**ITS Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC)**

**Advisory Memo to USDOT #2**

**October 31, 2008**

[Introduction]{.underline}

On July 31^st^ and August 1^st^ 2008 the ITS Program Advisory Committee
(ITSPAC) met at the Marriott Courtyard near USDOT 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; it
constitutes the committee's considered views and advice to the USDOT
with respect to ITS and related programs.

The agenda to the meeting is attached. The chair, Joseph Sussman,
conducted the first day's agenda, and Robert Denaro, the vice chair,
conducted the second day's agenda. The committee wishes to thank those
who presented to us. This included RITA Administrator Paul Brubaker, JPO
director Shelley Row, Gary Ritter, Scott Belcher, President of ITS
America, Linda Dodge, Steve Sill, Valerie Briggs, Paul Pisano, Brian
Cronin, Yehuda Gross and Kate Hartman. All the presentations were useful
and clear. The committee was able to get through a substantial amount of
material in a relatively short period of time. The program staff is
especially to be commended for its succinct descriptions of their
program elements.

At this meeting, the committee devoted considerable attention to the ITS
JPO goals, and a section below describes the committee's perspectives on
those goals and their appropriateness. Also considerable time was spent
on the current ITS program and a section below discusses the committee's
views on the various projects contained therein. But before that, as
context for those discussions to come, the committee first makes several
general observations.

[Observations]{.underline}

**Future research advice**

The current research program, including the following elements --

Next-Generation 9-1-1, Emergency Transportation Operations, Rural
Safety, Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems, Vehicle Infrastructure
Integration Proof of Concept, Cooperative Intersection Collision
Avoidance Systems, Clarus, Congestion Initiative, Intelligent
Transportation Operation Testing to Mitigate Congestion, Integrated
Corridor Management, Mobility Services for All Americans, and Electronic
Freight Management

\--is reviewed later in this document**.** It was characterized by JPO
as, and indeed is, in its twilight period. The program is about to
undergo a substantial transition, as research in the existing program
elements reaches a close. For this reason the views of the advisory
committee will, we hope, be especially useful in shaping the program of
the future.

In particular, in the future the committee hopes to give useful advice
on the question of gaps or "white space" in the research program. What
areas are not being effectively pursued either by JPO or the community
at large is something worth discussing. Some possible examples of "white
space" include system management, ITS and the environment,
transportation network management, the application of an overall
engineering systems approach to ITS and the development of algorithms
for network management. The committee noted the importance of
understanding institutional barriers to deployment, and commented that
issues such as congestion relief via ITS are perhaps no longer hardware
problems; rather, effectively using the real-time data collected and
overcoming institutional barriers to deployment may well be more
important in improving congestion. The ITS research program should
reflect that. The reauthorization of SAFETEA LU approaches and
understanding how the ITS program fits within this new transportation
legislation is important. So the "white space" question cited above is
germane.

**USDOT role in ITS research and development**

Further, the appropriate federal role in ITS research and deployment
needs to be well understood as the new legislation -- which will contain
the definition of the new ITS research directions -- evolves. The
committee noted the importance of USDOT as a leader on the
transportation scene, and in ITS in particular. That is not to say that
USDOT or the ITS JPO needs to dominate the ITS agenda; rather they can
play an important role as facilitator, coordinator and shaper of the ITS
program working together with their partners in the states and the
private sector.

**New York City ITS World Congress**

The New York City ITS World Congress is on the immediate horizon. At the
March meeting of the ITSPAC, some concern was raised about how ready the
US is to present ITS demonstrations that show the value and importance
of US-based ITS research and development. At the July/August meeting a
considerable part of the agenda was devoted to hearing the plans of both
USDOT and ITS America for their demonstrations. As a general
proposition, we came away more comfortable that US work of value will be
demonstrated at the World Congress in November 2008.

The committee noted the importance of properly dealing with the media at
the World Congress. Having good demonstrations is of course a
requirement, but properly packaging them for the media, especially in a
major media center like New York City, is of great importance. The
committee was assured that JPO and ITS America were fully cognizant of
the importance of the media in the World Congress, and were taking
appropriate steps to work effectively with them.

**Linkage to University Transportation Centers Program**

The committee restated its interest in having JPO cooperate with the
universities funded by the University Transportation Centers (UTC)
program of RITA. Upwards of 60 centers have been established around the
country, many of which could greatly help in advancing the JPO ITS
agenda. Outreach to those universities to achieve that end is important.
While JPO has been working to build those linkages to UTC, this is
perhaps going more slowly than we had hoped, and the committee urges JPO
to expand and extend its efforts to build this potentially valuable
partnership.

[Committee Views on the Goals of the JPO ITS Program]{.underline}

In our ITSPAC meeting of July 31 -- August 1, and especially on the
first day, there was a good deal of active discussion on the question of
*goals* for the ITS program with various views being expressed by the
committee. The RITA perspective was to have a very strong focus on
*safety* as the overarching goal of the ITS program, including an
aggressive goal of reducing crashes by 90% by 2030. We agree that
emphasizing a single goal provides focus and clarity, and safety appears
to the committee to be an appropriate goal on which to focus.

At the same time, the committee notes that in its previous advisory
committee memo, it urged a "systems approach" to ITS, noting that
outcomes of the ITS programs at JPO occur on multiple dimensions.

*"The committee sees the goals of the ITS program as being
multidimensional. Those stated by JPO were mobility, safety, the
environment.......... and 21^st^ century institutions, innovations, and
partnership. 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."*

In addition, the committee suggested an 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"*

Indeed it is hard to imagine a major transportation program -- and ITS
certainly fits that description -- that does not take a multidimensional
view of its outcomes. Sectary Peters' recent statement about new ways of
thinking about and conceptualizing the field of transportation mentions
a number of goals -- congestion, environmental, safety and others -- and
recognizes the vital need for improvements on all of these dimensions.

The attraction of the safety goal is that the other goals and objectives
will virtually all contribute to safety. For example, reducing
congestion is likely to reduce accidents as well. The reverse is also
likely true. Improving mobility and environmental gains may well come
about as a result of safety enhancements, particularly if efforts are
directed towards advancing these goals together with attention to
managing secondary impacts.

Therefore, while we agree the focus on safety is appropriate, we feel
that these other goals should be acknowledged and treated explicitly,
even if within the framework of the safety goal. More specifically, the
ITS program should establish quantifiable levels of performance for
these other goals -- just as you have defined the 90% crash reduction
goal for safety -- and measure program performance over time. For
example, the ITS program should identify the degree to which it might
contribute to helping the U.S. transportation sector reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by 2030 by increasing the efficiency of transportation
networks and managing travel demand through pricing, enhanced modal
options, and new traveler information and services. Other ITS
technologies such as eco-driving may be of value as well and should have
goals defined.

As for the RITA/JPO goal of a 90% reduction of crashes by 2030, this is
clearly a bold statement with potential for catalyzing the agency and
public and private participants. However, the committee would feel more
comfortable if some analysis were done to establish the achievability of
this goal, perhaps breaking it down into various ITS technologies with
potential for reducing crashes and their contributions to the overall
goal. It would be wise to identify needed R&D and a timeline of
development and field deployment, with interim goals, to reach the
eventual goal of 90%. This approach would validate the 90% goal and make
it more credible. In addition, we stress the importance of a top-down
systems engineering approach to analysis of the 90% goal, technologies
and research available to attack the goal, and programs needed to move
this goal toward reality.

**Commentary on reaching the safety goal**

The committee noted that because a large percentage of crashes and
fatalities are due to driver behavior, we must address that behavior to
approach this goal. A corollary of large-scale reduction in highway
fatalities, therefore, would be "cars (vehicles) that can't crash". It
is useful to address this concept and vision in terms of its constituent
parts across the ITS program.

There are essentially four domains to ITS in a "car that can't crash".
Referring to an earlier JPO concept of the 360 degree awareness car, the
first domain is within the car, monitoring driver behavior. New
technologies and data sources enable safety enhancements with speed
limits, driver behavior measurement, eyelid movement, alcohol sensing
and others.

The second domain is the "line-of-sight" domain, where "sight" could
refer to any of a number of sensors including radar, lidar, video,
infrared, etc. These sensors allow a car to sense objects and conditions
around it. The auto industry is very actively researching and developing
this technology, and the IVBSS Program is contributing to the technology
in this domain.

The third domain is the "static far field" domain, the road ahead.
Digital roadmaps can provide such static information as sharp curves,
stop signs, steep inclines, known accident-prone locations, and other
challenging driving conditions. Again, the IVBSS program touched on some
of these attributes.

The fourth and final domain is the "dynamic far field" domain, changing
conditions ahead. This might include low dynamic conditions such as
construction zones or weather changes, or high dynamic conditions such
as traffic accidents, other motor vehicles violating intersections, and
pedestrians and bicyclists in and near the right-of-way. Clearly, this
domain is the subject of the VII program and CICAS.

The point is that to achieve "cars that can't crash", and make feasible
the goal of 90% reduction in crashes, these four domains about the car
must be addressed in a seamless, highly integrated and complementary
fashion. No single domain will accomplish the goal. We believe that this
integrated concept is essential for addressing the safety goal of
RITA/JPO.

**The ideal federal role in reaching the safety goal**

This leads to the question of the ideal role for the federal ITS Program
in addressing the goal of 90% reduction in crashes. Should its approach
to research, field operational tests, guidance and other contributions
be identical in all of these four complementary domains? Our answer is
clearly no. Private industry is developing in-vehicle technologies of
the "line-of-sight" domain. Private industry, with some public-private
partnership activity, is developing the "static far field" domain. And,
because of the need for infrastructure, the USDOT has been driving the
development of the "dynamic far field" domain with VII. However, we note
that the USDOT has revised its approach to VII, acknowledging that the
communications infrastructure may well be a mixture of government
solutions, DSRC, and existing private communication channels. So this
domain is becoming more of a public/private partnership as well.

However while ITS JPO's research role may be limited in some domains,
its leadership role remains. All parties, public or private, must adopt
and focus on the 90% goal if it is to be achieved. JPO must provide
*leadership* across all domains, whether the source of technology and
development is private or public. The government must play a leadership
role in working with the private sector in developing a roadmap for
reaching the 2030 goal. And in the case of necessary technologies in
which the private industry is not investing, then the government may
need to invest more directly in the technology, such as VII.

Leadership can take many forms, including forums, initiatives,
standards, institutional issues, legal issues, public awareness and
academia involvement. Government rulemaking and tax incentives are tools
that may be considered. In its leadership role, ITS JPO should consider
all tools that can maximize the chances of success in developing and
deploying the ITS technology that can create "cars that can't crash" and
achieving the bold safety goal articulated by RITA.

[Committee Comments on Current ITS Programs]{.underline}

On the second day of the meeting, the JPO organized a high-level review
of current programs and projects. The JPO asked for Committee responses
to three questions for each of the projects:

1.  Are these current and future activities likely to advance either the
    state of the practice or state of the art in intelligent
    transportation systems?

2.  Are the technologies being researched and tested likely to be
    deployed by users? If not, what are the barriers to deployment?

3.  What are the appropriate roles for government and the private sector
    in investing in these existing and future research and technologies
    being considered?

A summary of the Committee's comments is given below.

**Next-Generation 9-1-1**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This project should make significant contributions to upgrading and
standardizing the public safety access point (PSAP) infrastructure.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

Deployment will depend heavily on buy-in by the States and local
governments. The requirement for local funding to upgrade PSAPs is a
significant barrier and could end up with a patchwork. It may be prudent
to develop some kind of funding and program of Federal grants based on
size of jurisdiction or other criteria.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

Achieving standardized interoperability is a key government role and, if
possible, funding support for PSAP upgrade and deployment management.

**Emergency Transportation Operations**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This was difficult for the Committee to assess since we only saw a
narrow piece of the total program. It appears to be application of
existing technology, however. There may be a need for standardization of
technology implementing these features.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

Deployment is likely, but scalability issues may result in very regional
deployment and there would not be a high probability of uniform
nationwide deployment without additional incentive from the Federal
Government.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

Pursuing this technology for emergency operations is good fit for the
government, and achieving interoperability is an important goal that
would need Federal Government support.

**Rural Safety**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This program appears focused on application of mature technology,
although that application is novel.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

It appears that the infrastructure investment required would be a
challenge at the local level. For widespread deployment and consistency
of implementation, some Federal program is probably needed.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

Providing focus on rural issues is a good Federal role, but this
initiative needs follow-op to encourage or subsidize deployment.

**Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

The contributions of this project to the human interface issue and
intersection of multiple warnings is a contribution of technology, but
the basic technology for each of the warning systems is being worked on
by the automotive industry, and the particular implementation of these
subsystems in this project risk obsolescence over the duration of the
project.

However, some of this technology is being worked by OEMs and suppliers,
but speed of deployment is the issue that needs emphasis. This study
could accelerate deployment.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

This technology is highly likely to deploy, but this USDOT project can
play an important role in accelerating that deployment and moving toward
standard fit on vehicles instead of the usual industry rollout of
options on high-class vehicles. The industry needs guidance and
leadership to move from the scattered application implementation that is
happening today across automakers to a more consistent deployment for
longitudinal and lateral control. Gathering data and statistics for
NHTSA to review and supporting NCAP ratings are very important
deployment catalysts, as well as rule making if safety improvements can
be shown to be significant. These technologies can also support
time-distance-place based pricing of road use which promises to reduce
accidents, congestion, greenhouse gases, and other pollution.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

The Committee believes that the USDOT should provide leadership and
"show the way\" to inform the public of the advantages of this
technology and provide leadership to the auto industry. Current tools of
NCAP ratings and rule-making are very important and effective roles for
the government, when appropriate. The JPO should explore with NHTSA the
potential of adopting rules to facilitate timely universal deployment of
driver feedback and insurance pricing systems to advance national
safety, energy conservation, and environmental goals as well as
discouraging aggressive driving in favor of calm driving styles. The
government may also play a role in reviewing systems, possibly including
testing and certification.

**Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Proof of Concept**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

While this program does not appear to be advancing the state-of-the-art
specifically, USDOT's leadership is significant in demonstrating
proof-of-concept and dedicating frequency spectrum for this application.
However, with the evolution of this concept to involve private
telecommunication networks in addition to DSRC, the state-of-the-art is
clearly in the private sector.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

Although VII is receiving significant attention by the USDOT and by
industry, it is not clear at this point what the system and
infrastructure might look like. The decision on the mix between
government infrastructure (DSRC) and a common, standardized private
infrastructure is critical to ensure interoperability and access for
all. The challenge of investing in sufficient vehicle and roadside
beacon penetration for the system to be effective appears daunting, so
it is likely that satellite, cellular, Wi-Fi and/or other technologies
will be required to play a large role. Efforts to develop a thorough
system architectural strategy should be intensified in cooperation with
key stakeholders. In addition, the Committee recommends additional work
on the intersection of on-vehicle, autonomous technology and V2I or V2V.
These systems are interrelated and should be addressed in an integrated
fashion.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

There is a difficult transition occurring of moving from a dedicated
DSRC system to a hybrid of DSRC and private communications
infrastructure. The government needs to provide leadership once again,
possibly with standardization to achieve interoperability and the
motivation for deployment. The United States is facing urgent problems
of transportation system financing, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic
safety, and congestion which universal VII system deployment could help
address. USDOT should make it a high priority to convene key
stakeholders in this arena to develop a national strategy for universal
deployment of basic VII systems as needed to support effective
time-distance-place based road pricing and system management, smart
transit system management, real-time traveler information systems, and
other VII applications across the nation in the coming decade.

**Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This application appears to advance the application of mature technology
rather than state-of-the-art technology per se. However, this is an
important application and in need of government leadership.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

CICAS could be a significant contributor to road safety. However, there
is a challenge of identifying sufficient local funding for deployment
and also of achieving standardization for interoperability across the
nation. While the demonstrations of this technology are impressive,
real-world conditions may limit the applications to only the most robust
ones.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

This is an appropriate effort for the government because it involves
intersection infrastructure, which is unlikely to have sufficient
private sector investment. In addition, the Federal Government must work
with state and local agencies to achieve sufficient density of
deployment to make a meaningful contribution to intersection safety.

**Clarus**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

The application is promising, but appears to be an application of mature
technology.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

This project faces the challenges of a lack of public awareness of the
benefits and the regional deployment model. If the benefits to safety
are realized only where weather-related accidents are a significant
factor, then the actual number of avoided accidents may not be
sufficient to justify local investment.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

This is an appropriate role for the government, especially to manage the
interfaces with NWS and NOAA.

**Congestion Initiative, Intelligent Transportation Operation Testing to
Mitigate Congestion**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This project appears to be an application of existing technology with
apparently good results.

Likely to Deploy?

As implemented by the current Administration, the program has aimed
first and foremost to foster implementation of bundled strategies that
simultaneously better manage, operate, and price existing road capacity
while supporting improved public transportation options. By using a
competitive incentive funding grant strategy, the initiative has spurred
dozens of cities to advance proposals for such activities, with funding
awarded to the most promising sites for near-term deployment. This is a
useful model to spur innovation and should be replicated in other USDOT
program activities.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

This is an appropriate government role but it should be integrated with
private sector solutions for parts of the problem as well. USDOT and
Congress should consider strategies to foster more performance-based
funding and performance-based contracting initiatives that build on and
extend the model established by the Urban Partnership Program and
Congestion Reduction Pilot Program elements of the USDOT Congestion
Initiative.

**Integrated Corridor Management**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This project appears to use existing models with some level of
integration and user interface and application.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

This program is focused on advancing an integrated set of best practice
techniques into deployment in a number of regions, documenting
performance and lessons learned. The general approaches from these pilot
sites could be much more widely deployed in the future, with appropriate
efforts to encourage and disseminate them.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

This is an appropriate project for the government.

**Mobility Services for All Americans**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This project appears to bring existing technology to these groups who
don\'t have it currently. It appears to be more of an administrative
issue of managing vertical and horizontal activities within government.
There is duplication in transportation services provided by different
social service agencies. This project seeks to coordinate these services
for much higher efficiency of transportation service delivery.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

There is a possibility for much more widespread deployment beyond the
pilot sites, but this is likely only if there are clear requirements for
social service transportation agencies to coordinate services. Such
requirements could be created by Congressional or executive agency
actions. Such coordination would improve the efficiency of use of scare
funds and foster reduced dependence on imported oil, reduced pollution,
and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

This is an appropriate role. It is important to call on various
government-funded social service and health agencies to better
coordinate services and to hold them accountable for deployment of these
coordination technologies and their success.

**Electronic Freight Management**

Advance the State-of-the-Art?

This project appears to be an application of existing technology.

Likely to Deploy and Barriers?

The deployment is most likely by private industry. The Federal
Government needs a clear exit strategy for this project.

Appropriate Government and Private Sector Roles?

Attention to commercial transportation needs is important, so the
government's leadership here is warranted. However the government needs
a defined exit strategy.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

Again, the committee thanks the staff of JPO, as well as committee
member Scott Belcher, President of ITS America, for preparing an
excellent set of presentations in areas requested by the committee. We
hope our observations and our critiques will be of value to ITS JPO and
indeed the ITS community in general, and look forward to continuing our
work and future opportunities to comment upon and advise JPO on its ITS
programs.

Attachment: ITS Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda, July 31-August 1,
2008