ITS Program Advisory Committee (ITS PAC) Advisory Memo to U.S. DOT

Number 1

May 29, 2008

[Introduction]{.underline}

On March 13, 2008, the ITS Program Advisory Committee (ITS PAC) met at
DOT HQ in Washington, DC. Minutes and supporting documents from the
meeting have already been distributed by JPO staff. This memo was
prepared by Joseph Sussman (chair) and Robert Denaro (co-chair) and
vetted by the committee and constitutes the committee's considered views
and advice to the USDOT with respect to ITS and related programs as
presented.

While the committee had two meetings prior to the March 13, 2008
session---one by conference call and the other in Washington\-\-- this
was the first meeting since Joseph Sussman and Robert Denaro were named
as chair and co-chair respectively. Accordingly Sussman chaired the
meeting.

Given this is the first committee-prepared communication to JPO, we
begin by laying out the "rules of engagement".

[Rules of Engagement]{.underline}

Role of ITS PAC - The role of ITS PAC as the name suggests is advisory;
we have no executive power. We will simply advise JPO on ways to further
the ITS program. At the same time the ITS PAC provides an *independent*
view to JPO; indeed it is our independence that creates the value of the
committee's inputs. The committee will produce a written output after
each meeting, vetted by the committee for consensus, that will
constitute the "advice" of the committee to JPO. The committee can also
respond to JPO requests for advice between meetings.

ITS View - The committee will take a broad view of ITS. ITS and the
transportation system at large constitute a complex socio-technical
system and the committee will bring a *systems approach* to its
deliberations. To that end, the committee sees itself as reviewing "ITS"
within the federal US government, and not simply the JPO and USDOT. So
for example, programs related to ITS at the Departments of Commerce and
Homeland Security are important for us to understand. Indeed, even more
broadly, to do our task effectively, we must be concerned how the
federal role in the ITS area relates to the roles of the private sector
and the research community, including advising on the structuring of
organizational roles, relationships between the public and private
sectors, and relationships between the federal, state and local
government in the ITS context. We suggest there is still some
ambivalence and uncertainty about what the appropriate federal role
should be. This will be a continuing area of discussion.

The committee will approach ITS both from the perspectives of the
individual surface modes and from an intermodal/ multimodal perspective.
This dual focus is important. Within each mode, the issues are often
unique and require unique treatment; at the same time, an
intermodal/multimodal perspective is needed to assure broader
opportunities are not missed. Both perspectives are vital to the
long-term success of ITS and indeed the transportation system more
broadly in the U.S.

In accord with this broad systems view of ITS, in the first meeting we
took a strategic view of ITS, and how it relates to other USDOT
transportation programs and studies; hence we had discussions of the UTC
program; the RITA role in helping to structure the USDOT RD&T strategic
planning process; and the National Surface Transportation policy and
Revenue Study Commission. We will continue to take that broad
perspective in our further deliberations.

[Comments on ITS Program Goals]{.underline}

The committee sees the goals of the ITS program as being
multidimensional. Those stated by JPO were mobility, safety, the
environment \-- the committee was pleased to see the addition of the
environmental goal since our last meeting in November 2007 when the
committee spoke out on the need for an environmental perspective\-- and
21^st^ century institutions, innovations, and partnerships. These goals
reflect vital national transportation priorities---dealing with
congestion, improving safety, environmental protection and enabling the
deployment of new transportation technologies through institutional
innovation. All of these goals should be considered from an integrated
systems perspective.

The committee notes that the program goals appropriately reflect that
the ITS program is not simply technology but must relate to a variety of
political, social and deployment issues. With respect to the current
goals and focus areas, the committee felt that explicitly tracing their
interconnections and relationships would help in creating a more
integrated sense of the ITS Program.

Various committee comments on the goals and focus areas were
incorporated in the edited minutes. In addition, the committee suggests
a further goal: *universal access* to the transportation system as
facilitated by ITS technologies. We note that if one puts together 1)
mobility and safety as an enabler of economic development, 2) the
environment, considering the impacts of the transportation enterprise on
the environment, broadly defined, and 3) universal access, which deals
with questions of social equity, we have the classic idea of
*sustainability* as an overarching goal of the ITS program.

Specifically, the committee suggests adding the following additional
goal:

***ITS-enabled Universal Access to the US Transportation System***

The proposed focus area under this goal is

*Conduct research on and enable deployment of means by which all
citizens can access the full mobility and information benefits of the US
transportation system through ITS technologies*

[Further Cross-cutting Comments on the Program]{.underline}

*Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII)*

VII, being studied through SAFE TRIP 21, aims toward a launch of
important demonstration technologies for the New York World Congress in
November 2008. Some specificity on what can be expected for the New York
meeting would be helpful. Currently the idea is to allow private sector
companies and public sector organizations to form partnerships for field
tests. What will emerge from that is uncertain; we trust more
specificity will be forthcoming soon. We have concerns that without some
leadership from USDOT, we may end up with a collection of demonstrations
that lack cohesion and consistency with the goals of the U.S. ITS
program.

*Outreach to University Transportation Centers (UTCs)*

There is a real opportunity with the UTC program, which has considerable
research support. The idea is that JPO could reach out to the UTCs to
suggest ITS-related research areas they might usefully address. We
suggest that many (not all) UTCs would view these suggestions as
friendly as they work to structure a relevant program. This outreach can
be expedited by attendance of JPO staff at the summer meeting of CUTC in
San Jose State University's Mineta Center in late June. Since UTC
operates within RITA, as does JPO, there is a natural opportunity for
interaction.

*Program Linkage*

We were presented with an interesting set of new goals and focus areas,
as an output from the recent JPO strategic planning process. We need a
better understanding of how those goals and focus areas link to the
current programs that were described to us during our November 2007
meeting.

*Public Acceptance*

At several points during the meeting the importance of public acceptance
of and enthusiasm for ITS was noted. The program will never be
successful unless the traveling public and commercial organizations
recognize the importance and value of ITS. Ways of creating public
acceptance and support should be discussed at subsequent meetings.

*Budget*

We spent very little time on budgets for the ITS programs in DOT. The
committee needs to develop a better understanding of program budget
elements in future meetings.

*Demand-side Activities*

The committee felt there was insufficient demand-side work in the ITS
program -- This includes not simply managing the transportation demand
we have more effectively, but changing the temporal and spatial patterns
of demand as an approach to the congestion and environmental issues we
face. Better balance between the substantially supply-side oriented
solutions currently on the table and demand-side alternatives is needed.

*Technology and Organizational Scanning*

Technology

There is a role for JPO in broad-based *technology scanning* to assure
that our ITS activities are advantaged by the most informed view of what
is going on technologically.

This includes scanning of international activities which may yield
insight into technology opportunities as well as early indications of
public acceptance and enthusiasm for ITS.

Organizational Models

JPO should collect information on organizational ITS deployment models
worldwide. Many countries in both the developed and developing world
have created organizational models that are largely not used here in the
US. Perhaps there are good reasons for this, but certainly we should be
informed about organizational alternatives.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The committee has developed a deeper, more comprehensive understanding
of the ITS program from the meetings it has held and from the detailed
material distributed to us by JPO and other DOT staff. We thank all
those who presented to us and those that participated in facilitating
the meeting.

We hope this memo is of value to the JPO and other participants in DOT
programs and we look forward to subsequent meetings and opportunities to
contribute to the ITS program.