**OPERATIONS IN THE 21^ST^ CENTURY**

**25^th^ Annual Meeting of ITS-A, July 4, 2025**

##### Address by President

#### 

#### 

#### I. INTRODUCTION

*Washington, DC, July 4, 2025*. As we celebrate the 25^th^ Anniversary
of TEA-21, I am pleased to provide this overview of progress in surface
transportation over the last 25 years. While recent *technical* advances
always grab the headlines, history shows that it is the *combination* of
technical and institutional innovation that really produces change.

One of the most profound changes in surface transportation has been the
shift to "systems operations and management". In retrospect, it is
astonishing how far we have come. The notion that infrastructure is
*passive* or that vehicles are *dumb* has clearly been vanquished. While
congestion has not vanished, it has been *managed*. Today, new operating
institutions *aggressively manipulate* facilities and services, adapting
them to changing demand patterns on a network-wide scale for maximum
efficiency. Incidents such as weather, events, construction and crashes
are *anticipated* -- not just responded to. Travelers and shippers make
*informed choices* tailored to individual preferences, capitalizing on
the availability of complete network performance information. Dramatic
strides in accident, injury and fatality reductions have been achieved.
Standard vehicle equipment provides *hazard warning, crash avoidance and
collision notification* features, particularly important in rural areas.
Everywhere, drivers also benefit from convenience features such as
*navigation and engine diagnostics* as well as an array of *external
communication* links.

[Basic Changes during the last 25 Years]{.underline}

The impact of these changes on service levels has not been trivial.
Compared to 25 years ago, systems owners actively manage the
infrastructure \-- fully capitalizing on available technology. The chart
below will remind you of how far we have come since 2001.

+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **ACTIVITY**  | **2001 STATUS**        | **BASIC CHANGES BY 2025**   |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Traffic     | -   Spotty             | -   Complete coverage of    |
| management**  |     applications as    |     freeways and arterials  |
|               |     budget permits     |     via standardized        |
| **(**control  |                        |     packages                |
| features and  | -   Low intensity      |                             |
| coverage)     |     coverage           | -   Aggressive control      |
|               |                        |     features including      |
|               | -   Mild applications  |     lane, ramp, speed       |
|               |                        |     controls                |
|               |                        |                             |
|               |                        | -   Full time, traffic      |
|               |                        |     adaptive features       |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Incident      | -   Reactive via       | -   Proactive strategies    |
| management    |     negotiated         |     with prepositioned      |
|               |     protocols          |     equipment and single    |
| *             |                        |     control protocols       |
| *(**detection | -   respecting         |                             |
| and           |     authority          |                             |
| clearance)    |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Weather     | -   Macro level        | -   Micro-scale RWIS with   |
| management**  |     prediction         |     proactive treatment     |
|               |                        |                             |
| **            |                        |                             |
| (**prediction |                        |                             |
| and proactive |                        |                             |
| treatment     |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Peak          | -   Modest application | -   Maximum use of          |
| Management    |     of metering and    |     reversible lanes and    |
|               |     roadside messaging |     metering                |
| **            |                        |                             |
| (**Maximizing |                        | -   Push travel advisories  |
| reliability)  |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Bottleneck    | -   Focus on multiyear | -   Focus on flow-related   |
| Elimination   |     total              |     modifications and       |
|               |     reconstruction     |     control                 |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| System        | -   Modest coverage on | -   Complete information    |
| condition     |     freeways           |     (freeway and arterial), |
| information   |                        |     available network wide  |
|               |                        |                             |
| **(**quality  |                        | -   From no-intrusive       |
| and coverage) |                        |     technology              |
|               |                        |                             |
|               |                        | -   Multimodal with         |
|               |                        |     intermodal coordination |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| User          | -   Public sector      | -   Real time route         |
| information   |     standard package   |     optimization with       |
| and security  |     via 511            |     predictive capabilities |
| services      |                        |                             |
|               | -   Early version of   | -   Full convenience        |
| (type of      |     Mayday service,    |     package including       |
| services      |     urban and rural    |     Mayday, navigation, net |
| available)    |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Traffic     | -   Early experiments  | -   Consistent application  |
| Enforcement** |     with automated     |     of variable and maximum |
|               |     speed enforcement  |     speed controls          |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Vehicle     | -   Introduction of    | -   Semi-automation with    |
| automation**  |     cruise control     |     cruise control          |
|               |                        |                             |
| (improve      |                        | -   Automated transit       |
| safety,       |                        |     operations              |
| capacity**)** |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Vehicle     | -   First generation   | -   Adaptive cruise         |
| Safety        |     driver warning     |     control, road           |
| Systems**     |     systems            |     departure, lane change  |
| (collision    |                        |     & Collision avoidance   |
| road          | -   Automated          |     standard equipment      |
| departure,    |     collision          |                             |
| intersection, |     notification       | -   Special equipment on    |
| merge, etc)   |                        |     CVOs and transit        |
|               | -   Vision enhancement |     vehicles;               |
|               |     systems            |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Work Zone   | -   Contractor employs | -   Full deployment of      |
| traffic       |     standard package   |     automated warning and   |
| management    |                        |     traffic control         |
| during        |                        |     features                |
| maintenance** |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+
| **Premium     | -   Politicized        | -   Widespread availability |
| services      |                        |     of priced HOT lanes     |
| (special      |                        |                             |
| purpose)**    |                        |                             |
+---------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+

Behind these system and service improvements lie over two decades of
supportive institutional transitions \-- without which they would not
have been possible. Key transitions have included:

-   From preoccupation with physical *outputs* to performance-base
    *outcomes*

-   From scattered ITS *projects* to integrated regional smart *systems*

-   From a *public works* project culture to the business of *customer
    service*

-   From incident *response* to *proactive* approaches to incident
    minimization and reliability

-   From *fragmented* jurisdictions to *consolidated* metro operations
    enterprises

-   From government *monopoly* to new private-public *cooperation*

-   From *dumb* vehicles and passive infrastructure to integration of
    *smart* vehicles with managed networks

Thus, it is combination of technology and institutions that has brought
us the service we enjoy today.

[Service Today]{.underline}

Today in 2025, our multimodal systems are efficiently utilized as a
result of management applications charted above. Average travel times on
both expressways and arterials have lengthened only slightly since many
sources of delay have been progressively minimized and throughput
maximized. Peak period flows -- while heavy -- are more predictable --
as major bottlenecks have been redesigned. Signals now adapt to
variations in traffic level, thus eliminating unnecessary red light
idling. Meanwhile, the aggravating multihour back-ups from major crashes
or spills are a thing of the past as incident clearance times have been
progressively reduced. Construction and maintenance projects are
scheduled and carefully organized for minimum disruption. Snow and ice
slowdowns are also reduced with maximum pretreatment. Traveler assurance
services such as route finding and problem response have increased the
security of rural travel. Transit schedule variations are known and
transfers schedulable.

As a result of these management programs, the peak period delay in major
urban areas has been growing by less than a few seconds per year.
Incident delay \-- formerly over 50 per cent of total delay -- has been
cut in half. Overall, average travel times have actually been improved
in many major metropolitan areas \-- despite the continuing growth in
VMT.

Even more important, average travel time variability is down below 20
per cent. Today, we can accurately predict tomorrow's commute times and
appropriately adjust departure times and routing. The "buffer time"
needed for trip planning is quantifiable \-- a major boon for
just-in-time trip-making. In addition, any interruptions in service are
instantly communicated together with customized personal travel
advisories which suggest alternative routes around many problems. This
increased reliability and information availability has also increased
the attractiveness of transit travel. And for those really important
trips, priced premium lanes with guaranteed speeds are becoming
increasingly available -- for only \$1 per mile!

Building on turn of the Century market acceptance of in-vehicle safety
systems, telematics experienced unforeseen market penetration with
dramatic impacts on both crashes and their impacts. Despite the
continuing increase of VMT, the combination of crash avoidance
technology and crash worthiness design have caused crashes to be reduced
by 30 per cent while the injury and fatality rate has come down by
almost 50 percent. The benefits are widely felt -- not only in pain and
suffering but also in insurance costs and crash-related delays.

The widespread hybrid power plants have all but eliminated pollution
problems. Meanwhile, travelers are in continuous communication with
business and personal activities by their mobile information systems.
Thus, travel time has not only been reduced, but the risk, stress and
inefficiencies have been substantially decreased while the level of
amenities has been improved.

### 

### **II. THE LEGACY INERTIA**

The improvements described above did not take place overnight. As far
back as 2001, it was apparent that substantial relief through new
construction was not feasible in many metropolitan areas. VMT continued
to increase and transit barely held its own. While there were still many
bottlenecks to be eliminated and gaps to be closed, basic highway
network expansions were substantially constrained. Meanwhile peak
congestion and incidents and were progressively eating up available
capacity. Users were frustrated by unreliable service and lack of
information. In an increasing number of metro areas appeared to be
deteriorating -- relieved only where continuing urban sprawl offered an
outward escape from congestion.

At the same time, the institutional and program legacy of the 20^th^
Century presented substantial inertia to change.

-   There were still many urban regions where the priority of elected
    officials, industry stakeholders and transportation agencies
    remained the modest capacity additions that appeared feasible --
    despite the increasing evidence that little overall service
    improvement was provided.

-   The beneficial impacts of aggressive operations and management were
    not widely understood. No region had yet made a full commitment to
    systems deployment, coordination and management. The gap between
    state-of-the-practice and state-of-the-art in areas such as incident
    management was huge, unremarked and unmeasured.

-   Little performance information was available. Detection was
    installed on a fraction of the nation's roadways and transit
    schedule variations were unknown. Agencies had little incentive to
    collect data which they had no intention of using.

-   Agencies with operations responsibilities were separate fiefdoms,
    maintaining the status quo to such an extent that cities, states,
    police, emergency management acted like disparate organizations with
    their own centers and staff.

-   Within transportation agencies, the several activities impacting
    operations were stovepiped. ITS, signal improvements, event
    management, work zone maintenance-of-traffic and incident management
    were not part of a common planning and programming process and
    lacked sustainable funding resources.

-   At the national level, research and development in technology was at
    a low level, the intelligent vehicle program was limping along and
    government-industry cooperation was modest and uncertain

-   Private enterprise -- the nascent telematics industry, the freight
    and logistics community and would-be service providers \-- were held
    at arms length from infrastructure agencies. They either ignored
    government (telematics) or were limited to a narrow range of
    contract services (contractors).

-   The "Customer" (system users) --lacking means of communication with
    system owners \-- had little influence over how (or if) the systems
    were managed.

To this dilemma, no level of government offered a clear vision. In fact,
"trending" from 2001 would have been very discouraging. Despite the
parade of new technologies, there was good reason to be skeptical about
the likelihood of the significant institutional changes required to
capitalize on them. The stated objective of integrated systems
operations and management: "*fully capitalizing on existing facilities,
maintaining service in the light of dynamic conditions while providing a
range of new customer services"* seemed like technofantasy. How far we
have come in 25 years!

#### 

#### 

#### III. EARLY OPERATIONS INITIATIVES

The beginning of what we now call the systems operations "movement" had
its roots in ITS (a now out-of-use term) at the turn of the Century. The
concept of mainstreaming active systems management to improve
performance originated in a "National Dialogue" on Transportation
Operations" (as it was quaintly called) -- with its largely professional
and bureaucratic champions. Over time, the value of an intensive and
integrated program focus attracted a range of converts as the payoff
potential was demonstrated. The key developments are described below.

[Formalizing A New System Operations Mission]{.underline} -- The Surface
Transportation Act of 2003 ("T3") signaled recognition of need for a new
mission mix with a high priority on systems operations and management.
Responding to a growing consensus among key stakeholders, the initial
policy and legislative framework was established within the federal aid
program, mirroring the thinking of many state and local jurisdictions.
Key features of this pioneering legislation included a call for the
cooperative development of operations programs based on forming regional
operations consortiums. An important impetus was supplied by financial
incentives to use flexible funds for integrating a broad range of
operations and management initiatives. The legislation included the use
of performance improvements as the basis for planning and resource
allocation. While initially controversial, the appeal of explicit
congestion reduction and measured performance improvements led to a
dramatic reduction in Congressional earmarking as the logic of the
federal aid program became more defensible.

[Quality Performance Information Becomes Available]{.underline} \--
Improved data facilitated better performance analysis and regular
progress monitoring \-- which in turn both facilitated and validated the
effectiveness of systems operations and management. The roots of this
information impact go back to a crucial provision of "T3" which
authorized FHWA to partner with other public and private entities for
the purpose of instrumenting the NHS. The resulting non-profit,
*TravInfoCorp*, was able to deploy appropriate detection technology on
the entire NHS in only 4 years! The fine grain quality of the data
enabled the many services \-- public (511) and private \-- that now
routinely report, predict and compare travel conditions.

[An Increase in Customer-Accountability]{.underline} -- Supported by
detailed performance data, the complaints of now well-informed system
users provoked system owners (state and local governments) into more
intense systems operations and demand management. Demands from both the
freight and passenger communities focused on a new mix of desired
service attributes including travel time reliability, navigation and
security. On the freight side, global competitiveness encouraged
public-private efforts to accommodate truck movements -- including
provision of new intermodal links. Commuters began to demand aggressive
flow control to accommodate peaks. Legislatures and local government
councils insisted on regular reporting on the local congestion index and
benchmarked their programs and progress against peer jurisdictions.

[Spanning the Stovepipes]{.underline} \-- State and local government
took a variety of paths to aligning the disparate elements of their
operational activities (such as ITS, TOCs, MOT, RWIS, IM, HOTs and
others). Some imposed a common asset management framework over separate
units, while others consolidated all operations into single combined
Systems Management unit. By TRB's Williamsburg VI Conference on Planning
in 2010, a new federal-aid planning and programming process was
mainstreamed, incorporating both capital and operating strategies and
providing a level playing field for low cost, low impact, short-term
operational improvements side-by side with traditional capacity and
preservation investments.

[Benefits and Warrants of Standard Systems Deployment]{.underline} *\--*
Despite the logic of maximizing efficiency of existing facilities, it
wasn't until the federally-funded "Model Operators" pilot program of
TEA-4 that the impact of full deployment and aggressive management was
clearly demonstrated. In particular, the impact of systematic regional
deployment of standard packages of ITS infrastructure gained acceptance
for development as industry warrants. While the AASHTO/ITS-A Committee
took nearly a decade to develop the Manual on Uniform Systems Operations
(MUSOP), standardization that resulted substantially reduced the
barriers to more rapid deployment. Increased focus on customer-oriented
systems performance also stimulated widespread use of long life cycle
materials and redundant design features that reflected the philosophy on
minimum traffic disruption.

[Safety Payoffs from Automation]{.underline} -- The upward component of
the s-shaped curve in telematics was reached before the end of the first
decade of the Century, with first generation autonomous vehicle safety
features reaching a 50 per cent market share in new vehicles. Collision
notification, vision enhancement and adaptive cruise control
demonstrated strong customer appeal and industry confirmed the lesson
that "safety sells" The development of second generation intelligent
vehicle technology --based on increased automation - gained significant
public support and vehicle manufacturers, ever seeking product
differentiation, made unprecedented level of investment. "25 X 25"
became the slogan referring to the national goal of reducing traffic
fatalities to 25,000 by 2025.

[Sustainable Resources]{.underline} \-- FHWA's 2005 *Conditions and
Performance Report* to Congress highlighted the benefits of investments
in operations and provided the underpinning for new federal funding.
This analysis identified a \$15B backlog of systems operations and
management investments that had higher cost-effectiveness than any new
capacity. With the strong support of the motor vehicle and telematics
industries, Congress establish the new formula program (SYOPS) funded by
tax increases. A key feature of the program was the ability of states to
pass thru funds to any relevant public entity including law enforcement
and emergency services. Aided by the wholesale rewrite of Title 23 that
streamlined deployment, state and local governments found they could
more easily deploy, staff and maintain management systems.

[Institutionalizing New Institutional Roles]{.underline} -- The lure of
federal funding passthroughs stimulated new levels of collaboration
among state and local governments including the law enforcement, fire
and emergency services communities. As they gained experience the
concept of combined operations seemed less threatening and many smaller
jurisdictions were happy to join forces as part of new regional
operating organizations (ROOs). Even modal barriers were overcome, with
transit and highway agencies sometimes taking on responsibilities for
each other's services. Private sector roles were altered as well, as
resource-constrained agencies outsourced an increasing range of
operational responsibilities. These arrangements provided the basis for
important private sector investments and innovations on the part of a
growing operations-oriented service industry.

#### IV. BIGGEST SURPRISES IN RETROSPECT

Many of the changes noted above might have been anticipated from the
perspective of 2001. However, three key developments with powerful
synergism were substantially unanticipated. Each played a surprisingly
critical role in evolving the context we enjoy today in 2025:

-   [Information produced accountability that supported continuous
    improvement.]{.underline} Performance measurement, evaluation and
    benchmarking \-- while common to many public services \-- were
    absent from surface transportation in 2001. The subsequent
    introduction of complete travel time data turned out to be a "killer
    app". Yes, this information supported better management and it did
    facilitate the explosion of travel planning and routing. But the
    role of performance information in creating demanding customers for
    improved systems management was not foreseen. The resulting
    accountability imposed on transportation agencies and the
    benchmarking among peer jurisdictions generated agency effort levels
    that were earlier missing.

-   [Institutions can change -- especially with financial
    incentives]{.underline} -- Various institutional innovations -- long
    discussed, but never realized -- suddenly became not only realistic,
    but compelling. The more important of these changes included: the
    willingness of jurisdictions to consolidate operational management
    where substantial cost savings were available; the adoption of new
    incident management practices by police and EMS agencies when
    significant subsidies were available; the outsourcing of public
    responsibilities to capitalize on private sector capabilities and
    investment; and, the acceptance of electronic pricing for premium
    facilities where they could be largely self-supporting.

-   [Vehicles and infrastructure became part of an integrated
    system]{.underline} \-- Smart cars raised an expectation of smarter
    infrastructure since more advanced in-vehicle systems required
    public-private systems interoperability. The net reduction in
    fatalities and the reduction in crash rates provided
    incontrovertible proof of the safety and service payoff from early
    investments. As future benefits required vehicle-infrastructure
    interaction, an unprecedented level of joint government-industry
    activity evolved, capitalizing on a range of cooperative
    arrangements and precompetitive consortia among motor vehicle,
    electronics, IT entities and government. The AASHTO/ITS-A merger
    signaled a strengthened government-industry dialogue and the recent
    interchange of senior management across sectoral lines represents
    only the latest blurring of traditional public-private distinctions.

#### 

#### V. KEY FEATURES OF SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT TODAY

#### 

#### The evolution of the 21^st^ Century managed surface transportation system is certainly not complete. The shift of the surface transportation sector -- public and private -- to a focus on systems operations and management has been a gradual transition that still continues today in 2025. But -- compared to 2001 \-- the principal features of surface transportation infrastructure services are clear. 

#### [The Leverage of Information and Informed Customers]{.underline} 

Systems performance data has been a transforming force. The ubiquitous
availability of high quality travel conditions data proved to be a
necessary technical precondition to the development of the more
aggressive traffic management described below. It also created a
consumer market for travel-related information that has now spawned a
range of competing options. In addition, the information-based pollution
monitoring and enforcement programs introduced into the non-attainment
areas has lead to health and environment benefits.

Less anticipated, however, was the *political* impact of comprehensive
systems performance data. As better data enabled public and interest
groups to understood how well (or poorly) agencies were managing the
system \-- and to compare their service quality with similar regions
nation-wide \-- they mobilized to hold agencies accountable for
performance. In this, frustrated travelers were aided by TTI's
"TravTattle" Regional Performance Report Cards. The on-time performance
records of facilities, corridors and regions is now reported and
benchmarked \-- adding to the pressure on elected officials to focus on
improved system service. The constituencies for improved operations,
such as the Citizens Mobility Coalitions and their logistics business
allies, are now an ever-present feature of public meetings and
congressional hearings, lobbying for improved system operations in their
areas.

#### 

#### [Realization of Aggressive Management Commitment]{.underline}

The most visible differences between TEA-21 and today are not the latest
technological advances as much as consistent deployment and aggressive
application. The gap between the state-of-the-art and the-state-of-the-
practice, nationwide, has been substantially narrowed, aided by the
categorical funding and streamlined administration. The availability of
system-wide traffic and weather information supported application of a
wider range of management tools. In both congested urban areas and
remote rural regions the complete palette of management is applied on a
corridor basis, including lane, speed and ramp controls -- not to
mention automated enforcement. The guesswork has been removed from snow
and ice control in areas where microRWIS are installed. The promise of
"timed transfers" has finally been realized in intermodal operations.
Incident management is now a proactive activity with continuous patrols
and prepositioning of specialized equipment based on predicted
conditions. The *Incicopters* can remove lane-blocking vehicles in a
matter of minutes. Most importantly, management has gained local
political support and the 10 year backlog of arterial signal system
upgrading (TOPIOS) has finally been eliminated.

#### [The Interaction of Telematics with Infrastructure]{.underline} 

The coevolution of vehicle/infrastructure into an integrated "system"
that can be actively managed was a 21^st^ Century development. This
integration was triggered by the unanticipated pace of development in
telematics facilitated by strong leadership in standards development.
Safety has been the principal target and the achievement of "only"
25,000 fatalities last year (down from 41,000 in 2001) caused a major
celebration in the safety, insurance, automotive and medical
communities. Adaptive cruise control with full automation for the
standard hazard contexts is now standard vehicle equipment. Special CVO
and transit equipment supporting stability, maneuvering and monitoring
has improved productivity. The latest development has been the maturing
of vehicle-to-vehicle systems that permit tighter vehicle roadway
spacing. While these systems have long been in use in transit
operations, speed and spacing controls are the focus of several on-going
operational tests, suggesting the automated highway may be on the near
horizon.

Other telematics features have also been absorbed into the market as
standards including vision enhancement, in-vehicle signing, geolocation,
fee tags and external communications. The new driver task management
software (TAME) rationed driver multitasking and limited unsafe
distraction burdens. With the growing consumer access to telematics
services, consumers soon recognized that their sophisticated vehicles
were unnecessarily constrained by undermanaged infrastructure. They are
employing the various brands of available software that seek the most
reliable trip-making and are increasingly critical of apparent lapses in
systems reliability.

### Intermodal Logistics

Today's surface traveler can make informed travel choices. Route times
are known and predicted consistent with the needs of a just-in-time
economy. Disruptions are instantly communicated in real time. Shippers
and logistics service suppliers have capitalized on the new level of
time-of-arrival precision. With the near-perfect information on transit
schedules, together with increase on-time reliability, multimodal travel
has lost its uncertainty. The widespread parking reservations systems
and timed transfer information has dramatically increased transit
attractiveness to both occasional and regular users. Overall, the
availability of real travel advisories and predictions is clearly having
a general impact on demand patterns themselves, as trip makers
strategize to avoid the most unreliable time periods. Moreover, this
information has widened the acceptability of the more aggressive demand
management using both prices and restrictions -- that would have been
unacceptable just a few decades ago.

### 

### Reorganization and Planning for a New Mission 

Over the last two decades, the combination of technological potential,
constituent pressure and external benchmarking encouraged State and
local government to modify their strategic priorities. It became
increasingly clear that systems performance required equal program
emphasis with capacity and preservation. The piecemeal project approach
to ITS deployment was replaced with funded business plans that set out
specific timetables for completing coverage and continuous technology
upgrades. The lifecycle resource implications also compelled a
consolidation of capital and operating budgets. Estimates are that the
percent of public expenditure for systems operations and management grew
from 3-4 percent of TEA-21 to 13-14 percent in 20 years.

It should have come as no surprise that some transportation agencies
reorganized along lines of other public services by moving customer
service management functions to the top of the organization pyramid \--
with civil engineering as a support function. Staff incentives are now
constructed around contributions to customer-related performance
improvements \-- focused on outcomes, rather than output. Previously
stove piped functions were integrated to a unified customer service
focus measured by real time performance data. Some states followed the
so-called "Washington Model" of integrating operational features into
each department program. Other agencies followed the "Maryland Model" of
establishing a separate departmental unit with a comprehensive systems
operations charter.

#### [New Jurisdictional Transparency]{.underline}

The limited and informal basis of interjurisdictional relationships was
a serious roadblock to integrated regional operations in the 20^th^
Century. But the evolution of fragmented state and local relationships
beyond cooperation to institutionalized coordination \-- and even to
voluntary consolidation \-- was inevitable. Given the diversity of
states and their settings, it is no surprise that a range of new
regional operating institutional models emerged. Strong championship and
the examples offered by transit authority legal charters played key
roles. For example, the California Prop 213 requirements generated a
variety of solutions. In the Bay Area, the MPO reorganized as the MOP
("metropolitan operating partnership") with aggressive coordination
among multiple agencies under central cooperative management. In Los
Angeles, state and local governments chartered a semi-independent entity
modeled after transit authorities, with the power to operate upper level
systems in all jurisdictions together with dedicated police, fire and
EMS commitments. Orange County produced yet a third model built around
toll roads and private management.

### Future Networks: A Two-Tiered System?

Technology and customer expectations spawned new business models for
road service provision. On the upper level systems of major metro areas,
the "one type fits all "free roads" are now consistently being augmented
with a spectrum of service options. "Value Roads" with their guaranteed
service at variable prices (billed to credit cards) are now common. The
*Guaranteed Arrival Time Insurance* offered by major logistics suppliers
in some regions is clearly a sign of their success. In many major
congested corridors, Bus/HOV lanes are provided at a network level. The
most recent development is the *AutoExpress* -- the high speed
semiautomated guidways that are being retrofitted on the I-95 Corridor
and several other intercity NAFTA corridors in the southwest.

[Outsourcing and Privatization]{.underline}

While the burgeoning private telematics business was long anticipated,
the substantial role of the private sector in infrastructure as well,
was an entirely unanticipated. However, continuing agency downsizing and
the need for specialized expertise has resulted in accelerated
outsourcing of functions to private entities. It was not a long step
from the selected outsourcing of roadway asset management of and TOC
operations of 2001 to the more complete outsourcing of entire network
operations.

The most exciting development on the private sector side has been the
apparent success of the metropolitan-based *Transcorps*. States with
extensive urban toll networks, such as Texas and Florida, were able to
develop user revenue-based privatization of their entire upper level
networks. These franchises not only offload the preservation and
operations costs, but have also spurred premium services based on
variable pricing. The popularity of the Bechtel/Ford/AOL consortia's
capacity reservation product in Orlando and the PB/GM/Microsoft
Speedways in Orange County markets indicates the wisdom of their
investments.

#### VI. CONCLUSION \-- THE CULTURE OF SERVICE AND PERFORMANCE 

Cross cutting all the changes of the last 25 years has been the profound
shift in the culture of the surface transportation industry. The
imperative of maximizing the effectiveness of existing systems and the
clarification of the potential of aggressive systems management set the
stage for a new institutional mission. Acceptance of this mission in the
public sector encouraged the bolder champions towards greater acceptance
of accountability. Obviously government agencies commitment to this new
mission represented a substantial break with the past.

Over these decades, then, the objectives, program, organization,
activities, technology, roles and relationships have evolved to better
support a performance-oriented, customer based approach. These important
institutional changes might not have been predicted. There were
certainly more important than the technological advances themselves. The
lesson of this history is that "trends do not contain the future".
Today's unacceptable arrangement can become tomorrow's convention.
Unanticipated synergies among technology, institutional motives and
sector values can produce progress well beyond yesterday's vision.

**APPENDIX A. A VISION CHART**

+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| **DI  | **FACTOR**     | **2001**         | **2025**                |
| MENSI |                |                  |                         |
| ONS** |                |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| **W   | **Traffic      | -   Spotty       | -   Complete coverage   |
| HAT** | management**   |     applications |     of freeways and     |
|       |                |     as budget    |     arterials via       |
|       | **(**control   |     permits      |     standardized        |
|       | features and   |                  |     packages            |
|       | coverage)      | -   Low          |                         |
|       |                |     intensity    | -   Aggressive control  |
|       |                |     coverage     |     features including  |
|       |                |                  |     lane, ramp, speed   |
|       |                | -   Mild         |     controls            |
|       |                |     applications |                         |
|       |                |                  | -   Full time, traffic  |
|       |                |                  |     adaptive features   |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | Incident       | -   Reactive via | -   Proactive           |
|       | management     |     negotiated   |     strategies with     |
|       |                |     protocols    |     prepositioned       |
|       | **(**detection |                  |     equipment and       |
|       | and clearance) | -   respecting   |     single control      |
|       |                |     authority    |     protocols           |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Weather      | -   Macro level  | -   Micro-scale RWIS    |
|       | management**   |     prediction   |     with proactive      |
|       |                |                  |     treatment           |
|       | *              |                  |                         |
|       | *(**prediction |                  |                         |
|       | and proactive  |                  |                         |
|       | treatment      |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | Peak           | -   Modest       | -   Maximum use of      |
|       | Management     |     application  |     reversible lanes    |
|       |                |     of metering  |     and metering        |
|       | *              |     and roadside |                         |
|       | *(**Maximizing |     messaging    | -   Push travel         |
|       | reliability)   |                  |     advisories          |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | Bottleneck     | -   Focus on     | -   Focus on            |
|       | Elimination    |     multiyear    |     flow-related        |
|       |                |     total        |     modifications and   |
|       |                |                  |     control             |
|       |                |   reconstruction |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | System         | -   Modest       | -   Complete            |
|       | condition      |     coverage on  |     information         |
|       | information    |     freeways     |     (freeway and        |
|       |                |                  |     arterial) ,         |
|       | **(**quality   |                  |     available network   |
|       | and coverage)  |                  |     wide                |
|       |                |                  |                         |
|       |                |                  | -   From no-intrusive   |
|       |                |                  |     technology          |
|       |                |                  |                         |
|       |                |                  | -   Multimodal with     |
|       |                |                  |     intermodal          |
|       |                |                  |     coordination        |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | Driver         | -   Public       | -   Real time route     |
|       | information    |     sector       |     optimization with   |
|       | and security   |     standard     |     predictive          |
|       | services       |     package via  |     capabilities        |
|       |                |     511          |                         |
|       | (type of       |                  | -   Full convenience    |
|       | services       | -   Early forms  |     package including   |
|       | available)     |     of Mayday    |     Mayday, navigation, |
|       |                |     service --   |     net                 |
|       |                |     urban and    |                         |
|       |                |     rural        |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Traffic      | -   Early        | -   Consistent          |
|       | Enforcement**  |     experiments  |     application of      |
|       |                |     with         |     variable and        |
|       |                |     automated    |     maximum speed       |
|       |                |     speed        |     controls            |
|       |                |     enforcement  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Vehicle      | -   Introduction | -   Cooperative         |
|       | automation**   |     of cruse     |     semi-automation     |
|       |                |     control      |     with cruise control |
|       | (safety,       |                  |                         |
|       | capacity       |                  | -   Transit systems x   |
|       | or             |                  |                         |
|       | ientation**)** |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Work zone    | -   Contractor   | -   Full deployment of  |
|       | traffic        |     employs      |     warning and control |
|       | management     |     standard     |     features            |
|       | during         |     package      |                         |
|       | maintenance**  |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Vehicle      | -   First        | -   Adaptive cruise     |
|       | Safety         |     generation   |     control, road       |
|       | Systems**      |     driver       |     departure, lane     |
|       | (collision     |     warning      |     change & Collision  |
|       | road           |     systems      |     avoidance standard  |
|       | departure,     |                  |     equipment           |
|       | intersection,  | -   Automated    |                         |
|       | merge, etc)    |     collision    | -   Special equipment   |
|       |                |     notification |     on CVOs and transit |
|       |                |                  |     vehicles;           |
|       |                | -   Vision       |                         |
|       |                |     enhancement  |                         |
|       |                |     systems      |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Premium      | -   politicized  | -   Widespread          |
|       | services       |                  |     availability of     |
|       | (special       |                  |     priced HOT lanes    |
|       | purpose)**     |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+

+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| **    | **Traffic      | -   Cooperative  | -   Consolidated,       |
| HOW** | management     |     among TOCs   |     standardized,       |
|       | jurisdictional |                  |     automated           |
| #     | coordination** | -   Staff level  |                         |
|       |                |     coordination | -   Modification in     |
|       |                |     (informal) ; |     agencies span of    |
|       |                |     no changes   |     control and formal  |
|       |                |     in           |     relations, new      |
|       |                |     authority,   |     charters for        |
|       |                |     charters     |     multijurisdictional |
|       |                |                  |     operations          |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Incident     | -   Reactive     | -   Negotiated charters |
|       | management     |     approaches   |     for special         |
|       | jurisdiction** |                  |     consolidated        |
|       |                | -   Negotiated   |     multipurpose units  |
|       |                |     protocols    |                         |
|       |                |     within       |                         |
|       |                |                  |                         |
|       |                | responsibilities |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Detection    | -   Low          | -   High quality data,  |
|       | deployment**   |                  |     complete coverage   |
|       |                |  quality/partial |                         |
|       | **level**      |     coverage     |                         |
|       |                |     data with    |                         |
|       |                |     modest       |                         |
|       |                |     application  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Vehicle      | -   Limited to   | -   Market-driven by    |
|       | smartness**    |     safety       |     quality information |
|       |                |     oriented;    |     and competing ISPs  |
|       |                |                  |                         |
|       |                | -   technology   |                         |
|       |                |     vehicle      |                         |
|       |                |     independent  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Pace of      | -   Paced by     | -   Paced by program    |
|       | development**  |     funding and  |     objectives & public |
|       |                |     staff        |     demand              |
|       |                |     availability |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Performance  | -   No explicit  | -   Continuous          |
|       | importance**   |     measurement  |     improvement based   |
|       |                |                  |     on Outcome          |
|       |                |                  |     measurement used in |
|       |                |                  |     both programming    |
|       |                |                  |     and budgeting       |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Provision of | -   Few; modest  | -   Aggressive \--      |
|       | premium        |     agency       |     based on consumer   |
|       | service**      |     support      |     willingness to pay  |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Resource     | -                | -   Capital , O & M     |
|       | su             |    Discretionary |     given high priority |
|       | stainability** |     from current |                         |
|       |                |     flexible     |                         |
|       |                |     sources      |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Proactive    | -   Public       | -   Private,            |
|       | supply of      |     sector       |     competitive         |
|       | traveler       |     provides     |     user-tailored       |
|       | info**         |     baseline     |     options             |
|       |                |     information  |                         |
|       |                |     (511)        |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Linkage w/   | -   Indirectly   | -   Direct, including   |
|       | vehicle**      |     via          |     common data         |
|       |                |     regulation,  |     standards for       |
|       |                |     standards    |     in-vehicle signing  |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Smartness of | -   Modest,      | -   Aggressive          |
|       | vehicles**     |     based on     |     public/private R &  |
|       |                |     market       |     D                   |
|       |                |     penetration  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+

+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| # WHY | *              | Low \-- Limited  | High \-- Performance    |
|       | *Customer/User | info, available/ | accountability.         |
|       | influence**    | no pressure from | Organized user groups   |
|       |                | customers        |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Leadership** | Little           | Strong leadership: with |
|       |                | risk-taking, no  | incentives for change   |
|       |                | incentives high  |                         |
|       |                | turnover         |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Agency       | Engineering and  | Service and             |
|       | Culture**      | bureaucratic     | entrepreneurial         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **             | Resisted by      | Embraced by agency      |
|       | Benchmarking** | agency           | management              |
|       |                | management       |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **             | Maintains of     | Willingness to          |
|       | Jurisdictional | traditional      | consolidate operations  |
|       | cooperation**  | prerogatives     | (like other sectors     |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Performance  | Limited          | Used in programming &   |
|       | info**         | measurement      | budgeting, agencies     |
|       |                |                  | benchmarked             |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Change in    | Current trends   | New formula program     |
|       | funding**      |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Agency       | Operations one   | O & M given high        |
|       | priorities**   | of several       | priority                |
|       |                | priorities       |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Public       | Few incentives   | Strong pressure via     |
|       | acceptability  | for risk         | benchmarking            |
|       | of stronger    |                  |                         |
|       | management**   |                  |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Impact of    | NA               | Increases customer      |
|       | smart cars**   |                  | expectation for         |
|       |                |                  | infrastructure services |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Private      | Limited by low   | Accessing or private    |
|       | sector role**  | bid and design   | technology and          |
|       |                | spec tradition   | entrepreneurship based  |
|       |                |                  | on performance and user |
|       |                |                  | feess                   |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+
|       | **Constituency | Limited to       | Strong voice of vehicle |
|       | influence**    | construction and | and service provider    |
|       |                | developer        | industries              |
|       |                | interests        |                         |
+-------+----------------+------------------+-------------------------+