

Shelley Row: Concept of Operations, that\'s how they write down what
they would perceive how it would operate and perform, and based upon
that, write requirements for the network and the software for the
integration, does that make sense?

Michael Replogle: I wonder if this \-- I think this is an important
initiative. It is one that, I guess, the question that Joe Sussman
raised before I came in about looking at environmental performance might
be put on the table here, because it certainly \-- looking at Integrated
Corridor Management, there\'s a growing concern about things like
greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, hot spots, particulate
pollutions, toxics, as well as access to jobs and public facilities in
corridors. And these all seem to me to be things that might lend
themselves to this kind of an Integrated Corridor Management approach,
as performance objectives, in addition to the traditional mobility
objectives that, of course, should be a part of this, as well.

Shelley Row: Brian, was this discussed at all?

Brian Cronin: It really hasn\'t been discussed, what is our evaluation
framework and, sort of, the demonstration proposal.

Michael Replogle: Just one other thought \-- certainly there\'s been
discussions in the arena of public/private partnerships and looking at
performance-based contracting strategies, and I wonder if this
initiative is considering ways in which performance-based funding or
performance-based contracting might be used as an incentive for the
infrastructure, operator and manager \-- whether it\'s public sector or
private operator \-- to deliver performance and how to measure that, and
how to incentivize that appropriately through performance-based funding,
or performance-based contracts.

Greer Woodruff: One other question \-- what corridor \-- these are
site-selective, but what, for example, is this in Dallas \-- is it
Dallas to Houston, Dallas to LA, Dallas to Chicago \-- are we looking at
entire corridors, or just one node?

Brian Cronin: They are metropolitan corridors, they are generally the
first 15 or 20 miles outside of the downtown area, for the most part.
Minneapolis is 394, going from West to downtown Dallas\' U.S. 75,
Houston is I-10.

Greer Woodruff: So, how does that really differ from the other
congestion project we just talked about? To me, this corridor would seem
to suggest a longer transit between major metropolitan areas, as opposed
to a 15-mile radius.

Shelley Row: Well, we took that into account as the congestion
initiative was being considered. One of the differences here, though, is
that in the congestion initiative, there was a clear focus on congestion
pricing, which was not necessarily the case here. This is about
integrated multi-modal operations in a corridor, and frankly was more
consideration of freeway, arterial, transit, parking \-- how those
worked together in a corridor, as opposed to moving from Houston to
Dallas, for example. Is that fair?

Brian Cronin: Minneapolis, San Diego all have, that is where they
operate hot links now. So, to the extent they have a hot link as a
network asset, they intend to try to use that as they manage the system.
But, not all of them have that.

Shelley Row: We were very well aware of these at the time of the
initiative.

Jeff Paniati: This initiative was conceived of as a metropolitan-focused
initiative to move people most efficiently within a metropolitan-scale
corridor. So, it was never intended to be an inter-city corridor effort.

Under our congestion initiative, there is a Corridors for the Future
Initiative, which has selected half a dozen inter-city corridors, and is
looking at issues, long-distance travel, and long-distance freight
movement in those corridors.

So there is an activity, it is not an ITS-associated activity, there is
an activity the Department is going, that is looking at inter-city
corridors.

Shelley Row: Okay, let\'s go to the funding profile, I should say, to
that \-- after we worked on some of the sites on the modeling piece, we
do expect to select three of the pioneer sites for actually deployment
and evaluation of integrated operations. So, we\'re expecting to do that
selection in 2008, where we will select up to three sites for actual
deployment.

Okay, **IVBSS, Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety** **Systems**. This is
another project, we were looking specifically at safety technologies on
the vehicle. In this particular test, we\'re looking at a light vehicle
platform and a commercial truck platform.

As many of you know, the technology is such today that if \-- in your
vehicle you have a lot of safety systems that warn you, talk to you,
communicate with you in some way. The point of this initiative is to
study how to integrate various warning systems that could occur at one
time. We have very little information about how to integrate warning
systems, and how to arbitrate between them, and how to communicate that
information to the driver in a constructive way.

What this project is to do \-- and we\'re at the point now where we have
developed the prototype vehicles for both the light vehicle, as well as
for the commercial truck. So, we have prototype vehicles that have been
developed, they are sort of beta-testing them right now. One of those
things that we don\'t want to have happen are having too many
false-alarm rates. You have too many and it overloads the driver, it\'s
not a good thing. So, that is the stage that they\'re working now, to
get it ready to put it out into a field operational test. That field
operational test is schedule to occur later this year. We will, again,
we will put real drivers in the vehicles, real truck operators in the
trucks, and evaluate their response as they use the vehicle.

The vehicle is very heavily instrumented so they can watch the driver,
assess the driver\'s reaction, as well as give the drivers clues \--
visually, editorially, active warnings.

Ideally, we will take that information \-- again, this is working with
NITSA \-- to develop, to determine if this is useful, what can we learn
about the integration of these kinds of systems, objective test
procedures that might influence, then, how this would be deployed.

We expect this information to be available to the auto industry and
through the truck manufacturing community for them to decide how they
wish to embed some of this technology in their vehicles.

This is the timeline, again we are attempting to start the field
operational testing, both vehicles and heavy trucks, later this year.

If you go to the funding profile \-- Charlie, go to the next slide \--
the vast majority of this funding has been allocated, because we are on
the downhill side. The heavy lifting was in the development of the
research and development in the implementation of the prototype
vehicles.

Questions on IVBSS?

Randall Iwasaki: Are we integrating this with SharpTooth?

Jeff Paniati: Isn\'t there a piece to get to, like, a data knowledge on
drivers?

Randall Iwasaki: There are several.

Jeff Paniati: I thought it was more analogous to the 100-car study we
did earlier.

Randall Iwasaki: Part of it is driver behavior, part of it is watching,
I imagine you have cameras.

Jeff Paniati: But where there \-- this will implement a series of
technology in vehicles where I think the SharpTooth, if I\'m remembering
right, is just gathering information about driver behavior, in general,
to be able to use in a variety of different ways \-- both in roadway
design, vehicle design, et cetera, et cetera. That is what I remember of
the SharpTooth safety piece. I could be wrong in that.

Shelley Row: We will follow-up on that.

Robert Denaro: To what extent do these projects have the flexibility to
re-look at technology along the way? Some of these projects go 3 or 4
years. I know, in this particular area there\'s been very rapid
introduction of technology and what maybe made sense in testing and
looking at 2 years ago, might be obsolete, might be \-- I don\'t know,
give you answers to the wrong questions. So, how flexible are these
projects?

Shelley Row: It depends upon the project, obviously. In IVBSS\'s case, I
think it is less about the technology that is used to sense the
surroundings, and more about how it is communicated and integrated for
the sake of the driver. So, in theory, it could be technology involved.

Okay, let\'s go to the next one, **Mobility Services for All Americans,
MSAA**, another real interesting project. This project revolves around
the provision of human services transportation, to be able to have
people access and take advantage of transportation services that are
available. As it turns out, there\'s something like 62 Federal agencies
that provide some sort of human services transportation.

The President\'s United We Ride national initiative, and the Executive
Order that requires us, for this area, came about to try to help bridge
some of those issues.

This project uses technology on the transportation side to help solve
some of those problems. So, what we are doing in this program \-- we\'ve
selected, again, 8 sites, and you will see them on the next page \--
there they are. They\'re 8 sites that were selected through a
competitive process to develop, again, a concept of operations
requirements document on how to integrate all of the human services
providers through technology and into a single source. So, you have a
single way in, and then those providers can optimize their performance
for human services transportation.

We are currently working with each of those sites, they have developed
their concept of operations, we expect to, again, down-select to two
sites, later in 2008, to actually implement, to implement an approach to
see how it works.

To demonstrate it, we expect to select sites that are different from
each other, so that we will end up with programs that can be replicated
in various communities around the country.

You can see, again, the funding profile. We are well into this program,
the sites are actively working right now, very enthusiastic, and we do
expect to down-select later on in 2008.

The schedule is showing red, but that is largely because of delays in
getting the program initiated. It is now up and performing on-schedule.

Are there questions about MSAA?

\[No response.\]

Shelley Row: All right, let\'s go to **Next-Generation 911 \-- NG
9-1-1**. As many of you may be aware, the current 9-1-1 infrastructure
in this country is based on old, very old, technology analog, wireline
communications. It does not support current ways of communicating \--
instant messaging, video, other types of IP-enabled devices. This
program was to develop an architecture that would show how we could
migrate and make use of all of these different types of modern
communication technology to get 9-1-1 information into Public Safety
Answering Point, PSAP. We have, at this point, developed that system
architecture. We have developed a draft of a transition plan. One thing
to be aware of in this world is that Public Safety Answering Points, and
there are many of them \-- Laurie, how many PSAPs?

Laurie Flaherty: Over 6,000.

Shelley Row: Most of them are locally-operated and funded, so we start
talking about how to transition them from old technology to new
technology. It is not an easy thing. So, the transition plan has been
developed that will help bridge that gap. It is a draft transition plan,
because the next thing we are doing is to solicit for volunteer Public
Safety Answering Points to participate with us, in demonstrating some
aspect of that architecture. They\'re doing it on a voluntary basis,
we\'re doing that solicitation right now, is that correct, Laurie?

Laurie Flaherty: We\'ve received over 50 responses to that solicitation.

Shelley Row: And you\'re expecting to \-- ?

Laurie Flaherty: We\'re expecting to make a final determination some
time in December.

Shelley Row: We will then work with those PSAPs to demonstrate some
piece of that architecture. The information we learn from those
demonstrations will be fed back into that transition plan to further
illuminate the transition plan, and then we will be able to provide that
out to the community along with an outreach strategy to try to help
spread the word about the architecture.

Something that is not on this slide is, there is going to be and office
in NITSA \-- and I keep leaning over to Laurie, that will be in
Laurie\'s areas of NITSA \-- to help PSAP to make that transition,
ultimately. There\'s not a lot of money around to do that with, so it is
not going to be an easy thing to do. But at least we will have work from
this initiative to show where there\'s architecture in place, and how to
migrate that technology.

Joseph Averkamp: I have a question \-- so what sort of incentives are
there to encourage PSAPs adoption? I know in the wireless industry, the
FCC has compelled wireless carriers with the stick the FCC has \-- which
is, we won\'t re-allocate your spectrum \-- to compel them to try to
provide location capability to enhance that. But quite often, the
adoption of PSAPs and their ability to receive that location data has
lagged.

So, what sort of incentives are there in place to be sure they actually
use the data?

Laurie Flaherty: I don\'t know that taking the stick approach with the
PSAPs \--

Joseph Averkamp: Carrots or sticks.

Laurie Flaherty: If you talk to the constituency, they\'re very much in
favor of upgrading their own technology, but as Shelley said, they\'re
mostly under funded, so the money just isn\'t there. And that\'s part of
the reason why the national 9-1-1 office was established by Congress.
They understood that the money for the upgrade of their operations and
their technology wasn\'t there. So, part of our responsibility as a
grant program \-- specifically for the Public Safety Answering Points to
do that upgrade.

Now, it hasn\'t been appropriated yet, but it has been authorized for
that grant program.

Joseph Averkamp: I do know with respect to the FCC ruling, they do have
taxes, I mean, there\'s actually a special tax applied to everyone\'s
bills.

Laurie Flaherty: Yes, there are taxes and there are user fees, and
they\'re used mainly for maintenance and operation of the Public Safety
Answering Points. They don\'t allow enough funding to make the leap.

Shelley Row: Okay, let\'s move onto the **Vehicle Infrastructure
Integration, VII** program. Many of you have some, or a lot of,
familiarity with the VII. This is a key program area for us. The thrust
of it is being able to develop a network, a communications network, for
the vehicle to communicate with the infrastructure, and the vehicle can
communicate with other vehicles, and to have that be a nationwide-based
infrastructure.

To have that kind of communication capability between vehicles and
infrastructure enables many applications \-- safety applications,
mobility applications, commercial productivity applications \-- it\'s
literally a very powerful platform.

We thought about a lot of the applications but there are many more to be
conceived of, if we have this kind of information infrastructure that is
in place.

We are researching both the technical feasibility, economical, social
acceptability and also, as many of you know, what the business model
might look like is a very key part of the success of VII.

We\'re in the process of restructuring this program and reorienting it
with deployment in mind. We have been going down a path of researching
the program, and envisioning what the absolute end-state would look
like, which is great. But to get there, I think we all, at this
juncture, recognize that it is very likely to be an incremental approach
that is going to be the more practical way to do this. So, we\'re taking
a fresh look at how to structure this program with that deployment in
mind, over an incremental \-- in an incremental fashion.

The near-term thing we\'re looking to is the demonstration, of again,
near-term VII capabilities to be operational in December of 2008.

A \"Tiger Team\" as been established at Volpe to spearhead the
development of this demonstration by December. So, they\'re actively
working right now to evaluate locations, capabilities, what could be
demonstrated, what technology is available today that could demonstrate
some early VII-like applications.

A couple of the provisions of this revisioning is to take an incremental
approach to deployment \-- incremental in terms of the geographic
coverage and the functionality. We would expect the functionality would
evolve over time with respect to penetration into the marketplace
through handheld devices, as well as through automotive-based devices.
We are expecting an open architecture at the transport layer, and
enabling any number of applications to develop for safety and mobility
purposes.

We are continuing to focus on the development of the business models,
but we\'re going to be looking to the community to enlighten us on that.
We expect to issue a request for information into the community to say,
\"This is what we\'re looking for. What are some ideas on how we could
creatively finance both the deployment and the management and the
operations of such a network?\"

Mr. Bulger: Shelley, can you give us a little more information on the
focus?

Shelley Row: I think it\'s, again, how can we get there faster, as well
as I think we\'ve gotten a lot of benefit for the program as it\'s been
conceived today, but it was \-- we kind of call it internally The Big
Bang Theory \-- that we\'re just going to get all of it at once.

And I think at this juncture, we\'re all very serious about how it would
be deployed and that is very unlikely to be the way that we would deploy
this, to get everything everywhere, all functionality at one time is
highly unlikely.

So, I think it\'s time for us to take a very serious look at how we
would deploy it, how it would come into being, which is very likely
technology, as Bob was saying, technology evolves, functionality evolves
\-- how can we take advantage of that, and how can we leverage people
who are smart in that world to help us get there?

And I think there\'s realities, too. We want to aggressively look at
options other than 100 percent Federally-funded infrastructure.

Ann Flemer: Is this a roadmap for The Big Bang Theory \-- is this now
going to be a parallel effort? Or does it converge at some point?

Shelley Row: I think it replaces, and we\'re actively drawing those
pictures, as we speak. What that new road map will look like.

Michael Replogle: I know in, for example, one of the VII aspects is, for
example, the potential future transition to VMT fees, or some national
monitoring fee collection for motorists, for driving \-- potentially
based on where and when they\'re driving. And there are a couple of
different competing technology approaches to that. Whether it\'s
transponders on the dashboard with nearby roadside monitors, or a
satellite GPS system, like they\'re using on trucks in Germany. How is
the VII integration initiative sort of addressing those technology
option pieces?

Shelley Row: That\'s a really good question. One of the things we\'re
doing now is we look at how deployment might occur. We look at the range
of applications we can envision today, then add very differing needs
from the communications networks. Some of them can be done through
Wi-Fi, frankly. Others, though, particularly the safety applications,
which tend to be the most rigorous, require very quick, reliable,
dedicated communications, so they\'re kind of on the other end of the
spectrum.

The application you\'re talking about is somewhere in the middle. So, as
we look at how VII might actually evolve, I would expect that that
technology would evolve as we get to more functionality. So, we would
enable some of those kinds of, like, tolling applications, probably
pretty early on. But it is not clear whether it makes sense from a
technology standpoint to deploy the ultimate technology first, or let
the technology evolve.

What we\'re likely to do is to ask the community who has much more
expertise than we do \-- I mean, you look at a cell phone network. Those
people have been very smart about how to evolve their technology. So, we
would look to them to say, \"We want this functionality early, we want
this functionality ultimately \-- how would you do it?\" To evolve that
capability, with that tolling application being in there, as well.

Does that address your question?

Michael Replogle: It helps.

Steve Albert: Shelley, has there been any reflection on whether
incremental demonstration-type approaches have really worked? Has that
gotten you where you really want to go? Or maybe that is a discussion
point later on?

Shelley Row: I would bring that up as a discussion point, that is a good
question.

Robert Denaro: How does IVBSS and VII come together?

Shelley Row: The IVBSS is a completely autonomous research study, it
looks at the technology totally housed on the vehicle.

Now, CICAS, which is the collision avoidance application, particularly
CICAS, the violation piece, is a VII application. So, VII has to be
there in order for CICAS, the violation applications, to work.

Randall Iwasaki: You could actually build a violations system, you could
have each intersection house the application, but it is better to have
the car.

Shelley Row: Then it becomes more of a CICAS-GAP program, is that right,
Mike?

Mike Shagrin: You could do it.

Shelley Row: In the interest of time, let me go through \-- those are
all of the major initiatives, by the way. What I would like to do,
though, let me go on to the next one. There are a handful of
**Technology Transfer programs** \-- if you all are okay with that \--
let me brief you on those relatively quickly, and then we will take a
break, and then if you have other questions, I will be more than happy
to fill in the gaps for you on these.

And I\'ll just hit the high points of these programs \-- I mentioned
before about the **ITS Program Assessment** activity. And Joe Peters, I
believe, is still with us today, he created this program, and managed it
until he just left for a promotion of some sort.

The program, again, started very early in the ITS program, focused on
the evaluation of the earmarks \-- remember all of the earmarked
programs \-- as well as the evaluation of the various skilled
operational tests which were required by the legislation early on. And
then most recently, in terms of evaluation of the major initiatives, so
there are quite a number of evaluations that are ongoing, that is our
way of sucking up the information we learned from all of those projects,
and then making it available through the website to others who would
like to learn from that experience.

You\'ll see that right now we have over 32 independent field evaluations
of earmarks that have been conducted. There are over 430 earmarked
projects that are supposed to be conducting self-evaluations. We\'ve
received reports from 90 of those. We did not try to do independent
evaluations of every earmark, we selected those that were of highest
value and that\'s what you see here in terms of the 32.

The deployment tracking is another part of this program, I\'ll show you
some more data that comes from our deployment tracking information.
Again, it provides a lot of valuable resource data, to help inform us in
our decision making, and you will see that over 92 percent response
rate.

I also want to bring to your attention a couple of the best sellers that
come out of this program. We\'ve actually given you a copy, just so you
won\'t feel left out, this is the ITS Resource Guide \-- a very popular
document, it\'s very well-done, easy to use, nicely formatted. It\'s
also available on our website.

This is our benefits-costs, lessons learned reports, you will hear all
the time \-- we hear it all of the time \-- about the need for benefit
and cost information. We have got it all over the place, we published it
in this report, it is available, searchable on our website, and I will
show you a screen capture of that, as well. There it is.

We have done an extensive technology based upon a lot of focus group
work to try to categorize ITS investment so it\'s easy for people to
search. This is what the webpage looks like, so you can click on each
one of those \-- Charlie would you go to the next slide?

This shows you a drilled-down example of an incident management system,
and you can go into it in multiple levels of depth, and actually get
down to individual project, individual benefit-cost data, individual
cost data, all kinds of information we have mined out of all of that \--
research projects that have been done all the way up through the current
time.

These are some of the data that comes out of the deployment-tracking
material, we just wanted you to see it. Again, you can \-- these are
just four samples that we have picked, and you can again see how
deployment has grown over time.

Another example of a survey question \-- this one will show a comparison
between freeway and arterial management agencies, and again you can see
sort of a very helpful tool for us to understand the differences between
different types of agencies who respond to these questions.

This is the so-called \"bubble chart\" I mentioned early on, that would
not only attract deployment, but we track integration. So, the squares
are various types of ITS systems, the lines connecting them are the
points of integration. The more the bubble is filled, the more the
survey results show that integration exists today from those networks.
So, again, it gives us an indication of how we\'re doing with
integration.

All kinds of deployment statistics, this one shows an example of how you
can compare, in this case, Boston to Atlanta, to national results. So,
there\'s lots of data there, it\'s all on the website, it is very easy
to use. A lot of work had gone into developing the website to make it
easy to use.

Okay, this is the funding profile for this program. That amount of money
provides all the data collection for the earmarks, stripping out the
information that is of value, putting it on the website, doing all of
the deployment tracking work, and making that information available, as
well as all of these reports. This is not all \-- these are just our
best-sellers.

Let me briefly mention the **Architecture Program** \-- the architecture
was developed very early on in this program, completed in 1996. Since
then, there have been two thrusts of this program \-- one is maintaining
and updating the architecture. We just issued a version 6.0 this past
summer, in ITS America. The other is in transferring the knowledge about
the architecture to deploying agencies.

So, there has been a lot of work that\'s gone into training, to
conducting workshops, working within developing regional architectures.
Like I mentioned before, we have over 300 today, right now we\'re doing
a sample of those architectures to assess the quality of the
architecture, so we\'re not just measuring how many, but we also have a
beat on what the quality is.

Again, those are some of the statistics on the training materials.

Let\'s go on to standards. The **Standards Program** started very early,
and the ITS program, as well. We used standards development
organizations to develop a whole host of standards. The critical
standards were identified early in the program. We started the
development of 106 standards. Today, I believe it is on the next slide,
we have \-- let\'s go to the next one, there it is \-- 88 published,
completed standards, and then a handful that are still in the \-- either
approval process or the development process, a very small number.

The thing that I think is the take-away about the standards program, is
this program is transitioning \-- we\'re moving from a development of
standards to a maintenance of standards and testing and deployment.

Our current legislation required TRB to do a study, that study came in
and largely said, it is time to revision your standards program, think
about it afresh, because you are at a turning point \-- how do you get
it deployed, how do you test them, how do you get them used and
maintained? And so, that is where this program is at this point, and
we\'re about to embark upon a new kind of strategic planning activity
for the standard program.

**Professional Capacity Building**, throughout all of the pieces of
legislation you will in their emphasis on increasing the skill level of
transportation professionals that has been translated into the
professional capacity-building program. There have been quite a number,
you will see the 40 courses that have been developed over time, many \--
most of which were the National Highway Institute.

We developed many that are moving into web-based learning, and some that
have been developed with a university, such as the University of
Maryland, which is the CITE program.

As we move forward in this program, I think the key word here is
leverage. We\'re looking, there is still clearly a need to educate
professionals in this area, but we\'re looking to find ways to work more
constructively with the university environment, and with the association
community. Many of those areas do training, either undergraduate or
graduate programs, or on-the-job type of training, professional
training, and we want to leverage that ability and that capability that
is out there in our community already.

We also do provide some technical assistance with the peer-to-peer
program, the ITS helpline, that is free assistance. And again, as we see
pressures \-- particularly in the public agencies \-- we travel more and
more on the training programs are being provided, web-based facilities
that allows people to stay put and still receive the kind of training
they need on their jobs.

And, so that\'s where we\'ve been, that\'s where we are, and later we
will be starting on where we are going. We\'ll have a panel discussion
after the break to start priming the pump about the future direction,
and then tomorrow, it\'s all about where we\'re going \-- trends, the
vision, opportunities and barriers, as well as implications for the
future, and you all will be put to work in a big way for that
discussion.

I didn\'t do too badly \-- do you have any questions on that last part
of the program before we take a break?

Michael Replogle: Just a question about the standards. One of the key
areas of standards has been interoperability, and things like toll
transponders from State to State. Do we have any good measures of how
effectively the standards process is affecting, sort of, the capacity of
the industry to deliver real services to customers, and the degree to
which barriers to the dissemination and acceptance of common standard
stands in the way of effective delivery of ITS?

Shelley Row: That\'s a good question. I think it depends on which
standard you\'re looking at, as well. Clearly, some of them have been
much more effective than others, some of which we are still working on,
traffic signal standards, we are still working on \-- message sets, I
think, have been pretty well used. Measures of how well that has
leveraged the community, though, I don\'t think we have good measures of
that, would be my sense. I think that\'s one of the questions, is how do
we know people are \-- if we\'re effective in having standards serve
that function? When we talk about not doing standards, then you very
quickly have people say, \"No, no, they\'re very valuable, we need them,
it is very important to the community to accelerate deployment and
investment.\" But, it\'s very difficult to measure that, I don\'t think
we have good measures.

Joseph Sussman: Shelley, at the risk of being lynched, as I cut into our
break-time \-- I\'m trying to get my arms around what you\'re looking
for from this group. So, you presented these 10 programs \-- do you want
to hear from us whether we think they\'re the right ones? Whether we
think the dollars allocated to each one is correct? What are the strong,
what are the weak, and so on, and so forth? Is this the kind of function
you anticipate?

Shelley Row: What we were thinking of, mostly \-- and we will take any
of that information, it is most welcome \-- but it was more to give you
a solid grounding on the current program, as a basis for moving forward
to projecting what should be the future.

Now, having said that, if there are things that ought to be done now,
then we sure want to hear about it. But, mostly it was to say, feel,
understand, get an appreciation for what exists today, and then use that
to form how we want to migrate to the next piece.

It is a very opportune time. Many of these initiatives that you saw are
beginning to close, and beginning to finish. It is absolutely on the
table. Should we be moving forward with future initiatives? If so, what
are they? Is there a uniting vision to the entire program that we ought
to be getting behind? What is the relative balance between field-test
types of research? Policy types of research? The balance between
research and technology transfer? All of that is on the table,
literally. It is all on the table for us to discuss, and we want to get
your views on that.

Today, the program is very heavily oriented toward the research on the
technical applications in the initiatives, and then kind of a supporting
role for technology transfer. Is that the way we want it to be in the
future? I don\'t know. Is there a need for more policy research? I
don\'t know. That\'s where we want to have some discussion.

Does that help, Joe?

Joseph Sussman: Yes.

Shelley Row: Any other questions before the break?

Joseph Sussman: I gather we can\'t go walking around to places like the
men\'s room and stuff like that, or to get coffee?

Shelley Row: Stay in the building, don\'t leave the building.

(Recess.)

Shelley Row: It looks like most of you were successful in finding
something to drink and finding your way back, not all of which is easily
accomplished here.

Joseph Sussman: Of course, you can\'t see the ones who didn\'t find
their way back.

Shelley Row: Okay, we\'re going to shift gears a little bit, and I\'m
actually going to pick up on the point that Joe brought up right before
break, is kind of the \"why are we here?\" question, and we\'re going to
ask you to shift gears in a pretty big way. We have just given you a
fire hose full of information of the details of the current program. And
I would ask that you put that in the back of your mind and just hold it
there as background information.

Because now, starting with this panel session, and also carrying over
into tomorrow, we\'re going to ask you to go to absolutely the other
extreme, and to thing blue sky, look at the really big picture, think
about the trends that are impacting our worlds today. And by that, I
mean it in a pretty big context, and that\'s where we\'re going to start
our discussion tomorrow.

Now, you all have been interviewed by one or more of the ITS program
office staff, and asked about trends you all see in your various
industries, and in the world. We will talk about those tomorrow, so
hopefully you can have sort of started some of the thinking in that
regard, to help you bridge into that big picture thinking.

**Identifying Trends in ITS (Panel Discussion)**

We have invited some panel members here to share their thoughts on big
picture trends, issues that they see on the horizon that are possibly
relevant to transportation and technology, and then ultimately tomorrow
as we drill down, we\'re going to get to the point where we\'re talking
specifically about how this impacts the future of the ITS program within
the U.S. Department of Transportation.

So, having said that, I\'m going to introduce these gentlemen to you,
each one of them \-- we have asked them to share some remarks from their
perspective with you. And we will take a short pause after each one of
you, so that the Committee can ask questions, and then we will have more
time after everyone has a chance to speak for open discussion. I would
hope that that will be the time when you can really start getting your
juices flowing, you can get some creative thoughts on the table, and we
can really start thinking.

Let me start with introducing **Dick VanAtta**. Dick and Jerry Bracken.
Both Dick and Jerry are from the Science and Technology Policy
Institute. For those of you who may not be aware, that is one of three
Federally-funded research and development centers run by the Institute
for the Defense Analysis. They assist the Executive Branch of the
government in formulating science and technology policy, and they have
done a lot of research in sort of the emerging trends and issues related
to transportation and technology.

So, I\'m going to turn it over to you, gentlemen. And Dick, you direct
the emerging technology part of the program?

Dick VanAtta: Right. We have a growing group of staff, so we don\'t give
ourselves titles, but we sort of have areas of interest that sort of
converge over the group that we have, senior staff.

We work primarily for the Office of Science and Technology Policy and
the Science Advisor, and because of that, our gob, generally, is
assigned to do work of interest to the White House.

And we took over STPI about four years ago, and one of the issues that
was of particular interest at the time was \-- Bill Jeffries, in
particular, went on to be the head of NIST, was the issue of ground
transportation and congestion, and issues of transportation, as well. We
were happy to have Bill working for us, because he came from IDA,
originally, having gone to DARPA, he\'s now come back to be head of our
science and technology at IDA. He has been a great asset to us at OSTP,
there was a strong interest in understanding the issues of the affects
of congestion, the effects of not addressing the issues.

And, I think part of what we were asked to do, essentially, is what are
the economic effects and implications of where things are going, and if
they aren\'t handled, how do we evaluate those.

And the second thing is, what are the technological possibility
alternatives, and how do we assess and evaluate those, and what do seem
to be the key, potential technological capabilities that might affect
that? And Jerry was one of the key people doing that analysis, coming at
it from an economics, operations, research background \-- he has done a
lot of work on air transportation, but also, he\'s been very involved
and interested in this issue of congestion.

What is interesting, is I came to this IDA, or came to STPI after that
study had been done, and we immediately picked up a study dealing with
air transportation \-- it was really interesting from our perspective,
these interrelationships and similarities that seemed to be involved.

First of all, what was real interesting was the fundamental issue of
fastly increasing demand, and extremely constrained supply. The fact is
that all transportation seems to be under a huge excess constraints, in
terms of just how much you can increase capacity. And that increase in
capacity is built around very heavy built-in structural issues.

The airports, on the one hand, your bridges on another. The amount of
highway you can lay \-- and these seem to be fundamental infrastructural
constraints. And so the question then is, under what circumstance and in
what way can you more efficiently and more effectively use that,
relative to the implementation of technological options.

So, you get into, then, the questionable kind of technological
capabilities, can allow you to at least, for some period of time, over
some scaled demand, overcome those constraints.

And what\'s interesting, is one of those things we found in some of the
congestion modeling in the ground transportation system seems to be very
applicable to the \-- but not used in the \-- air transportation area,
and we\'ve been trying to apply some, and get some interest in applying
congestion modeling in the air transportation in ways that they have
been used in ground transportation.

The second thing, which I think comes out of this, is better ways of
understanding and assessing and interrelating the value of alternative
technological applications, and one of those things we did with the
NextGen is develop an, essentially, a more elaborate application of
what\'s called value model, which is essentially is a Federal way of
elaborate cost-benefit analysis to look at technological possibilities
and assess in terms of the different values they impact. And now you can
do a systematic assessment across the board of those.

So, in the NextGen area, we feel that we kind of exposed the JPTO and
others to some analytical capabilities that haven\'t really been brought
to bear, and there may be some possibilities in the ground
transportation for using such models.

Another point which comes out of this, and then I\'ll have Jerry talk
specifically about the analysis we did a couple of years ago on ground
transportation is, it seems to me very, very clear that DOT and the
White House and the Congress all need to start thinking about the
inter-modal relationships between transportation and analyzing and
assessing these alternatives and these options. Right now, we\'re in
danger of essentially massively investing in sub-optimization, and
finding some way to understand the interrelationships between these
transportation systems, their interdependencies, and we\'ll throw rail
in here, as well.

But, there are tremendous interdependencies in these systems, with
people racing on the roads to get to the airports, the massive
congestion around the airports, the problems of massive delays in
transportation, affecting the ground transportation in terms of freight.
These all need to be looked at, I think, at a higher level, with a
broader scale of assessment.

Because, in fact, one of those things we found in looking at NextGen,
and we also found from the study that Jerry did, we\'re talking about
hundreds of millions, and really tens of billions of dollars worth of
implications in each of these sectors. And if we don\'t succeed in
these, we\'re going to have huge effects that are going to have economic
ripples throughout our economy.

This transportation conundrum, I think, really comes down to the fact
that we are trying to muddle through with individual capabilities in
different areas, and understanding this relationship, so we\'re looking
at ways we can provide some analytical support to do that.

The White House has been interested in this, but even the White House
has been approaching this from sector to sector.

Jerry?

**Jerry Bracken**: Okay, I wish I had slides to show you, but I would
like to go through some numbers, here, as I talk.

The briefing that I\'m looking at is a subset of a briefing which was
for official use only at the White House, and we have shared that in the
past, with the Department of Transportation. So, that if you want the
long briefing, it would be available to you, but not for public
distribution.

The fundamental team that did this was led by Dan Garretson, a
Harvard-trained physicist and Bill Jeffries, another MIT-trained
physicist, another participant on the study, Jeff Snider, had just come
down to IDA from Yale, where he was a professor of physics, and a
research associate, Kay Sullivan, and MIT person with a Master\'s Degree
in aeronautics, and a strong background in electronics.

And I was responsible for the economics, but I do have a Bachelor\'s
Degree in civil engineering, and a Doctorate from Harvard Business
School. So, I have the civil engineering \-- but the bias in this study,
I would say, is toward physical science, toward what the cutting-edge
technology is going to do in the context of reducing the congestion
area.

Jack Marberger was personally interested in the study, but he didn\'t
have a formal role on transportation in the United States, as far as,
you know, he does have a formal role in the JPTO, so the OSTP has had to
find responsibility in this case, OSTP was just trying to help, and as
it turned out, Mary Peters had been interested in traffic congestion
over the years before that, so at this point we had a lot of willing
colleagues in the Department of Transportation at that time and even
more so now on some of the recommendations we made.

So, we reviewed existing studies and analyses, had interviews with
government people and industry people, and we tried to characterize the
state of traffic mitigation technologies, and possible approaches to
implementation. We looked at the near-term options, including expanded
tolling of roadways, and incident management technologies, but our
long-term options focused on the increased use of vehicle automation
techniques.

Let me define congestion \-- restricting traffic flow, for any reason,
including too many vehicles, traffic accidents, construction that
results in congestion and increased travel time and excess fuel
consumption and pollution and loss of productivity.

I have a pie chart here, and I don\'t remember \-- oh, yes, there is a
source \-- Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration. In
terms of the causes of congestion, this chart says that the recurring
load, namely the day-to-day traffic is about 40 percent, incidents 25
percent, weather 15 percent, work zones 10 percent, special events 5
percent, and sub-optimal signal timing 5 percent.

Other sources suggested recurring loads of 70 percent. Now, the Texas
Transportation Institute, in their congestion study in 2003, estimated
3.7 billion hours of delay, 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel for \$63
billion of loss of time and fuel. The time cost they used was about
\$13.50 at that point, and the fuel costs were on the order of a dollar
and a quarter. So, that if you used a time cost of \$30 an hour, you
could have double that amount, and since 2003, things have moved up by a
couple of percent, so you could argue that based upon the \$75 or \$80
billion with the old numbers that \$150 billion with \$30 an hour.

In a revealed-preference study, a small brownstone with UC-Irvine
experimenting with interviewing and people for their actual behavior in
SR 91 and I-15, estimated the cost of time people would be willing to
pay of between \$25 to \$30 an hour. Additively, they estimated the cost
of reliability \-- that is, what one would pay to have an 80 percent
chance of making an appointment on time, amounted to about \$8 an hours.
So, the numbers would be in the region of \$35 an hour, or more.

So, I believe, although I\'m not sure, that in some analyses within the
Department of Transportation they came out with \$30 an hour. So, those
are justifications for potentially having a baseline of \$150 billion.
The miles traveled are increasing, yes, and it\'s getting worse. Demand
is steadily increasing, statistics make it clear, road travelers are
growing by 2.5 percent a year, roughly. Linearly, over a 20-year
baseline, physical supply is a constraint, lane miles are limited by
cost, available space and environmental impact.

Operational treatments provide marginal relief, as we say, information
collection and information distribution of roving emergency response
teams, signal optimization, temporary lane closures \-- there are
various mitigation strategies to help solve the problem.

The approaches for recurring congestion are, first, to reduce demand,
which would require significant external societal changes, restrict
demand and supply by a range of tactics. This can result in significant
disruption and postpones the problem a few years, maybe many years. And
the final solution we suggest is increasing the supply by physical
construction, but mostly by technological-driven options.

Now, distributing information and re-routing involved modern techniques,
traffic data, broadcasting technologies. The effectiveness is that there
is congestion reduction with very high, or very low, market penetration,
but I only believe in very low market penetration. There\'s a very
interesting study that was done, I believe at MIT that showed that if
you deploy technology information, really good information to 10 or 20
percent of the people, and they lead the congestion, then the congestion
is mitigated.

As you go further and further and everybody gets information, then it
doesn\'t do anybody any good, or very much good, because you clog up the
arterials. I found that very interesting.

Now, we concentrated on tolling, and in our analysis of the economics of
tolling, we looked at two cases \-- creating HOT lanes, and tolling all
lanes. We subcontracted to Reisman to expand the work that they had done
in 8 metropolitan areas, where they had looked at HOT lane systems. The
20 top cities in the United States in this study is available on the
NIDA science and technology institute website, immediately available,
just go to the website.

Now, in this case, the HOT lane, the national HOT lane case, we assumed
that there was 7,600 lane miles, of which three-quarters of the lane
miles were used. There are, roughly speaking, 25,000 congested lane
miles. So, add on 7,600 land miles, added or modified, it would cost
\$95 billion, if we estimate the value of time at \$15 per house, there
would be an \$11 billion annual savings, and a \$2.4 billion operating
deficit, based upon the assumptions we used.

If you use \$30 an hour, it would be a \$26 billion savings and a \$2.7
billion annual operating surplus, with the investment of \$95 billion.
If, on the other hand we tolled all of the lanes \-- first of all, when
you toll some of the lanes, some of the people are willing to pay to
move fast, and the people who are still on the highways \-- so, let\'s
say there are three lanes, one lane is moving fast, the other two are
moving just a tiny bit more than they were moving before, or when demand
catches up, they\'re not moving any faster. While a certain number of
people are advantaged, if you toll all the lanes, and they might be
willing to pay a lot in Minneapolis now, they\'re paying \$1 an hour in
some cases. The market-clearing price, though, that is assumed in the
Department of Transportation value-pricing analysis is about ten cents
an hour.

The people who can\'t pay and have to get off onto the arterials, so if
you toll some of the lanes, or toll all of the lanes \-- if you toll all
of the lanes it costs about \$25 billion to put these systems in. At a
value of time of \$10 an hour, lowering the average over time, the cost,
a broader cross-section of people will be using the lanes, there would
be a \$46 billion annual savings, and \$12.9 billion annual operating
surplus.

At the value of time of \$15 per hour, that goes up to \$57 billion
annual savings, still in the \$12.9 billion, and if you value time more,
it would be getting up toward \$100 billion. So, tolling all of the
lanes would be a huge societal savings, whether it\'s politically
possible or not, who knows?

Now, if we looked at metering \-- first there\'s tolling. Now, metering
is thought by some people as a solution \-- we didn\'t really think so,
because the people who are getting in near the city, so let\'s say
traffic is coming from far away, and people who are getting into the
traffic near the cities in the morning are the ones who are penalized.
They have to wait a long time, because other people are coming from long
distances, so it\'s not fair to all \-- I mean fair from the point of
view of an economic fairness \--

Shelley Row: Excuse me, Jerry, I don\'t want to cut you off, but just in
the interest of time I want to make sure these other folks are going to
have time for discussion, too.

Jerry Bracken: I don\'t have much more.

Let\'s get on to the increasing capacity by automation. From a study
that PATH had done, our estimate was that the vehicles per hour could be
increased from 2,000 vehicles per hour, to 4,000 vehicles per hour.

\[Off mic, inaudible.\]

Jerry Bracken: We have emerging vehicle technology and stability
assistance, and so our bottom line was start with adaptive tolling in
the near-term, which optimizes the economic return on the existing
roadways, increases funds available for roadway management, enforces new
technology into vehicles, and you get gasoline benefits, later focus on
capacity-enhancing technologies for longer-term, primarily vehicle
automation, and in the near-term there\'s an issue of whether you use a
simple technology like E-Z Pass which will work, or whether you go to
DSRC, which would collect large amounts of information. Similar to ITS,
we could not find that we were going to recommend the DSRC, because we
thought that these benefits could be achieved with E-Z Pass.

And that\'s all I have.

Shelley Row: Any questions for Jerry?

Michael Replogle: Just to clarify, in the analysis you did comparing
adding HOT lanes versus tolling all lanes, was there near-capacity added
in the toll all lanes, or was that working with the existing roadway
capacity?

Jerry Bracken: Existing roadways.

Michael Replogle: That\'s brilliant and that\'s quite stunning. And this
is on the OSTP website?

Jerry Bracken: No, not that. The HOT lane analysis is on the website,
this analysis has not been published or released. We have developed a
spreadsheet model to do an apples-to-apples comparison, and whether that
would be available or not \--

Dick VanAtta: We can check with OSTP to see if they have an issue, the
study was 2 years ago. They could particularly give it to DOT.

Jerry Bracken: It\'s a fairly simple model, you could work with it very
easily.

Michael Replogle: I would love to see the fuller study if it is possible
to make it available, I think it would be useful to a lot of NPOs and
State DOTs and policy people around the country who are looking at
financing questions. In fact, I would encourage that to be presented to
the National Transportation Policy Study Commission.

Shelley Row: We will follow-up with you guys and see if we can get a
copy of it.

John Worthington: Full disclosure, being a toll guy, I think you should
also update the deployment costs to operating from 2-year old data. The
new IT technology would be significantly more cost, in terms of TAG
technology, at least half the cost and multiplexing lanes, so the
readers would be required to use it, as well.

Shelley Row: Okay, there will be opportunity for more questions, but
let\'s go ahead and hear from **Steve Godwin**.

Steve is the Director of the Studies and Special Programs Division of
TRB. Many of you know that TRB, every year, prints out a report like
this one on the critical issues facing transportation, so we\'ve asked
Steve to come in and share some of their thoughts and thinking with us,
Steve?

Steve Godwin: Thanks, Shelley. Actually we clear it out every three or
four years. It\'s a product of our Executive Committee, our Executive
Committee is made up of members of the transportation sector, Joe
Sussman has been on the Committee, and Buzz has been on the Executive
Committee.

So, what I\'m going to do is run you through the list that they
identified and try to link some of these \-- most of these topics to
possible areas of research for ITS.

You\'ve already heard that congestion is bad, and going to get worse. A
large part of that is simply due to the population. In 20 years, we\'re
expecting roughly 50 million more people in the Census\'s mid-range
estimate. In 40 years, 100 million people. If the Census is right,
they\'re going to concentrate in parts of the country that are growing
fastest. But interestingly, the mid-range assumption makes very
conservative estimates about immigration. If we aren\'t able to get our
arms around illegal immigration, the numbers are much bigger.

The Census\'s high range estimate in 20 years is 100 million. They would
have to be referred, again, as large as the population we have. So even
if personal travel, per capita travel saturates \-- which many people
think it is, or have saturated, so we\'re not, any of us, going to drive
more individually, there\'s going to be a lot more of us demanding
transportation and we\'re not adding capacity anywhere near as fast as
the population is growing. So the congestion really has to get worse.

Moreover, we would expect current trends to continue about where people
subbed, so what we\'ve seen for the last several decades is a dispersion
of the population to lower-density area, ironically at levels that are
too high for highway systems, and to operate efficiently, but too low,
too low for transit system to operate efficiently. So, if you think of
Los Angeles and urbanized areas, sort of the future, most people don\'t
realize that urbanized areas are the most densely populated in the
country. But it\'s evenly spread across the whole urbanized area, it\'s
not centralized in a way that makes transit terribly effective, but it
is at too high level of development for highway systems to be effective.

So, clearly we\'re going to need ITS-oriented solutions to help people
optimize their travel choices.

We actually had a Committee look at the automated highway system, that
was part of the ITS program, I think, two authorizations ago. And the
Committee supported the DOT\'s decision to end that program, not so much
because it wasn\'t technically feasible, because \-- instead because of
the social and institutional issues that there were much bigger problems
than the technical ones. And of course, there are just huge transition
problems.

Imagine if you could triple or quadruple the amount of thru-put on the
interstate system coming into a city, you\'ve got the problem of
dispersing them off to the lower ADT roads. That just simply couldn\'t
handle that much additional traffic. But, the Committee said, it\'s
really useful to continue to explore technologies that would evolve
towards automation, and we see that now, in vehicle infrastructure
integration initiative that the Department is pursuing with industry.

Just in addition to personal travel, freight is a rapidly-growing part
of the demand for transportation. It\'s contributing to the congestion,
and it\'s suffering from the congestion.

Interestingly, the freight system, in so much of it is in the private
sector, is already heavily reliant on IT and ITS-type systems for
optimizing its own efficiency in the face of congestion, but in tens of
thousand of operators of freight systems, small independent operators,
they are truly part of the sophisticated information and logistics that
many of the large companies are. So, there\'s potentially a benefit
there.

I don\'t know whether \-- I think you may have heard John Vickerman,
he\'s a consultant who works with the freight industry, give his
statistic abut the most commonly-moved commodity around the country.
Does anyone know what that is? It\'s air. If you add up empty back hauls
and trucks and the number of containers that are moving empty, that is
the most frequently-moved commodity. Containers, obviously, because we
have a significant imbalance between freight that is coming in and what
we\'re able to export.

So, obviously, there\'s some opportunities for efficiency here, with
that kind of inefficiency going on. And there\'s one ITS project I\'m
aware of, and I think it\'s the Freight Manifest Project.

Emergencies was our second topic, and obviously 9-1-1, and the
evacuations associated with Katrina and Rita and still in our mind. And
we\'re working on 2 related projects \-- Randy is on the Committee for
one of them where it looks like we\'re going to have more large-scale
evacuations from large metropolitan areas, particularly on the coast,
the coastal parts of the country. River valleys and flood plains, all
associated with more intense and frequent storms due to climate change,
and evacuations are just a huge and complicated information management
problem. When we have evacuations now in coastal cities due to
hurricanes, a big part of the problem is a lot of people evacuate that
don\'t need to. During the shadow, when they hear the broadcast, they
think they need to go, but they don\'t. So maybe there\'s an IT or
ITS-oriented solution that would be more individualized, to give
information to those who should be sheltering in place, and those who
need to move out.

The environment is always on our list of issues. These are complex,
inter-related issues, it\'s hard to put them together, but I tried to
describe them in one sentence. We have ever-growing reliance on imported
petroleum for transportation fuels, much of which come from parts of the
world where people hate us, and these imports are resulting in our
fastest-growing contribution to carbon emissions. So, we have a really
daunting problem there. I\'m not sure that there is a huge ITS link to
that, we think of ITS as something, people optimize their travel
choices. There are some efficiency and environmental benefits associated
with that. They\'re probably small.

In a minute I\'ll describe opportunities for road congestion pricing,
when I talk about finance. The way this strategy could address both,
well, congestion and environmental issues and financial issues.

In 2020, that is 13 years, that is when I reach the age when I get the
optimal or the most amount of social security benefit if I retire,
we\'re going to have about 50 million people who are over the age of 65,
and we\'re going to have 7 or 8 million people over the age of 85. This
is a large population that is \-- if current trends continue \--
they\'re retiring where they settled and they are typically living in
relatively low-density areas, where they\'re not going to have regular,
reliable, efficient access to transit.

There\'s some ITS technologies now, vehicle safety technologies that may
help people optimize their driving later in life. There\'s some
significant human factors that need to be addressed there, but for
equity reasons, there are also all of these people living, poor people
living in rural areas that would benefit from more efficiently
distributed transit models, and so there\'s some real opportunities
there with algorithms and technology to make these services a lot more
efficient.

In the financial area, we\'re obviously having extreme difficulty paying
for the huge system we have in place. We built it up over a, really over
a century and though we\'ve been re-doing it as we go, but it\'s very
large. And I\'m sure this group is well aware that we\'re behind in
keeping pace with investing in that system.

We had a Committee look at the future of the fuel tax, and they\'ve said
that revenue base is probably adequate for the foreseeable future at the
level of revenue it\'s generating, but with the political resistance to
raising that tax, we\'re going to have to find many more, and more
effective revenue streams.

This Committee was very optimistic \-- not optimistic, but certainly
recommended looking at road pricing, congestion pricing, road use \--
meaning, metering as an important alternative and supplemental system.
As I mentioned earlier, it has many other benefits, just adding to the
financial system, we have to figure out how to charge people for not
just systems that have E-Z Pass or the card, but the whole road network,
so we can optimize that. And if that means solving problems of privacy
and making it tamper-proof, so it seems to me in the ITS area, there are
some real opportunities there. There are obviously some large-scale
demonstrations going on, there\'s much to learn from them.

Another one of our issues was looking at human and intellectual capital
in transportation systems, and we just don\'t invest anywhere near
enough in innovation and the transportation sector. Think about health
care and transportation are about equal-sized sectors of our whole
economy. The Federal government invests over \$28 million a year in
health-related research, DOT gets less than a million. So, two
equal-sized sectors and one is almost one-thirtieth the size of the
other in terms of investment.

We have very little research that is looking a systems-level problems
and issues that connect socio-economic issues, that do affect the
country except when we\'re doing it in very incremental ways.

Just one aside, on the research in terms of growing trends there are
truth in the worries, sometimes the earmarking of transportation
research \-- it is about as bad in DOT as it is in any agency. First of
all, ITS R&D has managed to escape that problem, but knock on wood, that
is not something we can necessarily count on. Aging infrastructure, I
think in this context is largely a finance issue, we\'ve largely touched
on that. In terms of institutions, our tag line for this was, in 20th
Century institutions, mismatched to 20th Century emissions.

We can see the need for systems-level operation of transport networks in
the metropolitan area, while we\'re all aware of the significant
institutional impediments to doing that, we\'ve got State DOTs, transit
authorities, city DOTs, county DOTs, metropolitan planning
organizations, a lot of stovepiping, only weak mechanisms for
coordination, and we have institutions that are not built and designed
to operate a system. Yet, we\'re looking at those same institutions to
be deployers and innovators of ITS technologies.

So, if it does work, how does it work? Because we\'d really like to
know. It may be a small piece of the investment in ITSR, we should be
thinking, instead, about how you break down barriers to entrepreneurs,
to provide markets that are financially \-- have good financial returns
so that they can feed customers the kind of information they\'re
demanding.

There must not be a sector of our economy that\'s been more dynamic in
the most couple of decades than IT and telecommunications and it seems
there has to be an opportunity there.

The last point I\'m going to touch on is safety. Our line for this is,
the U.S. is no longer the world leader in safety. We were the leader
until about a decade or a decade and a half ago, and now many countries
are safer than we are, on a national basis. It\'s a little bit
complicated comparison, because we have States in this country \-- New
York as an example \-- that is as safe as any of the safest European
countries, but many countries around the world are improving it much
faster than we are, in terms of reducing deaths and injury rates \--
total deaths, and yes, fatality rates.

We have a study that is trying to understand both what\'s been effective
in terms of what they\'re doing and they built the political will to do
this, but one of those things we know they\'re doing is much more
aggressive behavioral interventions than what we\'ve been interested in
or willing to do in the past. By that, I mean dealing with speeding,
alcohol and drug use and fatigue.

Now, there\'s a lot of ITS work in vehicle technology for crash
avoidance and vehicle infrastructure technologies, again, for crash
avoidance, but maybe there\'s an opportunity in behavior monitoring,
both in the vehicle and out of the vehicles, such a large proportion of
crashes are associated with speeding, drug-impaired driving, and
fatigue.

So, let me stop at that. That\'s a broad-brush look at all of those
issues. I\'ve given you copies of the critical issues itself for your
further reading.

Shelley Row: Any quick questions for Steve?

Steve Albert: You touched on ex-urban migration, and that\'s a huge
problem in rural America. I know 7 of the 10 fastest States being in the
West, 40 million people coming by 2030. A lot of rural States and rural
communities are really running scared.

Did you have any recommendations from an ITS perspective for those
growing rural areas?

Steven Godwin: I should say, our Critical Issues Committee was simply
trying to frame the issues, we didn\'t have solutions. But a lot of the
ideas I\'ve thrown out here for consideration come from various studies
that we\'ve done, looking at some of these topics, and we have not
looked at that issue in-depth. So, the answer is no, we don\'t have any
answers for those states.

Buzz Paaswell: One thing is, leave the Great Lakes alone for water.

Steven Godwin: They are going to run out of water first.

Jerry Bracken: I would like to make a quantitative comment about safety,
and that is something that ITS can address.

The current fatalities are on the order of 50,000 a year. If you reduce
it by 10,000 a year, and put the value to human life of about \$2
million, that\'s about a \$20 billion a year impact. Comparing it with
the impact that I was discussing, plus the injuries, so you\'re talking
\$20 billion a year, it\'s a lot of money.

Shelley Row: We will have more opportunities for questions, let\'s hear
from **Robert "Buzz" Paaswell**. Buzz is Professor of Civil engineering
at City College of New York, and is also the Director of the City
College-based UTC University Transportation Research Center.

He is a former Executive Director of the Chicago Transit Authority, so
I\'m sure he has very interesting perspectives. Buzz, share with us your
thoughts?

Buzz Paaswell: No political secrets, I was called last week and asked to
come up to put down a series of thoughts that come from, let\'s say two
different streams. One is just my experience, working both as a
transportation operator and as a researcher over the years, and what do
I see emerging out of this whole thing of \-- instead of calling it ITS,
let\'s just call it the integration applications of computers and
information technology to, basically, all aspects of our lives \--
although the focus comes in DOT, the discussion about ITS.

And the other is work that we\'ve been called on to do in the New York
region, where I remind you, nearly a third of the transit riders occur,
and probably a very significant percentage of daily traffic on freeways
also occurs \-- you don\'t think of New York as freeways, but New York
\-- if you think that the 8 million workers in the New York region, a
little over 2 million work in the core, that means the other 6 million
have to work someplace else, and they probably get there by car, so that
is sort of a mind-boggling idea.

One of the places I get ideas from is talking to my friends in
electrical engineering, most of whom have the secret contracts with your
colleagues at the Defense Department. And they talk about telephones,
they say, \"Oh, let me really tell you what telephones can do,\" they
tell me, \"Let me tell you what computers can do,\" and they tell me,
and it\'s very exciting.

And I want to make one point at this \-- I\'m working with a group of
people, a group of electrical engineers from Columbia, together with a
group of civil engineers at City College, and some civil engineers and
electrical engineering at Rutgers, who are preparing an NSF proposal,
really looking at what we call the next generation of transportation,
which is basically information technology applications, of which
transportation is one component.

And a brief little anecdote. I\'m at the age now where, when I retire,
I\'m going to stay in New York and I use my reduced-fare metro card, so
I\'m not running to the suburbs, because I know my \-- there were two
very young guys on the Columbia team, and I looked at them, and having
been around the University a long time, I looked and said, \"Are you
guys getting your Ph.D.s?\" And they were Assistant Professors, so that
immediately shows you, you get a little older than you think.

But, they were talking about information and were saying, \"Isn\'t it
great? When you have all this information, you can put out,\" the NTA is
now saying, \"Well, we\'re put out on the internet, we\'ll just type on
the internet, and you\'ll get on your Blackberry,\" and he says, \"Well,
my colleagues and I wouldn\'t do that,\" he said, \"We\'d immediately go
to YouTube and go to our friends on YouTube, and tell them, not only has
the schedule changed, but let\'s hold it here instead of there,\" and
change their plans dramatically, using something that I don\'t even, my
generation probably doesn\'t even know how to get to, our how to use, or
we certainly wouldn\'t want to see our faces put up there. So, it is the
idea, and it\'s an idea that I constantly try to tell everyone, that
technology is self-driven, technology has its own momentum, technology
is going to go places where none of us know that it\'s going to go
places where none of us know that it\'s going to go, and we\'re all
making assumptions that the next generation is going to look like A, B,
and C, because in a sense, somebody has to procure it and design it and
write specs for it.

But, it\'s moving so quickly now, especially information technology, and
if you really \-- I suspect all of you have links to the Defense
Department, or if you don\'t need that, you can just go look at what
telephones are doing in Europe, which is probably where the Defense
Department gets its ideas from , and you can see, they\'re two
generations ahead of us in what technology is about.

And the real question is, is the real point we want to make is that
technology has a strong momentum, we cannot go back and order
yesterday\'s material, and we have to begin to integrate, what are we
going to look like, how is the information going to be transferred to
us, what are the dynamics of this information, and how are we going to
use it.

And, I sort of put things in terms of paradigms. I said the old
post-World War II paradigms, we built our infrastructure, we operate it,
and we\'ll operate it at a highway capacity, manual and things like
that. Tomorrow\'s paradigm is that \-- and we sort of know we\'re going
to be there, is going to be an information-rich milieu in which
operators will have full information about every aspect of their
operation, always like you say, from when the bus drivers stop to have a
sandwich, and what kind of sandwich he ate, to how many people were
going through the turnstile at Fulton Street, and on and on and on. The
person running the system will have all of that information, plus
what\'s going on in the streets, plus when are the airplane are getting
in, and when is the decongestion there, to when is the next freighter
coming into the port of New York and unloading 8,000 BMWs into New York.
And when is there going to add traffic to the highways.

They have all of this information, you\'re going to make different
decisions about how to use it than you do now. And the point that Steve
just made about the fact that institutions that really don\'t know how
to handle that is a very true point, and I\'m going to get to that in
just a few minutes, because that is really one of the sticking points.

The other point I want to make, and it just sort of keeps hitting me
over the had, we come to a point where we said \-- look it, we\'ve got
congestion, we\'ve got congested suburbs, because we built interstate
highways, and we didn\'t really understand interstate highways. We\'d
create the arterials built around suburbs, people would use the inner
arterials and interstates, and interstates would be used as major
commuting areas, and we\'re going to really screw ourselves, because all
we will do is design transportation systems.

Somehow we\'ve used the words \"land use,\" \"environment,\" \"quality
of life,\" \"energy,\" all these things, and now we\'re coming to ITS
and we\'re talking, just as he said, about stovepipe applications,
we\'re talking about let\'s build a little more capacity, let\'s build
more toll roads, let\'s toll the lanes, let\'s five vehicle informations
systems. What about land use? What are you going to do about land use?
What about energy? Quick solutions to the congestion problem. I\'ll tell
you why New York is congested \-- it has nothing to do with the benefits
and costs. Median take-home weekly salary in Manhattan is \$2300 a week,
three times higher than the median take-home salary in the other four
boroughs, which are around \$800 a week, and those are all higher than
every other borough or county in the United States, maybe save except
one or two in Los Angeles.

People are going in there because they want jobs, they want high-paying
jobs, and they\'re willing to make the tradeoff between what their job
pays and where they live.

You might be 10 or 12 miles away in the time it takes to get there\--
any economist who does cost-benefit analysis will tell you, they\'ve
made the tradeoff between location and salary, so they\'ve already
internalized the cost. Why do we want to buy that back from them?

We get to the point where we have to ask ourselves, what is harmful
congestion, and what is congestion that really comes out of the
marketplace? And I think it is very important to sort those out.

Why do a number of us in New York think the price of \$8 for congestion
pricing won\'t work? Because if you\'re making \$2300 a week, and you
have to pay \$8 more, and you put another person in your car, and maybe
they will split \$4 \-- you don\'t care. And if it goes up to \$10, you
don't care, and if it goes up to \$12, you probably still won\'t care
that that is.

So, we really have to look outside the system itself, into what are the
drivers and why people travel? You want to reduce congestion? Move jobs
into the suburbs, move jobs into the outer places, rather than
dispersing jobs everyplace, give low income people housing closer to
where they work. That would reduce some of that.

At a time when gas is almost \-- oil is \$100 a barrel, we\'re worried
about global warming, all of these things, sort of, as engineers \--
those would be the kinds of things we would like to sink our teeth into.
We realize we haven\'t effected the best solutions for our problems, but
ITS sort of, is one of the ways in which we can address the solutions
and optimizing our infrastructure is used.

I think several years ago, I was Chairman of a transit cooperative
research panel called New Paradigms. New Paradigms basically started and
said \-- this was for transit operators, this was 5 or 10 years ago,
when we probably took too small a scale, we said, \"Transit, public
transportation has to change in 5 or 10 years or people won\'t use it.
It has to change to, sort of, more resemble what you get in your car or
what you get in your home, or on your televisions.

We have to add integration, we have to really understand more about why
we\'re making decisions to use it, and how the operators are making
decisions to operate it.

And we saw then that if we were to keep our organizations the same way
they were, we had this, and Steve said, the MTAs, and the city DOTs and
the State DOTS, filled with people we\'ve trained as educators, using
materials that we sort of agreed on over the years, with DOT regs, the
planning regs, and environmental regs, and the EISs and everything, and
how do you train your students to think \-- we train students to think
in a certain way in approaching problems without some of the broader
perspectives.

So, we sort of put ourselves in a box now where, my sense is, we\'re
sub-optimizing what we\'re doing \-- I think that was a word we have
heard from the first two speakers. We have the capability, actually if
you think about the first thing I said, where technology is taking us
\-- we have the capability in the future, the ideal system is one where
an operator will have full information about every aspect of the system,
and so will the user. They will have an instantaneous on the internet,
and so they\'ll be making decisions about how to travel, how to send
goods, how to ship goods.

We\'ve already all adapted to Amazon.com and to buy classical music,
Archive.com. And you not only know you can get anything over the
internet, but you also know that you can get it when you want it. It\'s
sort of \-- the logistics is gone, probably the most advanced approaches
of the applications for information and communications, and but we want
to have that kind of broad perspective.

Across all of the transportation agencies \-- the logistics business is
a great model, because they were able to, sort of, organize themselves
into the fact that if you want to get something, you just order your
book, and you know it\'s going to be there, you don\'t know what
warehouse the book is coming from, what truck is carrying it, or what
railroad is carrying it. You don\'t care, all you know is you want it,
you\'re paying a little more, you want it tomorrow or you want it in
three days, or whatever, and it will be in your mailbox, or at your
house at a certain day.

But we don\'t operate the same way with the logistics of moving people
around. And we have to begin to think of how do we better integrate our
agencies, how do we integrate our agencies, knowing that we have on the
books all of these regulations that state the role of Federal highways,
to the State DOTs, is that the Federal highway money should be passed
through the State DOT. With certain instances, you can go somewhere
else. Federal transit passes money through the transit agencies, a
certain way. The NBOs have long-range plans. And in one sense, there\'s
no real integration, or no unified transportation organization that
looks at all of those \-- surface transportation at the same time, being
able to look at when are goods coming in from the airports, and when are
they coming in from the ports, and what is the role of railroads.

So the \-- and working with energy, saying how does energy figure in
this, and how do we deploy things to, perhaps, optimize energy. And I
think part of the reason is that all of these terrific ITS technology in
New York is through Transcom and through E-ZPass, which are called the
first big success, but are sort of already a generation or two behind
where it can be.

We have all this technology, but they\'ve all been deployed as projects
by specific agencies \-- by city DOTs, the MTA is doing a project now
for automatic vehicle location for buses. The city agencies, the city
DOT operates the streets, have the ability through the architecture of
information systems, to be able to read into that, if you look at how
goods are procured in the city DOT and the MTA, you find that probably
isn\'t the case.

So, what we\'re finding is that we keep barriers in front of ourselves,
that one set of barriers is the institutional barriers. The other set of
barriers that I want to talk briefly about are the people themselves \--
the fact that we need tremendous training of a new generation of people
to fill the agencies, to think information and technology and computers
and understand what information technology can do \-- what information
technology, compared with the ubiquitous computer, these tiny chips that
are going to be every place \-- measuring the temperature of the road
surface, and is it going to create problems during a hot day, to how
many people are going through your turnstiles at a certain time. And the
people develop algorithms to work on those.

So, we have sort of a set of structural problems that we should sort of
have one group looking on, while the investors in ITS keep forging ahead
with this tremendously exiting thing.

One problem is, what\'s the context of transportation to the quality of
life for the next generation? For 2020 and 2030, how do we bring in land
use and regional economies, and national economies and energy use and
the environment, which are all critical things. And, are we talking
across purposes? How do we begin to change this tremendously
institutionalized set of rules and regulations that govern, basically,
the funding process through the planning process, and say, if you want
to get funds on a project, you should have planned it a certain way, and
these are the rules by which you should have been traveling, whether
it\'s travel-to-man forecasting or air quality measurements, it sort of
has come down and it\'s just been changed slightly over the last 20 or
30 years in training.

And then we have the organizational and the way in which the
institutions themselves are structured, and how can we begin to rethink
without \-- and this is where the Chicago comes in, because I don\'t
know if it\'s ever possible, how can you re-think changing organizations
significantly, so that your DOTs and your MTAs and your port
authorities, and perhaps your zoning authorities, and maybe \-- and
certainly your information suppliers \-- all sort of getting mashed up
in the splendor, and come out in some new invention that, I think, none
of us has thought of yet.

So, let me leave it at that and see where we go.

Shelley Row: Thanks, Buzz.

**Advisory Committee Questions and Discussion**

Let me open it up to all of you.

Dick VanAtta: I\'m going to have to take off. I have to teach at
Georgetown, my second job.

Shelley Row: So what are your reactions to some of the issues you\'ve
heard around the table here today?

Michael Replogle: Well, I think that, I think thank you all for very
thoughtful comments that I think give us some good room to go forward.

One of those things that I think is worth putting on the table is a
study that came out in England last December called the Ettington
Transport Study, which looked \-- it followed on the heels of the Stern
Commission Report on climate, and how could England deal with all the
climate change challenges? The Ettington Report by Sir Rod Ettington
looked at the challenges to economic competitiveness and transportation
and what changes in governance and technology in the operation
management and infrastructure investment are needed in the United
Kingdom in order to ensure good economic competitiveness and transport,
while also meeting climate change challenge.

And it came out, I think, a lot of the things that we heard in the
Ettington study are echoed in some of the comments that each of you made
in terms of the challenges that face the United States, in terms of
working across these different stovepipes of different travel modes that
are planned in isolation, operated in isolation, don\'t communicate well
across each other. And so, we invest a lot to sub-optimize the
performance of the system, in terms of looking at how we\'ve delivered
better services for the customer, how we integrate pricing and
technology and information to make the system operate much more
efficiently and effectively.

And I think one of the big challenges ahead of us, I think, which is
very germane to the whole task of this working group is how do we put
all of these pieces together and break across all of the boundaries that
keep us from doing what, an effective job across the entire
transportation arena, as it interfaces with the economy, the environment
and customers.

That\'s something I think I would recommend taking a look \-- just
Google Ettington Transport Study, and it\'s about a 60-page executive
summary, and it is worth a look. It is an in-depth study that I think we
will see echoed a lot in the United States as we wrestle with these same
issues here.

Jerry Bracken: I remember that the government of Britain announced that
they were going to try to begin to implement a nationwide scheme that
had been designed about 5 years earlier, where each vehicle would have
its own communications system, and would be required to pay for whatever
it did, even if it were not traveling on an adaptive, dynamic toll road.
If you\'re traveling on a road at all, and polluting, it would have to
pay something.

Michael Replogle: One of those things the study found is that about 80
percent of the proposed capacity expansion to the road network in the UK
forecast for the next 20 years on their needs list would probably not be
needed if there were a national road pricing system that priced and
managed all of the roadway networks efficiently with congestion pricing,
and with some strategic investments in bottle-neck remediation, and
where you can\'t deal with it just pricing and demand management and
better management. And given the daunting fiscal challenges we\'ve got
in this country, and the congestion problem that continues to get worse,
and the environmental issues, its impact, that\'s the kind of thing we
ought to be looking much more at.

And it\'s certainly one of the key services that ITS can deliver \-- is
helping us to bring the information that is pricing, to how we operate
and manage the network. Then that certainly fits with the study you were
talking about that just said, \"Hey, if you just add new capacity and
price it, it costs a lot, and you get a much lower cost-benefit ratio
than if you price and manage the existing networks for high productivity
and efficiency.

Now, we\'re routinely losing half of the through-put capacity of our
motorway networks when they go to stop-and-go conditions. I think
Washington State DOT has done some very good work, recently, looking at
that lost productivity of the road network, caused by the fact that it
is an actively-managed, and ITS can help address that.

Randall Iwasaki: It\'s actually about a quarter.

I have a question for Steve \-- you said the fuel tax is additive, is
that assuming no earmarks?

Steven Godwin: It\'s revenue-based in terms of historic demand. The
Committee\'s view was, it\'s going to continue to generate that kind of
revenue stream that is has, that doesn\'t mean it\'s enough, relative to
the future demand or the demand we have now, but it\'s still a solid
base, even with the increases in fuel prices we\'re seeing. So, it is
generating funds.

The biggest problem is that we know, until about 20 years ago, it was
just stopped, I would say, on road pricing, because we\'re such an
incrementalist-driven, in terms of public policy, the real opportunity
is to do demonstrations that convince people that it works. We\'ve seen
Oregon do one, several States in the mid-west are getting around a
strategy, and if you can do those and help fund those and evaluate them,
I think that is a real opportunity to push public policy, because none
of think we\'re going to be able to tell the public or the political
system, \"Do it with the pricing,\" and they\'ll just automatically
adopt it.

Shelley Row: Bob?

Robert Denaro: I just had a question, it\'s probably a dumb question,
but I haven\'t followed the debate on congestion pricing \-- what is
congestion pricing do, for example, in a place like LA where there\'s
not mass transit? In most places, for people to get to work \-- does it
redistribute them on the roads? What does it do?

Steven Godwin: Well, if you think about a congested network, you only
have to move a few percentage points to reduce the flow, you don\'t have
to move a lot of people, you just have to move some.

What congestion pricing does, is some people will change the time they
travel, some will give up trips they didn\'t make, but even in Los
Angeles there are opportunities to car pool, there are opportunities for
transit. Don Schuh has done work in Los Angeles about charging for
parking, and big behavioral swings, cashing out parking, giving people
cash instead of a parking place. They discover that 10, 12 percent of
your employees will find some other way to get to work.

So, you give people incentives, and they\'ll change their behavior.

Joseph Sussman: I enjoyed the panel, I enjoyed all of the talks. There
were a lot of fascinating ideas thrown out by each of the speakers.

It seems to me, kind of paraphrasing what several of you said, we\'re
facing the integration and adoption of a variety of new technologies
into our world, and we\'re dealing \-- thinking of new ways of creating
intellectual capital among the young people who we are privileged to
educate, and we\'re talking about some fundamental changes
institutionally, as well, if we\'re going to make any progress.

And so Shelley challenged us earlier today to think about a vision for
ITS, where ITS might go in the future.

And I\'d be interested in your perspectives as to whether the ITS
program \-- a well-funded program with a lot of leverage, can take as
its mission of being a mechanism for creating that fundamental change in
surface transportation, or is that just too blue sky, and off the
charts?

Buzz Paaswell: I\'ll jump into that first. I think each of us probably
has a different perspective. First of all, ITS has momentum because in a
sense, it\'s entrepreneur-driven and it\'s going to continue on, and
things are going to be adopted, if only because they\'re barred from the
automobile industry, in a certain sense, they\'re barred from Verizon or
something like that.

But, I think what ITS needs, in addition to these terrific ITS-America
conferences where you get great brochures and you go to these booths and
you\'re wowed, if you\'re an engineer, you just love it. That\'s why I
love running CTA, I love trains \-- what better job than that?

But what you probably need, and maybe RITA is the place for it to start,
is a little bit of think group that says, \"Look, what we really need is
the vision,\" or we need, \"Why are we doing all of this? What is the
end product?\" And instead of sort of having a bunch of projects in
search of a series of disparate objectives, saying \"This is what we
want, our country to look like this,\" is, \"This is what we want our
regions to look like, this is what we want our cities to look like.\"

Obviously, in a place like the United States, you\'re going to have the
diverse set of opinions, but at least you might talk about health and
the environment and energy use or things like that. And then say, if
this is where we think we should be going, as a nation, this is an
exercise Great Britain has done many times, and are we, sort of, getting
more and more aggressive, in terms of its environmental posture, and the
European Union is very aggressive in terms of its posture.

It might be a discussion that could start here, and then instead of
saying, \"He\'s a set of projects in search of improving a highway here,
or automatic vehicle location on a bus system there, or knowing where
the next truck is coming off the boat there,\" saying, \"Instead of
putting in projects, we\'ll have a vision and then we\'ll say these are
\-- if we\'re going to be spending a lot of money, these are where the
investments should be made to best achieve that vision, whether it\'s
environment or energy.

And if you think, right now we\'ve got two big crunches \-- we\'ve got
global warming, whether or not you believe it, believe it, it\'s real. I
mean, I had \-- I went to a seminar by a group of very prominent earth
scientists last spring, and I came away \-- I\'ve got a 3-year old
granddaughter \-- really came away depressed, because I want her to have
the same quality of life in the United States that I\'ve had growing up.
And some of what you hear, if you really let the numbers \-- they\'re
daunting. But as engineers, maybe we can solve some of that.

And the other is, our use of energy. And in one sense, people say energy
is really costing a lot now, it\'s really going to screw our economy,
but we had, since World War II or before \-- for 50 years we had the
ability to use cheap energy, and the real question is, did we use it the
correct way? And, I think that\'s a question that is really coming back
to haunt us now.

Now, energy in the United States is priced the way it is the way it is
around the rest of the world \-- how do adapt to that and what do we do
with that? What are the solutions, how is the European Union looking at
it? What are some of the Asian countries doing? Even China is beginning
to talk about environmental policy, if you can sort of see that, so you
need the vision.

And then, where do we make these investments? The investments, you\'re
going to make them, because first of all, the United States \-- if
nothing, technology, and little kids like to play with toys and do all
of that great stuff, because we think it will solve problems, and it
will solve problems.

But, if we\'re solve a million little problems every place we\'re not,
maybe, missing the two or three big problems that we need to be looking
at in terms of what is, how much do we invest in, congestion and road
prices. Do we need it every place? Do we need it for everything? There
are different ways of having road pricing \-- parking is one thing.

China \-- when I first went to China in the mid-eighties, they didn\'t
have road pricing, they just didn\'t let trucks into the cities during
the day. And you couldn\'t get into the city during the day. It was a
different kind of government there. But, in a sense, there are different
solutions to problems. I think one is, get the big picture, and then
begin to fill in the blanks.

Steven Godwin: I hope that your thesis is correct, because I wonder
where else are we going to get the innovation. After all, transportation
is pretty mature, the networks aren\'t going to change a lot, the
vehicles have changed only incrementally \-- they do change and they\'re
getting better and better, but they\'re still pretty incremental.

This just strikes me as to one area where there\'s opportunities for
real breakthroughs. And the trick is \-- how do you structure it? How do
you make the investments to capture those? That\'s the hard part,
because it all depends on context \-- where are the opportunities? You
have to think about the institutional rigidities that we have, and how
do you work through those and around those, because you probably can\'t
change them.

I hope it\'s true, I think it\'s a tough challenge to make.

Joseph Sussman: I think it\'s a worthy goal, whether we can achieve it
is less clear, but it\'s certainly a stretch goal for the programs.

Jerry Bracken: I will put on my professor hat for you, I was a professor
at Yale, doing teaching for 12 years, my field is game theory,
associated with the military. And I\'m quite dubious about the role of
information, if it\'s total, and that\'s getting back to the comment I
made before.

But, when everyone gets information, everybody is on the same playing
field, and again, it becomes a zero-sum game, a full information game,
with zero sum in terms of getting around on the capacity constrained
networks.

So, our problem is capacity. And the only way we saw to use your
capacity sufficiently is to price it. I saw no other way of pricing the
impact of paying for the increase in infrastructure. It\'s a fairly
simple issue.

I agree completely with your comments about land use and people\'s
choices of where they live, and the usefulness of people living in the
center city, or toward the center city. But you can think of the United
States as a bunch of Washington\'s with a beltway, and the spokes. And
the beltway is busy all day in both directions, or almost all day, and
the spokes are jammed in the morning, and jammed at night. And you have
to do something about that. You can\'t build your way out of how
intelligence and information is going to be helpful. I\'m not sure. But
I\'m not too optimistic.

Shelley Row: Bryan?

Bryan Mistele: Our company does traffic prediction and traffic analysis.
What we found is, giving information to people, people take alternative
routes, they tend to move their commuter time, so it does have a real
impact on travel time from point A to point B, as traffic diffuses
across the system, which in many ways is the same thing, I think, for
congestion pricing. Your hope is to get people off of the key congested
roads during the peak hours of the day, and diffuse down to the rest of
the system.

Jerry Bracken: I agree with the latter part, but the former point, you
have constrained capacity.

Bryan Mistele: Well, you run out of capacity, no matter what. Is it your
goal to sort of solve the short-term problem until you can get
additional capacity into the system?

Buzz Paaswell: For those of you who want to understand London, Transport
London has a website, I guess a number of you have looked at it, and
they have annual reports, and really amazing data. And what they\'re
finding in London \-- yes, you have congestion pricing, the word
congestion, you have congestion. You want to either improve vehicle
movement through the city, or improve average speeds.

And when the Mayor of New York says he wants clean air and everything
else, those are worthy objectives, but those aren\'t necessarily
congestion pricing objectives, those are other kinds of objectives.

What they found in London, and when you make it easier for people to get
through the center of the city, what you\'re really doing \-- as
transportation people know \-- is you\'re reducing the travel time, or
you\'re improving the accessibility of the region \-- it makes it more
valuable. The more accessible, the more valuable. And so in London, a
couple of years after they had congestion pricing, traffic started to
increase in the center of the city, people wanted to get in there again,
and they\'re willing to pay the congestion pricing. So, Livingston
raised the toll from 8 to 12 pounds and he extended the area for a
number of reasons, and it seems to be working.

So, the congestion pricing itself sounds good, but you\'re not going to
keep all of those people out of the center of the city forever,
especially if there is value being there.

And I think what you want in the idea in Los Angeles, is you need
alternative modes at the same place where you need to re-think city
structure.

I think one of the points that you were making before about the
environment, is if we make the roads, if we price things, and make it
more difficult, let\'s say, or onerous to get from A to B, maybe that
will be an impetus to change land use around other nodes, other than the
nodes in the center of the city. And I think that could be one of the
driving forces, that is why the vision \-- you want to keep people \--
people want quality of life, people don\'t want to live a certain way.
Whether they want to live in the middle of the city, or want to live in
the suburbs, or want to live in the country, and want to be able to
support the quality of life. And, I think most people don\'t knowingly
want to harm the environment. And then they want good schools, and all
of the other things, and live near people like them.

So, you put that all together, how can we \-- how can transportation
help solve that problem, rather than just solve the capacity problem?

Shelley Row: Well, on that note, we\'re almost out of time. And what I
would like to do, is to use that as our jumping-off point for what
we\'re going to do tomorrow.

I appreciate all of this discussion, I\'m very excited about digging
into this more tomorrow, and you all are exactly right on \-- I don\'t
think you could have set us up better, what we want to come out of
tomorrow\'s discussion with, are those few key focus points for this
program, to move into the next stage, wherever that is.

We will talk tomorrow some more about trends, we will talk specifically
about vision \-- what is it that we would see in the world for ITS,
wildly successful. We actually did that exercise with the staff, we
called it \"going wishing,\" and so we\'re going to go wishing tomorrow
for what our big vision is, and what is the ITS portion of it that we
can look forward to achieving.

I\'m very optimistic, I appreciate Joe bringing out the question about
what can this program do to really be a catalyst for change in a very
meaningful way, and that is what we want to get out of our discussion
tomorrow, so we\'re not setting bar too high, just finding a way to
change the world tomorrow.

**Opportunity for Public Comments**

With that, let me just open it up, there are other people here, is there
anyone else who would like to make a comment about today or put a
question on the table for us for later?

**Wrap-up and Guidance for Day 2 Activities**

Wonderful, let me just reiterate again, we start at 8:00 tomorrow, and
we will start off with discussion, you all will be very much in the mix
the entire day tomorrow. Please do get here early to go through the
security process. We will have people available at 7:30 to escort you
in.

And let me just ask you for one more bit of feedback \-- how did it go
today? I know you\'ve gotten just a lot of information and haven\'t had
a lot of opportunity to talk to us. But just give me a little bit of
quick sense on feedback from today\'s meeting \-- anybody? Thoughts,
comments?

Alfred Foxx: I thought the panel was very interesting.

Joseph Sussman: The word \"saturated\" comes to my mind.

Shelley Row: Tomorrow will be a little less absorbing and a whole lot
more discussing and debating, so come ready to debate with us on the big
ideas.

Thank you, again, for your time. Thank you to the panel.

Joseph Sussman: Are we back in this room tomorrow?

Shelley Row: We are back in this room tomorrow. Take your things with
you.

Michael Replogle: Is there any way we can get water in here tomorrow?

Shelley Row: I have to apologize for that. You have no idea what we went
through just to bring lunch in tomorrow. So I apologize, we\'re not able
to provide you with coffee or anything. But, we will see what we can do
in terms of water.

Sorry about that.

(Adjourned 4:50 p.m.)