INTELLIGENT 

TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEMS 

Improved DOT 

Collaboration and 

Communication Could 

Enhance the Use of 

Technology to Manage 

Congestion 

Report to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, House of 

Representatives 

March 2012 

GAO-12-308 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-308, a report to the

Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, House of Representatives

March 2012

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Improved DOT Collaboration and Communication 

Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage 

Congestion

Why GAO Did This Study

Traffic congestion burdens the nation’s 

quality of life and will likely grow 

substantially if current trends continue. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(ITS) are a range of technologies that 

can reduce congestion at less cost 

than some other approaches. The U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA) is responsible for 

promoting and supporting the use of

ITS in coordination with other modal 

administrations, including the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). Since 

1994, DOT has overseen the allocation 

and expenditure of more than $3 billion 

for deploying and researching ITS.

GAO was asked to address (1) the 

current and emerging uses of ITS 

technologies by state and local 

governments, (2) the challenges these 

governments face in using ITS, and (3) 

the extent to which DOT’s efforts to 

promote and support ITS address 

these challenges and follow leading 

practices. To conduct this work GAO 

visited four sites, and interviewed and 

analyzed documents and data from 

DOT and state and local transportation 

officials, ITS experts, and other 

stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary 

of Transportation clearly define the

roles of RITA and FHWA in promoting 

the use of ITS, improve the usefulness 

of ITS information on the agencies’ 

websites, and include in its strategy

plans to further enhance 

communication on ITS activities. DOT 

reviewed a draft of this report, said it 

would consider our recommendations, 

and provided technical comments. 

What GAO Found

State and local governments currently use ITS technologies in various ways to 

monitor and control traffic and inform travelers. For example, transportation 

agencies use cameras to monitor traffic conditions, signal technologies to control 

traffic flow, and dynamic message signs to inform travelers about travel 

conditions. By interviewing experts, GAO identified several emerging uses of ITS 

that have significant potential to reduce traffic congestion. For example, 

integrating traffic and emergency services data can allow for enhanced detection 

of and response to roadway incidents. However, some cities use ITS and the

emerging uses to a much greater extent than others. 

State and local governments face multiple challenges in using ITS technologies

to manage traffic congestion. For example, some agencies do not fully integrate 

ITS into their planning processes. Funding the deployment and maintenance of 

ITS technologies is also an issue, because of funding constraints and 

competition with other needed infrastructure projects. Further, agencies struggle 

to attract and retain staff with the skills necessary to manage and maintain ITS 

systems and may not have leaders who support ITS. Finally, coordination among

agencies can enhance the effectiveness of ITS through such activities as 

synchronized traffic signals along a corridor, but such coordination can be difficult 

given agencies’ differing perspectives and priorities. 

RITA’s and FHWA’s activities to promote and support the use of ITS 

technologies help address these challenges. Both offer ITS-related training and 

technical assistance and provide guidance and information on their websites. 

FHWA estimates that states used about $800 million to $1.3 billion of their 

eligible 2010 federal aid highway funds and $798 million to $1.3 billion of 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds on ITS. Further adoption of 

leading practices could improve these efforts. RITA’s and FHWA’s respective 

roles in these efforts are not clearly defined, potentially inhibiting their ability to 

effectively leverage resources. Some experts and transportation agencies noted 

that ITS-related information on RITA’s and FHWA’s websites is not always 

presented in a way that is useful and some agencies lack awareness of some 

ITS activities sponsored by DOT. Several options have been proposed to

improve communication about ITS-related activities and facilitate the sharing of 

ITS information among state and local officials. While RITA intends to develop a 

new strategy in 2012 for promoting the use of ITS, it has not yet determined 

whether it will incorporate any of these proposals. 

Uses of ITS technologies include posting travel times on dynamic message signs (left) and 

synchronizing traffic signals to increase traffic flow (right).

View GAO-12-308. For more information, 

contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Letter 1 

Background 4

State and Local Governments Use ITS in Various Ways to Manage 

Congestion, and Some New Uses of ITS Are Promising 8

State and Local Governments Face a Number of Challenges in 

Using ITS Technologies 21

Further Use of Leading Practices Could Enhance DOT’s Promotion 

of ITS and Better Address Challenges 32

Conclusions 47

Recommendations for Executive Action 48

Agency Comments 49

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50

Appendix II Examples of DOT Activities That Address State and Local Challenges 54

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Tables

Table 1: Comparison of 2010 ITS Deployment and Other 

Characteristics of Four Metropolitan Areas GAO Visited 15

Table 2: Emerging Uses of ITS Technologies That Have the 

Greatest Potential for Reducing Traffic Congestion, Based 

on Experts’ Views 16

Table 3: Leading Practices for Successfully Encouraging the 

Adoption of New Technologies 38

Table 4: Names of Experts We Interviewed and Their Affiliations 52

Figures

Figure 1: Causes of Highway Traffic Congestion 5

Figure 2: Select Uses of ITS Technologies to Manage Congestion 9

Figure 3: Active Traffic Management along Interstate 5 in Seattle, 

Washington 19

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation

 Officials

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RITIS Regional Integrated Transportation Information System

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation

 Equity Act, A Legacy of Users

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

TRANSCOM Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 19, 2012

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall

Chairman

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Member

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

Traffic congestion burdens Americans’ quality of life through wasted 

energy, time, and money; increased pollution; and threats to safety. 

Estimates of the cost of congestion vary. According to the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), congestion costs America an estimated $200 

billion a year in lost travel time and fuel, and drivers in metropolitan areas 

spend more than one-quarter of their total annual travel time in congested 

conditions. Pressures on the surface transportation system are likely to 

grow substantially if trends that underlie the demand for passenger and 

freight travel, such as trends in population, continue.

State and local governments have used Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) technologies to help manage congestion. ITS technologies 

consist of a range of communications, electronics, and computer 

technologies, such as

• systems that collect real-time traffic data and transmit information to 

the public via dynamic message signs and other means,

• ramp meters to improve the flow of traffic on freeways, and

• synchronized traffic signals that are adjusted in response to traffic 

conditions.

ITS technologies support strategies to more efficiently use existing 

roadway capacity by improving traffic flow. As we have previously 

reported, improved system operations, management, and performance 

through the strategic use of ITS technologies have the potential to reduce 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

congestion without major capital investments.1 Some other congestion 

reduction strategies, such as building new infrastructure, can be costly. 

According to DOT’s analysis of evaluations of ITS projects, strategies that 

make use of ITS technologies—such as managing traffic incidents and 

providing information to travelers—have shown positive effects on traffic 

mobility.2

DOT promotes and supports state and local governments’ use of ITS 

through various means—including training, technical assistance, and 

information sharing—and provides some funds, through federal aid 

highway programs and demonstration projects, that can be used for ITS 

deployment. Although Congress previously authorized federal funding 

specifically for deploying ITS, through a DOT program, this funding ended 

in 2005. DOT also has ITS research initiatives to test new technologies, 

systems, and strategies in support of safety, congestion management, 

and environmental performance goals. Since 1994, DOT has overseen 

the allocation and expenditure of more than $3 billion for deploying ITS 

technologies and researching new technologies. DOT’s funding of ITS 

deployment is discussed in more detail later in this report.

These strategies often also have documented cost savings to 

transportation providers or travelers. Various policymakers and 

transportation advocates have pointed to ITS as a way to address 

congestion, particularly given current federal, state, and local budget 

constraints and the high cost of building new infrastructure. Other 

advantages of ITS include increased safety and pollution reduction.

Given the potential benefits of ITS to the nation, you asked us to address 

(1) how state and local governments currently use ITS technologies to 

manage traffic and emerging uses of these technologies that have the 

greatest potential to reduce congestion, (2) the types of challenges state 

and local governments face in using ITS technologies to manage traffic 

congestion, and (3) how DOT’s efforts to promote and support state and 

local governments’ use of these technologies have responded to 

challenges they face and the extent to which these efforts reflect leading 

practices for such endeavors.

 

1

GAO, Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems’ Promise for Managing 

Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their Strategic Use, GAO-05-943

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2005).

2

DOT, Research and Innovation Technology Administration, Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Benefits, Costs, Deployment, and Lessons Learned Desk Reference, FHWAJPO-11-140 (Washington, D.C.: September 2011).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

To meet our research objectives, we analyzed pertinent laws as well as 

documents and data from DOT, such as DOT’s ITS policy and planning 

documents and 2010 data on ITS deployment. On the basis of interviews 

with DOT officials and analysis of the 2010 ITS deployment data, we 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We 

interviewed and obtained documents from officials from DOT’s Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration (RITA) and representatives of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and 

the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America). We 

identified emerging uses of ITS technologies—which we defined as 

approaches that have begun to be used over the last 5-10 years, 

including approaches being researched or promoted by DOT—through 

interviews with DOT officials, experts, and a literature search. We 

excluded technologies with primary applications outside roadway traffic 

management, such as transit ITS, except when they had bearing on 

roadway traffic management. We conducted site visits to four cities: 

Washington, D.C.; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Austin, Texas; and Los 

Angeles, California. We selected these sites based on criteria that 

included high congestion levels and varying levels of deployment of ITS 

technologies. At each site, we obtained documentation and interviewed 

officials from one or more state departments of transportation; one or 

more local government transportation agencies; the metropolitan planning 

organization; one FHWA division office responsible for the area; and, if 

applicable, any academics, researchers, or coalitions focused on ITS in 

that metropolitan area.3

We also identified 15 experts from a list of individuals recommended by 

officials at RITA, FHWA, AASHTO, and ITS America. The primary 

requirement was that each individual have expertise in at least one of the 

following ITS fields that are important for traffic management: freeway 

management, arterial management, traffic incident management, 

roadway operations and maintenance, traveler information, and road 

weather management. In making our final selection, we considered 

publications and ITS experience and aimed to include a mix of individuals 

from state and local government, transportation associations, academia, 

 

3

From this point on, we refer to state departments of transportation and local 

transportation agencies as “transportation agencies.” We refer to all others we spoke to on 

these site visits, including staff from metropolitan planning organizations and FHWA

Division Offices, as “stakeholders.” 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

and private industry. We obtained the views of these experts on the 

emerging uses that have the greatest potential to reduce congestion; the 

types of challenges state and local governments face in planning, 

deploying, and operating ITS technologies; and the usefulness of DOT’s 

efforts to promote and support ITS implementation. We identified and 

reviewed leading practices in literature for promoting and supporting the 

use of technologies, particularly those that pertain to encouraging state 

and local governments to adopt transportation technologies. The ones we 

identified as being the most applicable are (1) developing a strategy to 

promote and support the use of technologies, (2) choosing appropriate 

methods to promote the use of technology by the target audience, and (3) 

monitoring technology adoption.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to February 

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional information 

about our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I.

Congestion is geographically concentrated in major metropolitan areas, 

as close to 80 percent of America’s growth and economic development is 

concentrated in metropolitan areas. Traffic congestion has grown worse 

in many ways in the past 30 years—trips take longer, congestion affects 

more of the day and affects more personal trips and freight shipments, 

and trip travel times are more unreliable. According to AASHTO, travel on 

the National Highway System has increased fivefold over the past 60 

years, from 600 billion miles driven per year to almost 3 trillion in 2009.4

Annual travel is expected to climb to nearly 4.5 trillion miles by 2050, 

even with aggressive strategies to cut the rate of growth to only 1 percent 

per year.5

 

4

These figures are based on FHWA’s highway statistics on vehicle miles of travel, which is 

the mileage traveled by all vehicles on a road system per year.

5

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Unlocking Gridlock: 

Restarting America’s Most Essential Operating System. April 2010. 

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

The main types of strategies that state and local governments can use to 

address traffic congestion are improved traffic operations, public 

transportation, increased capacity, and demand management.6

Figure 1: Causes of Highway Traffic Congestion

ITS 

generally fits within traffic operations as a way to better manage existing 

capacity. According to FHWA, traffic congestion is caused by various 

factors (see fig. 1). Bottlenecks, which reflect inadequate capacity, cause 

about 40 percent of urban road traffic congestion. The remaining 60 

percent of congestion results from other causes, which, according to 

FHWA, can be addressed by management and operations strategies.

ITS encompasses a broad range of wireless and wire line 

communications-based information and electronic technologies, including 

technologies for collecting, processing, disseminating, or acting on 

information in real time to improve the operation and safety of the 

transportation system. When integrated into the transportation system’s 

 

6

Traffic operations can be defined as the implementation of management strategies aimed 

at minimizing the impacts of congestion with the goal of more efficiently operating the 

surface transportation system. Demand management strategies include a variety of 

methods to move trips away from the peak travel periods. These are either a function of 

making it easier to combine trips via ride sharing or transit use, or providing methods to 

reduce vehicle trips.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

infrastructure and in vehicles themselves, these technologies can relieve 

congestion, improve safety, and enhance productivity.

Using ITS strategies may require officials to make capital improvements 

by installing equipment, such as traffic control systems and incident 

management systems. In highly congested metropolitan areas, ITS 

infrastructure tends to be complex because it typically consists of a set of 

systems deployed by multiple agencies. For example, the state 

government typically manages and operates freeway facilities, and city or 

county governments manage and operate smaller arterial roadways.7 In a 

given metropolitan area, the state transportation department, city traffic 

department, transit agency, and toll authority may each deploy different 

ITS technologies that address their transportation needs. Metropolitan 

planning organizations serve a key role in planning, as they have 

responsibility for the regional transportation planning processes in 

urbanized areas.8

Congress established the ITS program in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),9 and DOT created the ITS 

Joint Program Office in 1994. Since its creation, the ITS Joint Program 

Office has overseen allocation and expenditure of more than $3 billion for 

deploying ITS applications and researching new technologies. Under 

ISTEA and continuing under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998,10

 

7

As we reported in 2009, according to DOT officials, the term “freeways,” which is used in 

its ITS deployment surveys, refers to controlled access roads that have no intersections. 

Arterial roads generally consist of roads that have signalized intersections. See GAO, 

Surface Transportation: Efforts to Address Highway Congestion through Real-Time Traffic 

Information Systems Are Expanding but Face Implementation Challenges, 

Congress authorized funds 

GAO-10-121R

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2009). The ITS deployment surveys are administered by 

RITA. FHWA defines arterials and freeways differently, however, and considers freeways 

a subset of arterials.

8

Metropolitan planning organizations represent local governments and coordinate with 

state departments of transportation and providers of transportation services in developing 

and periodically updating short-range Transportation Improvement Plans and long-range 

Metropolitan Transportation Plans. These organizations exist for all U.S. urbanized areas 

of more than 50,000 people. We have suggested that Congress consider making this 

transportation planning process more performance-based. See GAO, Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and

Federal Oversight, GAO-09-868 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009).

9

Pub. L. No. 102-240, §6051, 105 Stat. 1914, 2189 (1991).

10Pub. L. No. 105-178, §5201, 112 Stat. 107, 452 (1998). 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

specifically for state and local governments to deploy ITS technologies. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005, did not directly 

reauthorize the ITS deployment program.11 Although DOT no longer 

provides dedicated funding for ITS deployment, states can use their 

federal aid highway program funds for improving traffic operations, 

including deploying ITS.12 In addition, state and local governments may 

use their own funds to finance ITS projects. State funding mainly comes 

from highway user charges, while local funding primarily comes from 

general funding allocations, property taxes, sales taxes, and various other 

taxes and fees. Although DOT does not track state or local spending on 

ITS, a market research company has estimated that states spent a 

combined $1.4 billion on ITS in 2010.13

The ITS Joint Program Office, within RITA, leads research of new ITS 

technologies and also carries out several activities to promote the use of 

existing technologies. In this capacity, the office works with the other 

modal administrations within DOT, including FHWA, the Federal Transit 

Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the 

Federal Railroad Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, and the Maritime Administration. The Joint Program Office 

was previously housed in FHWA and moved to RITA in early 2006. 

FHWA’s Office of Operations carries out activities aimed at improving the 

operations of the surface transportation system, including traffic 

management, and, as part of these efforts, encourages the use of ITS by 

state and local governments.

 

11Pub. L. No. 109-59, §5101(a)(6), 119 Stat. 1144, 1779 (2005). 

12American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have also been used for some state 

and local projects that include the deployment of ITS technologies. Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 

Stat.115 (2009).

13IMS Research, Intelligent Transport Systems in the U.S.—A Market Opportunity 

Assessment-2010. July 31, 2010. GAO did not evaluate the data and methodology used in 

the estimate.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

State and local governments currently use ITS technologies in a variety of 

ways to monitor traffic conditions, control traffic flow, and inform travelers. 

While numerous types of ITS technologies are available for these 

purposes, their deployment is uneven across the country. We identified 

several emerging uses of ITS that have significant potential to reduce 

traffic congestion. These include approaches that use integrated data to 

manage traffic and inform travelers and use ITS to proactively manage 

traffic.

State and local governments use ITS technologies to monitor traffic 

conditions, control traffic flow, and inform travelers about traffic conditions 

so they can decide whether to use alternative, less congested routes (see 

fig. 2).

State and Local 

Governments Use ITS 

in Various Ways to 

Manage Congestion, 

and Some New Uses 

of ITS Are Promising

State and Local 

Governments’ ITS 

Deployment
 

Page 9 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 2: Select Uses of ITS Technologies to Manage Congestion
 

Page 10 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Transportation agencies use ITS technologies, such as closed circuit 

cameras and sensors, to monitor traffic conditions in real time. The 

availability of real-time information means that agency staff can more 

rapidly identify and respond to events that impede traffic flow, and 

develop accurate traveler information.14 For example, cameras are an 

important component of incident management. Incident management is a 

planned and coordinated process to detect, respond to, and clear traffic 

incidents that can cause traffic jams. Operators can use information from 

cameras to verify traffic conditions detected through sensors, coordinate 

response to incidents, and monitor the recovery from the incident. 

According to DOT’s 2010 ITS deployment survey, the percentage of 

freeway miles15 covered by cameras increased from approximately 15 

percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2010.16

Technologies such as loop detectors, radar detectors, and vehicle probes 

provide traffic data that allow transportation agencies to monitor traffic 

conditions.

The 2010 deployment survey 

found that 83 percent of freeway management agencies reported a major 

benefit from cameras—higher than for any other technology. Meanwhile, 

the level of deployment of cameras on arterials has remained relatively 

flat. For example, in the 2000 deployment survey, 17 percent of agencies 

reported deploying cameras on arterials, compared with 21 percent of 

agencies in 2010. DOT speculated that this may be due to funding 

limitations at local agencies.

17

 

14See 

The availability of such data has grown in recent years. In 

the 2000 deployment survey, 18 percent of freeway miles were covered 

GAO-10-121R. 

15Freeway miles are the miles within the metropolitan areas surveyed. 

16In order to track the deployment of ITS technologies, DOT has conducted a nationwide 

survey of state and local transportation agencies since 1997. The 2010 surveys were 

distributed to agencies in the country’s 108 largest metropolitan areas. In this report we 

report numbers from the survey of arterial management agencies, which had a 81 percent 

response rate, and freeway management agencies, which had a 84 percent response 

rate. Statistics such as percentage of freeway miles are calculated based on the total 

miles managed by the responding agencies rather than the total freeway miles in the 

country. For the complete 2010 survey results, see http://www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/. 

17Loop detectors use a fixed roadway sensor to measure the number and estimate the 

speed of passing vehicles. Radar detectors use microwave radar and are mounted on 

overhead bridges or poles and transmit signals that are reflected off vehicles back to the 

sensor. The reflected energy is analyzed to produce traffic flow data, such as volume and 

speed. Vehicle probes use roaming vehicles and portable devices, such as cell phones 

and Global Positioning System devices, to collect data on travel times.

Monitoring Traffic Conditions
 

Page 11 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

by real-time data collection technologies, as compared with 55 percent in 

2010. The use of these technologies has also grown on arterial roadways, 

with the percentage of signalized intersections covered by electronic data 

collection technologies growing from approximately 20 percent in 2000 to 

48 percent in 2010. In addition, private companies are expanding the use 

of vehicle probes that collect real-time data on travel time and speed, 

allowing for greater geographic coverage. Partnering with private 

companies to gain vehicle probe data expands the data that state DOTs 

use. According to the 2010 deployment survey, 11 state DOTs reported 

using vehicle probe data collected by a private sector company.

Many technologies can be used to dynamically manage freeway capacity 

and traffic flow using real-time information. Approximately one-third of the 

largest U.S. cities deploy traffic control technologies on freeways. 

Specifically, 35 of the 108 largest metropolitan areas in the United States 

have deployed one or more of the following freeway technology 

capabilities:

• Ramp meters control the flow of vehicles entering the freeway. 

According to DOT’s 2010 deployment survey, ramp meters are 

deployed in 27 of the 108 largest metropolitan areas in the country 

and manage access to 13 percent of freeway miles, about the same 

level as in 2006.

• Congestion (or road) pricing controls traffic flow by assessing tolls that 

vary with the level of congestion and the time of day. All U.S. 

congestion pricing projects in operation are High Occupancy Toll 

lanes, which charge solo drivers a toll to use carpool lanes, or peakperiod pricing projects, which charge a lower toll on already tolled 

roads, bridges, and tunnels during off-peak periods. The deployment 

of congestion pricing relies on electronic tolling ITS technology. Other 

ITS technologies used to support congestion pricing include sensors 

that detect traffic conditions and dynamic message signs that 

announce toll rates. In 2012, GAO found that congestion pricing 

projects were open to traffic in 14 major metropolitan areas.18

 

18For more information on congestion pricing, see GAO, Traffic Congestion: Road Pricing 

Can Help Reduce Congestion, but Equity Concerns May Grow, GAO-12-119

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2012).

Controlling Traffic Flow
 

Page 12 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Reversible flow lanes and variable speed limits can also be used to 

control freeway traffic and address congestion. These strategies can 

incorporate various forms of ITS technologies, including retractable 

access gates and dynamic message signs. According to the 2010 

deployment survey, 11 metropolitan areas use reversible flow lanes or 

variable speed limits on freeways.

Transportation agencies can use ITS technologies to control arterial traffic 

through traffic signals. Types of advanced traffic signal systems include 

the following:

• Operating signals under computerized control: This capability allows 

operators to remotely adjust the signals from the traffic management 

center to respond to current traffic conditions and allows for enhanced 

control over signals in response to traffic events. According to the 

2010 deployment survey, 50 percent of signalized intersections were 

under centralized computer control—essentially equal to the 

proportion in 2000.

• Adaptive signal control technology: These signals can be automated 

to adjust signal timings in real time based on current traffic conditions, 

demand, and system capacity. It allows faster responses to traffic 

conditions caused by special events or traffic incidents. For example, 

Los Angeles has developed one of the first fully operating adaptive 

signal control systems in North America. Despite benefits of adaptive 

signals, according to DOT, only 3 percent of traffic signals in the 

country’s largest metropolitan areas are controlled by adaptive signal 

control. According to DOT, agencies have not deployed adaptive 

signals because of the costs of deploying, operating, and maintaining 

them, as well as uncertainty about their benefits.19

Transportation agencies communicate information gathered from traffic 

monitoring to the traveling public in various ways, including via dynamic 

message signs, television, websites, e-mail, telephone, and devices used 

in vehicles such as cell phones. This information—including information 

about travel times and traffic incidents—allows users to make informed 

decisions regarding trip departures, routes, and modes of travel.

 

19According to FHWA, its Every Day Counts initiative is developing and providing 

information related to implementation costs and system benefits of adaptive signal control 

to agencies to help spur deployment.

Informing Travelers
 

Page 13 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Dynamic message signs are popular for communicating traffic information 

to travelers. According to DOT’s 2010 deployment survey, almost 90 

percent of freeway agencies, and approximately 20 percent of arterial 

agencies, reported using dynamic message signs to disseminate traveler 

information. The number of dynamic message signs deployed on 

freeways increased from fewer than 2,000 signs in the year 2000 to over 

4,000 in 2010, greatly expanding agencies’ capabilities to communicate 

directly with freeway travelers. Arterial agencies also increasingly adopted 

dynamic message signs, nearly tripling from 10 percent of responding 

agencies in 2000 to 26 percent in 2010.

The 511 Traveler Information Services are another method of informing 

travelers. DOT initiated the development of these services and seeks to 

have states deploy them nationwide.20 These 511 services provide 

information via the telephone (using an interactive voice response 

automated system) and the Internet. State DOTs generally run these 

services and they operate independently of one another. Currently, 14 

states lack 511 service coverage or provide service for only a portion of 

the state. Additionally, these services vary in the ways they provide 

information (phone or Internet), the types of information they provide 

(travel times, roadway weather conditions, construction), and areas they 

cover (statewide or citywide). To fulfill requirements in SAFETEA-LU, 

FHWA issued a Final Rule in November 2010 to establish the Real-Time 

System Management Information Program.21 The rule contains minimum 

requirements for states to make information on traffic and travel 

conditions available through real-time information programs and to share 

this information. In 2009, 17 of the 19 experts we interviewed about the 

need for a nationwide real-time traffic information system said such a 

nationwide system should be developed.22

 

20DOT initiated the development of 511 Traveler Information Services by asking the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set aside a three-digit telephone number 

nationwide for traveler information services. FCC granted this request in July 2000 and 

issued a rule on 511 stating that DOT’s role was to “facilitate ubiquitous deployment” of 

these services. In the Matter of Petition by the USDOT for Assignment of an Abbreviated 

Dialing Code (N11) to Access Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Services 

Nationwide, Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 92-

105, FCC 00-256 (2000).

Some of these experts noted 

that state and local transportation agencies generally develop and use 

21See 75 Fed. Reg. 68418 (Nov. 8, 2010). 

22GAO-10-121R. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

these systems within their own jurisdictions, leading to gaps in coverage 

and inconsistencies in the quality and types of data collected. Because of 

these gaps, travelers using 511 systems have to contact different 

systems while they are traveling and may receive different types of 

information.

In general, the level of ITS deployment varies by state and locality. For 

example, the deployment of ITS technologies across the four metropolitan 

areas we visited greatly varies (see table 1). ITS is also used more on 

freeways than on arterial roads. For example, in response to DOT’s 2010 

deployment survey, agencies in 21 metropolitan areas reported deploying 

real-time traffic data collection technologies such as loop detectors on 

arterial roadways, compared with agencies in 71 metropolitan areas that 

reported deploying the same types of technologies on freeways. Several 

experts we interviewed described the deployment of ITS nationwide as 

“spotty” or having uneven geographical coverage. DOT officials told us 

that the pace of ITS adoption by state and local governments has been 

slow and that upgrades to newer types of technologies have been 

difficult. In the next section we discuss some of the common challenges 

state and local governments face in deploying ITS, such as funding 

constraints.

Deployment of ITS Is Uneven
 

Page 15 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Table 1: Comparison of 2010 ITS Deployment and Other Characteristics of Four Metropolitan Areas GAO Visited

Category Indicator Austin, TX Los Angeles, CA Pittsburgh, PA Washington, DC

Size and congestion 

level

Population of metropolitan area 

(in millions)

1.7 12.8 2.4 5.6

Yearly delay per auto commuter 

(hours)a 38 64 31 74

Monitoring traffic 

conditions

Percentage of freeway miles 

covered by cameras

58 37b 29 58

Percentage of freeway miles with 

real-time data collection 

technologies

58 39b 24 61

Controlling traffic flow Freeway traffic control strategies 

that use ITSc None Ramp meters, 

congestion pricing

Reversible flow 

express lanes 

Ramp meters, 

congestion pricing, 

reversible flow 

express lanes

One or more agencies deploy 

adaptive signal control 

technology

No Yes Yes No

Informing travelers Number of dynamic message 

signs on freeways and arterials

26 350b 82 217

Report travel time data to 

travelersd No Yes Yes Yes

Sources: GAO analysis of information provided by transportation officials, DOT data, Texas Transportation Institute, and U.S. Census

Bureau.

a

The extra time spent traveling at congested speeds rather than free-flow speeds by private vehicle 

drivers and passengers who typically travel in the peak periods.

b

These figures are from the 2007 DOT ITS deployment survey results because of the lack of 

response of a key agency to the 2010 survey.

c

Includes ramp metering, congestion pricing, reversible flow express lanes, and variable speed limits.

d

Includes via webpage, 511, telephone system, e-mail, Twitter or other social networking site, 

highway advisory radio, and dynamic message signs.

We identified four emerging uses of ITS technologies that have the 

greatest potential to reduce traffic congestion, based on views of experts 

we interviewed (see table 2).23

 

23As described earlier, we interviewed 15 experts on their views related to ITS. We 

identified emerging uses of ITS technologies and asked the experts to rate these 

technologies regarding the extent to which their further implementation has the potential to 

reduce traffic congestion. See appendix I for more information on our methodology.

 We grouped these technology uses into 

two broad themes: (1) using integrated data to manage traffic and inform 

travelers, and (2) proactively managing traffic.

Emerging Uses of ITS 

Technologies
 

Page 16 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Table 2: Emerging Uses of ITS Technologies That Have the Greatest Potential for Reducing Traffic Congestion, Based on 

Experts’ Views 

Technology usea Description

Using integrated data to manage traffic and inform travelers

Real-time data capture, sharing, and 

management

Creating and expanding access to integrated, high-quality, real-time, multimodal

transportation data that are captured from mobile devices, infrastructure and 

connected vehicles and used to improve transportation management

Enhanced incident response management Integrating various sources of data—such as traffic, weather, and emergency 

services data—across jurisdictions to better detect and respond to incidents

Proactively managing traffic

Active transportation and demand 

management

A proactive approach for dynamically managing and controlling demand and 

available capacity of transportation facilities, based on prevailing traffic 

conditions, using one or a combination of real-time and predictive operational 

strategies, e.g., improved traffic signal timing and congestion tolling

Work zone management Proactively anticipating and mitigating the effects of work zones

Source: GAO.

a

We included only ITS uses that (1) were considered by all the 15 experts we contacted to have at 

least a medium potential to reduce traffic congestion, and (2) were ranked by at least 9 of the experts 

as having high potential to reduce traffic congestion.

ITS technologies generate and use data to support agencies’ strategies—

such as traffic signal coordination and incident management—for 

managing congestion. State and local governments within some 

metropolitan areas, such as Washington, D.C., are employing new traffic 

management strategies that make use of data integrated from various 

sources, which were previously “siloed.” The objective of these 

approaches is to collect, manage, integrate, and apply real-time 

transportation data. The approaches can also enhance traffic operations 

because they allow agencies to intervene in traffic congestion as it 

happens and operate the system more efficiently. Better integration of 

real-time data across jurisdictions facilitates more coordinated strategies 

and better informs travelers, as it gives them more information on 

transportation alternatives.

Agencies integrate a variety of real-time information—including incident 

information, travel time, and weather advisories—obtained from various 

sources to manage the transportation system and provide relevant 

information to travelers. The expansion of real-time data collection 

technologies and coverage in recent years has allowed for greater use of 

these data in daily traffic operations. As one expert noted, data are the 

foundation of managing congestion, and the more and better quality the 

data, the better the tools that can be brought to bear on managing traffic. 

In addition to supporting a more active role in managing traffic, such data 

Using Integrated Data to 

Manage Traffic and Inform 

Travelers 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

allow management agencies to provide real-time traffic advisories and 

support performance measurement.

Collection and integration of data—such as traffic and emergency 

services data—across jurisdictions can enhance incident management by 

allowing quick detection and response to incidents. For example, the I-95 

Corridor Coalition makes vehicle probe data available to 19 agencies, 

which use the data to monitor traffic patterns across state boundaries and 

to respond to incidents and congestion. In 2009, the New York State 

Police used these vehicle probe data along with data from the New York 

511 website to assist in managing holiday traffic congestion. This 

proactive approach to traffic management led to a 50 percent reduction in 

traffic queues over previous years. Two-thirds of the experts we 

interviewed rated enhanced incident management as having a high 

potential to reduce traffic congestion.

The Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) 

program in the Washington, D.C., area is an example of data integration 

that allows for improved traffic operations, incident management, and 

traveler information.24 RITIS is a system that compiles data across modes 

of transportation from agencies throughout the metropolitan area, 

including data on incidents, weather, managed lane status, signal status, 

and data from public safety computer-aided dispatch systems. RITIS then 

standardizes these data, and makes them available to participating

agencies. Previously, many of the area transportation agencies had 

implemented stand-alone systems and relied on ad hoc communications 

that were driven by personal relationships between staff for coordination. 

RITIS is part of an information-sharing effort, called the Metropolitan Area 

Transportation Operations Coordination Program, which has been shown 

to result in cost savings associated with reduced traffic delay and reduced 

fuel consumption.25

 

24RITIS was developed by the University of Maryland’s Center for Advanced 

Transportation Technology Laboratory starting in 2006 with funding from various, mostly 

public, sources.

Additionally, officials we spoke with at the Maryland 

State Highway Administration noted RITIS was a major improvement to 

their operation and has improved the ability to know where an accident 

25Metropolitan Area Transportation Operations Coordination Benefit-Cost Analysis White 

Paper, June 2010.
 

Page 18 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

has occurred. Similar efforts to provide this level of data integration exist 

in the Los Angeles and New York City metropolitan areas.

FHWA has noted that the proactive management of roadway capacity 

and transportation demand is the next step in congestion relief.26

In Seattle, the Washington State DOT has instituted active traffic 

management systems. These systems, which are among the few such 

systems in the country, use overhead signs that display changing speed 

limits and real-time traffic information for drivers over each lane (see fig. 

3). These signs dynamically and automatically reduce speed limits to alert 

drivers to slow their vehicles when they approach congestion, collisions, 

or backups at off-ramps. The signs also alert drivers to upcoming lane 

closures because of traffic incidents or road work and direct them to open 

lanes. The system also includes dynamic message signs that alert drivers 

of downstream backups and signs that display estimated travel times. 

Although a formal evaluation of the systems in Seattle is forthcoming, 

FHWA has reported that similar systems in Europe, depending on the 

location and the combination of strategies deployed, have resulted in

increases in overall capacity ranging from 3 to 22 percent, increases in 

travel time reliability, and reductions in primary incidents ranging from 3 to 

30 percent.

Technical advances now make it possible to move from relatively passive 

monitoring to proactive control of traffic through mechanisms like variable 

speed limits, congestion pricing, and ramp metering. Active transportation 

and demand management is a proactive approach for dynamic 

management and control of existing transportation infrastructure based 

on current traffic conditions using real-time data and information. 

According to FHWA, this approach considers the real-time management 

of both supply and demand to prevent, delay, or minimize facility 

breakdown when travel demand exceeds system capacity.

27

 

26FHWA, Active Traffic Management: The Next Step in Congestion Management

(Washington, D.C.: July 2007).

27Primary incidents are crashes or other incidents that do not include secondary incidents, 

such as rear-end crashes, resulting from immediate factors associated with the initial 

incident. 

Proactively Managing Traffic
 

Page 19 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Figure 3: Active Traffic Management along Interstate 5 in Seattle, Washington

Active transportation management can also include managed lanes, in 

which officials control traffic lane use by

• granting access to only certain types of vehicles, such as highoccupancy vehicles;

• controlling access, such as designing express lanes where access is 

restricted to a few points; or

• congestion pricing, where vehicles pay a toll to use the lane.

Another strategy to reduce congestion is road pricing or congestion 

pricing—assessing tolls that vary with the level of congestion and the time 

of day. This demand management strategy aims to improve the flow of 

traffic by motivating drivers to travel by other modes, such as carpools or 

transit, or by traveling at less congested times. For example, in Los 

Angeles, the California Department of Transportation and the Los 

Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority are converting over 

50 miles of freeway from High Occupancy Vehicle, or carpool, lanes, to 

High Occupancy Toll lanes. This is to allow use of excess capacity in the 

lanes by single occupancy vehicles for a price. Agencies have used 

electronic fare collection and traveler information ITS technologies to 

accomplish this conversion. A recent GAO report reviewed evaluations of 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

five High Occupancy Toll lane projects and found that travel time and 

travel speed improved on at least some sections of all five projects.28

Officials can also proactively manage traffic conditions through ramp 

metering, which can maintain smooth freeway flow by regulating vehicle 

entry at entrance ramps. DOT’s 2010 deployment survey found that 

freeway agencies believe ramp control has high benefit, despite the fact 

that the technology is lightly deployed. Additionally, active transportation 

and demand management approaches, such as ramp metering, were 

mentioned as beneficial by five stakeholders and officials from four 

transportation agencies we spoke with, across all four sites.

Work zone management is another emerging use of ITS to proactively 

manage traffic. Transportation agencies can use work zone management 

to reduce the congestion normally associated with construction activities 

such as lane closures. Agencies use ITS to mitigate the effects of lane 

closures, detours, and other factors. Examples of ITS technologies used 

in work zones include using electronic signs to control merging for lane 

closures and variable speed limit signs. Agencies also use traveler 

information ITS technologies to notify the public of road closures and 

work zone-related delays.

Connected vehicle technology, still under development, could significantly 

change traffic management, both in terms of the amount of traffic data 

transportation agencies will collect and in how agencies proactively 

manage traffic.29

 

28

DOT’s current ITS research agenda focuses on the 

department’s vision to provide the nation with a national, multimodal 

transportation system that features wireless communications among 

vehicles, infrastructure, and portable devices. The importance of data 

management and integration will continue given that connected vehicle 

technology has the potential to significantly increase the amount of 

transportation data available to state and local governments.

GAO-12-119. 

29We excluded connected vehicle technology, which is an emphasis of DOT’s current ITS 

research plan, because it is currently still under development and has not yet begun to be 

used by state and local governments.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

State and local governments face various challenges in deploying and 

effectively using ITS technologies to manage traffic congestion. As 

mentioned previously, ITS in metropolitan areas tends to be complex and 

is deployed by multiple agencies, which involves planning and 

coordination across agencies. Effectively using ITS is dependent upon 

agencies having the staff and funding resources needed to maintain and 

operate the technologies. We identified four key challenges agencies face 

in using ITS: strategic planning, funding deployment and maintenance, 

having staff with the knowledge needed to use and maintain ITS, and 

coordinating ITS approaches.

Planning for ITS is a key component of strategically using ITS to address 

transportation issues and reduce congestion. Transportation planning for 

metropolitan areas has traditionally focused on building and maintaining 

basic infrastructure to ensure adequate roadway capacity. ITS, in 

contrast, focuses on managing already-existing capacity to use it more 

effectively. Strategically using ITS requires agencies to shift focus from 

planning construction and maintenance of roadways to planning the 

operations of the surface transportation system, a shift that, according to 

DOT, some states and local transportation agencies have not yet fully 

made.

A RITA official told us that planning is a major challenge that affects 

agencies’ ability to make effective use of ITS. The federal ITS program, 

as mentioned previously, initially included a DOT program that provided 

grants to transportation agencies specifically to deploy ITS. As a result, 

many agencies have deployed ITS based on the availability of funding

rather than systematic planning, according to two stakeholders, a national 

transportation organization representative, a DOT official, and four 

transportation agencies we interviewed. According to FHWA officials, ITS 

deployment has not always been clearly connected to a transportation 

problem or need, or well integrated with other transportation strategies 

and programs. If state and local governments do not consider the range 

of available ITS options in developing their congestion management 

strategies, they may miss opportunities to better manage traffic and make 

the best use of scarce funds to address congestion.

Most experts we spoke to believed that limitations of planning processes, 

as well as the availability of information to support sound decision 

State and Local 

Governments Face a 

Number of Challenges 

in Using ITS 

Technologies 

Strategic Planning 

Challenges
 

Page 22 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

making, were challenges faced by state and local governments in using 

ITS.30 Furthermore, six experts, two stakeholders, and officials from five 

transportation agencies we contacted noted that there is a need for more 

planning and analysis information such as cost-benefit information and 

performance measures.31 Some of these officials noted that it is currently 

difficult to calculate and measure the benefits of ITS. For example, in its 

2010 deployment survey, DOT found that 25 percent of agencies 

responsible for managing arterial roadways reported that they had not 

deployed adaptive traffic signal control technology because of uncertainty 

about benefits. Lack of quantifiable information about benefits can put ITS 

projects at a disadvantage compared with other types of transportation 

projects such as road improvements or bridge replacements, which have 

more easily quantified benefits. While some studies show that various 

types of ITS technologies can be cost-effective, conducting such studies 

can be challenging.32

FHWA has emphasized the importance of incorporating transportation 

operations (including ITS) into transportation planning, along with related 

objectives and performance measures. Despite FHWA’s promotion of the 

use of such an approach, many metropolitan planning organizations do 

not fully consider operations in the planning process. A recent FHWA 

 

30Eleven of 15 experts we interviewed said that limitations of planning processes 

constituted a challenge to deploying, operating, and maintaining ITS technologies for 

traffic management. Of these, 5 said they were a major challenge, 2 said they were 

between a major and a minor challenge, and 4 said they were a minor challenge. One 

expert said that limitations of planning processes did not constitute a challenge. The 

remaining 3 experts said they had no basis to judge. Thirteen of 15 experts we 

interviewed noted the availability of information to support sound decision making was a 

challenge state and local governments face in deploying, operating, and maintaining ITS. 

Specifically, 4 of 15 experts said it was a major challenge, 3 said it was between a major 

and a minor challenge, and 6 said it was a minor challenge. One expert said it was not a 

challenge and the other had no basis to judge.

31In 2007, we reported that rigorous economic analysis is not a driving factor in most 

investment decisions by state and local governments. See GAO, Surface Transportation: 

Strategies Are Available for Making Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better, 

GAO-07-920 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007).

32In 2009, we reviewed studies that quantified the impact of real-time traffic information 

systems. The studies generally found that the systems improved mobility and had 

environmental benefits. However, these studies are not generalizable or comparable 

because they are specific to a particular city or system. We also found conducting costbenefit analyses of these systems is challenging because of difficulty capturing data about 

travelers and isolating and attributing transportation impacts to an individual project. See 

GAO-10-121R for more information.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

assessment found that metropolitan planning organizations increasingly 

address traffic operations (including ITS) in their plans, but only 36 

percent include specific, measurable objectives related to operations that 

meet DOT’s recommended criteria.33 Despite challenges, DOT reports 

that some regions have effectively incorporated ITS into their planning 

efforts, including Hampton Roads, Virginia.34 The Hampton Roads

Transportation Planning Organization, the metropolitan planning 

organization for the area, scores ITS projects for their capacity to support 

planning objectives and has been able to acquire federal funding for 

several ITS plans and projects through this process. These include a 

centralized traveler information system and signal system upgrades.

Funding constraints pose a significant challenge to transportation 

agencies in their efforts to deploy ITS technologies because of competing 

priorities and an overall constrained funding situation.35 ITS projects must 

compete for funding with other surface transportation needs, including 

construction and maintenance of roads, which often take priority, 

according to officials from transportation and stakeholder agencies we 

interviewed. As we reported in 2005, transportation officials often view 

adding a new lane to a highway more favorably than ITS when deciding 

how to spend their limited transportation funds.36

 

33DOT recommends that objectives be (1) specific, (2) measurable, (3) agreed upon by 

relevant participants, (4) realistic and (5) time-bound. See 

DOT has noted that 

funding constraints might explain why the rate of adoption of arterial 

management technologies over the past decade has been flat. In 

addition, the 2010 deployment survey found that 55 percent of agencies 

responsible for managing freeways, compared with 36 percent of 

agencies responsible for managing arterial roadways, plan to invest in 

new ITS in 2010 to 2013. Transportation agencies face difficult decisions 

regarding the allocation of their transportation funding, and many have 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10027/chap_2.htm. 

34The Hampton Roads, Virginia, area includes a number of municipalities—including 

Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, and Newport News—located among a number of 

estuaries of the Chesapeake Bay.

35All 15 experts we interviewed rated the ability to fund deployment of ITS in light of 

resource constraints and competing priorities as a challenge state and local governments 

face in using ITS. Thirteen rated it a major challenge, 1 between a major and a minor 

challenge, and 1 a minor challenge.

36See GAO-05-943. 

Funding Challenges
 

Page 24 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

faced severe revenue declines in recent years, restricting the availability 

of funds for transportation improvements. For example, a county 

transportation official we interviewed reported that the funds for deploying 

and maintaining ITS have been reduced annually over the last 3 to 4 

years because of reduced county revenues, which has led to the county 

suspending almost all deployment of ITS field devices.

Transportation officials must identify priorities and make trade-offs 

between funding projects that preserve or add new infrastructure and 

those that improve operations, such as ITS projects. Preserving 

infrastructure is a high priority for state and regional decision makers. 

Traffic growth has outpaced highway construction, particularly in major 

metropolitan areas, which puts enormous pressure on roads.37 According 

to FHWA’s most recent projections (using 2006 data), less than half of the 

vehicle miles traveled in urban areas are on good-quality pavements and 

about one-third of urban bridges are in deficient condition.38

These funding issues exist within the context of an overall large funding 

gap for maintaining and improving the nation’s surface transportation 

infrastructure.

As five 

stakeholders and officials from four transportation agencies we spoke 

with noted, ITS projects have difficulty competing for funding with other 

needs, such as road and bridge maintenance projects. For example, one 

city transportation official told us the city must devote most of its 

resources to highway and bridge projects rather than new technology, 

and in some cases the city has resorted to demolishing unsafe bridges 

because of lack of funds rather than repairing or replacing them.

39

 

37American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Rough Roads 

Ahead, Fix Them Now or Pay For It Later (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

The Highway Trust Fund has been undergoing a 

solvency crisis in recent years. Its expenditures have exceeded its 

revenues, which derive mainly from motor fuel taxes. According to 2006 

National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 

estimates, combined revenues at all levels of government, under current 

policies, will meet only 58 percent of the capital investment requirements

38FHWA, 2008 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & 

Performance: Report to Congress. (Washington, D.C.: 2008).

39For more information see “Funding the Nation’s Surface Transportation System” section 

of GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011). 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

for U.S. highway maintenance and only 41 percent of the costs for 

highway improvement for the period 2008-2035.40

Agencies that are able to deploy ITS often face additional challenges in 

funding the operations and maintenance of these technologies. Eight 

experts we interviewed noted that funding operations and maintenance of 

ITS is more challenging than funding the initial deployment.41 Two experts 

we interviewed noted that ITS is often installed and then not fully utilized 

or maintained. Additionally, in response to FHWA’s 2009 proposed 

requirement for states to make travel information available as part of a 

Real-Time System Management Information Program, several states 

identified operation and maintenance costs as a barrier to the 

implementation of such a program.42

FHWA officials told us that it is often difficult for state and local agencies 

to sustain the operations of ITS technologies because of funding 

constraints and the higher priority agencies place on basic infrastructure. 

For example, a county transportation agency official we interviewed 

reported that the agency’s operating budget has been reduced by about 

30 percent over the past 2 years, which has led to reduced maintenance 

of ITS devices. Officials from one local agency told us that one of its big 

challenges is identifying operations and maintenance funding to support 

newer systems. Advanced traffic signal systems are one area in which 

operations and maintenance funding challenges can limit effectiveness 

and impede greater expansion. According to FHWA, over 50 deployments 

of these signal systems have occurred over the last two decades. 

However, over half of the deployments were deactivated because of 

Ongoing costs of operations for 

some systems may exceed those of deployment. For example, in 2003, 

investments for signal control hardware had initial costs of $21,000 to 

$30,000 and yearly maintenance costs of $9,000 to $10,500 over a 5-

year time frame.

 

40National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, Paying Our Way: 

A New Framework for Transportation Finance, (February 26, 2009).

41All 15 experts we interviewed rated funding operations and maintenance as a challenge 

to state and local governments in using ITS. Fourteen said that it was a major challenge 

and 1 said that it was a minor challenge. 

4275 Fed. Reg. 68418,68422, Nov. 8, 2010. In responding to these comments, FHWA 

extended its time frames for implementation and modified the final rule’s language to 

include an explicit reference to the eligibility of operations, including applicable preventive 

maintenance, for federal funding.
 

Page 26 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

insufficient resources or lack of maintenance or operations capabilities. 

Additionally, a 2010 study on adaptive traffic control systems found that 

funding—including the high cost of deployments and the lack of funding 

for operations—was the main factor in why these systems are not more 

widely deployed.43

The lack of funding availability for operations and maintenance is 

compounded by other challenges such as insufficient staffing resources, 

difficulty in planning maintenance costs, and the fast pace of 

technological change. RITA officials noted that some local governments 

will not install ITS because they do not have the staff to do the continual 

maintenance that the systems require. Three stakeholders and officials 

from six transportation agencies told us that funding the operations and 

maintenance of ITS is difficult to plan for, because of challenges 

accounting for maintenance costs and the fast pace of technology. The 

life cycle of ITS technologies is short, between 5 and 7 years, according 

to one ITS researcher, meaning that equipment or software will become 

obsolete or require retooling within that time frame.

Transportation officials in one metropolitan area we 

visited told us that it was common for smaller cities to fund the 

deployment of advanced traffic signals but be unable to fund, maintain, 

and repair them after deployment, causing signal failures that can impair 

coordination with neighboring cities and operation of the larger network.

Some states and localities have developed alternative methods for 

financing congestion reduction efforts, including ITS projects. These 

supplement traditional funding sources and have included imposing 

additional tolls, local taxes, or fees; developing partnerships with private 

industry; and designating separate funding. For example,

• Half of the budget of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los 

Angeles County comes from a 1.5 percent sales tax dedicated to 

transportation. This allows the agency to fund and deploy ITS 

improvements countywide, on arterials, highways, and the transit 

system. 

• The Virginia DOT is constructing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-495 

through a public-private partnership. This agreement provided Virginia 

 

43Transportation Research Board, Adaptive Traffic Control Systems: Domestic and 

Foreign State of Practice, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 

403 (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
 

Page 27 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

with needed construction funds, as the project would otherwise 

consume more than a year of the state’s construction funds.

• Some state and local governments have purchased traffic data from 

private companies because they can avoid the costs of data 

collection, including sensor deployment and operations and 

maintenance.

ITS is a rapidly developing field that requires a specialized workforce 

familiar with emerging technologies. Staff responsible for managing ITS 

systems need knowledge in a variety of areas, including project 

management and systems engineering, according to two FHWA division 

office ITS engineers.44 Workforce demographic changes, the competitive 

labor market, new technologies, and new expectations in the 

transportation industry combine to make attracting and retaining a 

capable workforce difficult for state and local transportation agencies. In 

addition, a 2011 National Cooperative Highway Research Program study 

found that U.S. universities produce too few skilled applicants for state 

and local DOTs.45 These issues combine to affect the ability of state and 

local agencies, especially smaller agencies, to manage ITS.46

Many state and local transportation agencies struggle to maintain inhouse staff with the skills and knowledge needed to manage ITS projects. 

Eight of the 15 experts we spoke with noted that agencies face 

challenges in maintaining staff with the expertise and skills needed for 

ITS. For example, 1 expert noted that ITS requires skills that civil 

engineers—with whom transportation agencies are generally well 

staffed—are not specifically trained in, such as understanding electrical 

systems, communication networks, and interagency relationship building. 

Another expert noted difficulty finding staff with other skills necessary to 

 

44Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach aimed at enabling the realization of 

successful systems. It focuses on defining client needs and required functionality to 

address those needs early in planning, and then carries out design and operation while 

considering the complete problem from both business and technical perspectives.

45National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Strategies to Attract and Retain a 

Capable Transportation Workforce (Washington, D.C.: 2011).

46Fifteen of 15 experts we interviewed said that lack of sufficient staff expertise constituted 

a challenge. Nine rated it a major challenge, 1 between a minor and major challenge, and 

5 a minor challenge.

ITS Knowledge Challenges
 

Page 28 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

ITS management, such as contract management, systems integration, 

and information technology troubleshooting skills. In addition, the fast 

pace of technological change and resource limitations put more demands 

on transportation officials and limit training opportunities. RITA officials 

told us that transportation agencies need systems engineers to manage 

ITS deployment and operations but do not have them in sufficient 

numbers. For example, a local government official told us he has been 

unable to fill a vacant ITS-related engineering position because of a hiring 

freeze that has been in effect for over 3 years. According to this official, 

this makes it difficult to complete ITS projects even when funds for 

projects are available.

Once ITS professionals have needed skills, agencies find it difficult to 

retain them. Eight of the 15 experts we spoke with noted that retention of 

qualified staff is a challenge for agencies. Limitations in salary and career 

opportunities can limit the ability of state and local governments to retain 

staff. One expert noted that the ITS staff at his state DOT could double 

their salary by going elsewhere, and another mentioned a state DOT 

employee who had multiple job offers from the private sector and whom 

the state DOT could no longer afford. Additionally, officials from 10 

transportation and stakeholder agencies we interviewed noted that 

retaining staff was a challenge. For example, officials from several 

transportation and stakeholder agencies noted that, because of budget 

restrictions, they have been unable to hire ITS staff to replace those who 

have retired.

This is a particular issue for small agencies, according to two FHWA 

division office ITS engineers. The agencies controlling arterial roadways 

and intersections, including traffic signals, are typically county and city 

governments and are smaller in terms of funding and personnel, on 

average, than agencies controlling freeways, which are typically state 

governments. For example, the National Transportation Operations 

Coalition’s 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Technical Report

found that agencies operating very small signal systems scored markedly 

lower on signal operations than all other agencies, likely because of staff 

not having specialized knowledge of signal systems operations and 

maintenance.47

 

47National Transportation Operations Coalition, National Traffic Signal Report Card 

Technical Report (2007).

Additionally, the report found almost one-half of all 417 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

survey respondents did not have staff or resources committed to monitor 

or manage traffic signal operations on a regular basis. According to a 

paper by two FHWA division office ITS engineers in California, small to 

medium-size agencies in the state lack qualified staff and, as a result, find 

it difficult to implement complex ITS projects successfully. The engineers 

noted that these agencies are not able to maintain staff with project 

management and systems engineering expertise because of insufficient 

ITS activity to justify a full-time staff position, high turnover of staff, and 

difficulty in obtaining ITS training. In the paper, the FHWA engineers 

proposed several potential solutions for these agencies, such as sharing 

technical staff within the same agency, sharing ITS staff between 

agencies, hiring consultants, or hiring another agency to perform some of 

the needed functions.

Seven experts, six stakeholders, and officials from nine transportation 

agencies we spoke with noted that agencies often address these issues 

by hiring consultants for ITS support. State and local agency officials

reported hiring consultants to perform a range of ITS tasks, such as 

maintaining ITS equipment, developing the regional architecture needed 

to meet federal requirements, and conducting the systems engineering to 

develop project requirements.48

In addition to developing a workforce skilled in ITS, transportation 

agencies also need leaders who support ITS to plan, fund, and implement 

projects successfully.49

 

48FHWA requires that any ITS projects carried out using funds from the Highway Trust 

Fund conform to the National ITS Architecture. Regions are required to develop a regional 

architecture to tailor the National Architecture to local needs. This rule also requires that 

all ITS projects be developed using a systems engineering analysis. 66 Fed. Reg.1446 

(Jan. 8, 2001). 23 C.F.R. Part 940.

As one expert noted, supportive state DOT 

leaders can find creative ways to fund ITS. However, officials from two 

transportation agencies and five stakeholders noted that leaders in their 

areas do not always place a priority on ITS, especially in the context of 

limited funding, when other projects such as bridge and roadway 

maintenance and building capacity can take precedence. Officials from 

some transportation and stakeholder agencies we interviewed said that 

49Of the 15 experts we spoke to, 12 rated institutional leadership and support as a 

challenge facing state and local governments in deploying, operating, and maintaining 

ITS. Five identified it as a major challenge, 3 as between a major and a minor challenge, 4 

as a minor challenge, 2 as not a challenge, and 1 had no basis to judge.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

elected and appointed officials lack good understanding of potential ITS 

benefits, and require reeducation when there is a change in leadership, 

which can lead to variations in funding and other support. The majority of 

the experts we interviewed noted that the level of ITS leadership varies 

across the country and from agency to agency.

As mentioned earlier, in highly congested metropolitan areas, ITS 

systems tend to be complex and involve multiple agencies. 

Transportation networks include freeways, arterial roadways, and transit 

systems that cross state and jurisdictional boundaries; and ITS may be 

implemented by numerous agencies, such as state DOTs, counties, 

cities, and transit agencies. For example, in the Pittsburgh metropolitan 

area, approximately 260 townships manage their own traffic signals, and 

in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, approximately 120 cities manage 

their own traffic signals, according to metropolitan planning organization 

officials. As noted previously, better integration of data across 

jurisdictions can improve traffic operations and traveler information. 

According to FHWA, better coordination has the potential to improve a 

region’s integration of ITS approaches, permitting agencies to leverage 

resources, avoid duplication, and enhance ITS effectiveness. However, 

we found coordination of various ITS elements and technologies is a 

challenge for agencies. Fourteen experts, seven stakeholders, and 

officials from five transportation agencies we interviewed noted that 

coordination across agencies is a challenge.50

Agencies face difficulty coordinating for many reasons, including differing 

priorities and perspectives. In 2007, we reported that common challenges 

transportation agencies face in coordinating include difficulties aligning 

perspectives when working on regional projects and addressing 

competing ideas of which jurisdictions should be responsible for the 

In addition, the DOT 2010 

deployment survey found that about 39 percent of freeway management 

agencies employ coordinated traffic incident management and only about 

16 percent of freeway agencies and 28 percent of arterial agencies 

engage in cross-jurisdictional traffic signal coordination.

 

50Fourteen of 15 experts whom we interviewed said that coordination among agencies 

and across jurisdictions presented challenges to state and local governments in deploying, 

operating, and maintaining ITS technologies. Five said that coordination presented a 

major challenge, 1 between a major and a minor challenge, and 8 a minor challenge. One 

had no basis to judge.

Coordination Challenges
 

Page 31 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

management and funding of ITS projects that cross boundaries.51 FHWA 

officials noted that some communities may have priorities that are 

contrary to the goal of creating free-flowing traffic, such as slowing down 

traffic through the town. Additionally, officials from six transportation 

agencies we interviewed discussed differing jurisdictional priorities as 

obstacles to regional goals. For example, in regard to traffic signals, 

officials in one metropolitan area we visited told us some cities work 

together to manage their signals with the purpose of expediting traffic 

through a corridor, while other cities want to independently manage their 

signals to slow traffic or discourage additional traffic. In another 

metropolitan area we visited, metropolitan planning organization officials 

reported challenges deciding who will bear the financial responsibility for 

bus priority signals that would allow buses to have priority through traffic 

signals. While the transit agency that operated the buses wanted a single 

equipment system to enable buses to move freely at signals in the 

region’s various jurisdictions, cities operating the traffic lights could not 

afford to modify their systems.52

In some cases, agencies are able to work together to achieve common 

goals to reduce congestion. For example, three jurisdictions outside of 

Pittsburgh—Cranberry Township, Seven Fields Borough, and Adams 

Township—worked together in 2008 to implement a signal coordination 

project along Route 228, a congested arterial corridor. These jurisdictions 

were able to secure a mix of local and state funding to implement the 

project and established an agreement to govern the maintenance of the 

signals. According to an evaluation, the project could yield total benefits 

of up to approximately $2 million in reduced delay, reduced fuel 

consumption, and reduced emissions over a 5-year period. For a 5-year 

cost of $70,000, the public could realize a benefit-to-cost ratio of as much 

 

51GAO, Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing Road 

Infrastructure Perform Better, GAO-07-920 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007).

52Officials noted that this problem was eventually alleviated by the use of federal 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, part of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was intended to provide 

economic stimulus across the nation.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

as 30 to 1.53 At a regional level, the I-95 Corridor Coalition has worked on 

a consensus basis to promote better traffic management along the I-95 

corridor by involving state and local transportation agencies, toll 

authorities, and related organizations since the early 1990s. Initially 

focused on incident management, the coalition now addresses other 

issues including data sharing to enhance decision making by states. 

Other areas in which the coalition is now working include integrating 

tolling systems and promoting availability of real-time truck-parking 

information along the corridor.

DOT activities sponsored and funded by RITA and FHWA promote and 

support the use of ITS and address the challenges that state and local 

governments face in deploying and effectively using ITS technologies. We 

identified several leading practices for successfully encouraging the 

adoption of new technologies: developing a strategy to promote and 

support the use of technologies; choosing appropriate methods to 

promote the use of technology by the target audience, including making 

users aware of ITS resources; and monitoring technology adoption. 

Further use of these leading practices could improve DOT’s promotion of 

ITS while leveraging its resources.

DOT agencies—specifically RITA and FHWA—sponsor and fund various 

activities that promote and support the use of ITS by state and local 

governments. These activities can be categorized as training and 

education, technical assistance, publications and guidance, ITS 

databases, planning and analysis tools, funding, demonstration and pilot 

projects, and ITS standards and architecture.54

 

53Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, “User Benefits Associated With the 

Implementation of a Multi-Municipal Signal Coordination Project: State Route 228, Butler 

County,” April 2008. We did not evaluate the data and methodology used in this estimate. 

However, we have noted some general limitations and sources of errors in the practice of 

forecasting benefits and costs for transportation projects. See GAO, Highway and Transit 

Investments: Options for Improving Information on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and 

Increasing Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).

54The National Architecture provides a common framework for planning, defining, and 

integrating ITS. RITA developed the National Architecture and facilitates the development 

of standards in coordination with transportation organizations and industry. FHWA 

provides technical assistance to state and local government officials in using the 

standards and architecture.

Further Use of 

Leading Practices 

Could Enhance DOT’s 

Promotion of ITS and 

Better Address 

Challenges 

DOT’s Efforts to Promote 

and Support ITS 

Technologies Help Address 

State and Local Challenges
 

Page 33 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

RITA’s activities focus on conveying knowledge of the value and uses of 

ITS technologies, while FHWA’s activities promote strategies for 

improving traffic operations, many of which make use of ITS technologies. 

The activities sponsored by RITA and FHWA help state and local 

governments address the challenges they face in deploying, operating, 

and maintaining ITS technologies. For a summary of various DOT 

activities that address the state and local challenges we have previously 

identified, see appendix II.

DOT has undertaken various activities that can assist state and local 

governments in addressing challenges they face in planning the strategic 

use of ITS technologies. FHWA sponsors a program called Planning for 

Operations aimed at incorporating traffic operations strategies, supported 

by ITS technologies, into mainstream transportation planning. For 

example, this approach advocates using operations-based objectives and 

performance measures, such as reducing delays as a result of incidents, 

as a basis for choosing congestion management strategies, such as 

traffic incident management strategies that make use of ITS technologies 

to identify and respond to incidents more quickly. As part of this effort, 

FHWA sponsors workshops for metropolitan planning organizations and 

has written guidance that provides examples of operations objectives, 

performance measures, and a sample transportation plan that includes 

different operational strategies. In addition, RITA hosts an ITS portal on 

its website that includes ITS-related information that can be useful for 

planning, such as databases with studies highlighting the benefits, costs, 

and lessons learned associated with ITS deployments.

Although DOT no longer provides dedicated funding for ITS deployments, 

several funding mechanisms can be used for ITS-related deployments 

and operations. SAFETEA-LU authorizes states to use their federal aid 

highway funding for developing and implementing ITS systems.55

 

55As noted in the previous section, a large gap exists in financing the nation’s surface 

transportation needs. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing 

Commission has proposed a number of options to address this issue. See National 

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, Paying Our Way: A New 

Framework for Transportation Finance, (February 2009). In addition, we have reported on 

several strategies that could be used to better align surface transportation expenditures 

and revenue. GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for 

More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs, 

For 

example, funds from the Highway Trust Fund’s National Highway System, 

GAO-08-400

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2008).

Strategic Planning

Funding
 

Page 34 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Surface Transportation, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement programs are eligible to be used for the deployment and 

operations of ITS technologies.56 Although funding of ITS technologies is 

not specifically tracked, FHWA officials estimate that approximately 3 to 5 

percent, or between $800 million and $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2010, of 

federal aid highway program funds have been used for ITS 

technologies.57 For the most part, this funding is not for pure ITS projects 

but rather for ITS technologies that are incorporated into larger road and 

bridge improvement projects. According to FHWA officials, an internal 

analysis found that a similar percentage of funds, or between about $800

million and $1.3 billion, of FHWA’s American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act funds were used for ITS deployments, with the majority of the total 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds being obligated between 

early 2009 and March 2011.58 In fiscal year 2010, RITA obligated 

approximately $28.2 million for research on emerging uses of ITS 

technologies and obligated an additional $12.3 million to programs 

supporting the deployment of ITS, including the Professional Capacity 

Building program.59

 

5623 U.S.C. § 103(b)(6)(O)(National Highway System); 23 U.S.C. § 133 (b)(13)(Surface 

Transportation); 23 U.S.C. § 149(b)(5)(Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

Program). Operating costs under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

program are restricted to transit and intermodal projects, and traffic operating centers.

57Federal aid highway funded projects generally incorporate ITS into larger road 

improvement projects. This estimate is based on FHWA officials’ experience and data as 

a result of working with these projects and includes funds from the Equity Bonus program, 

which provides funding to states to ensure a minimum rate of return on contributions to the 

Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2010, FHWA apportioned the 

following federal aid highway funds to states: $7.6 billion in Surface Transportation 

program funds, $7.2 billion in National Highway System funds, $2.1 billion in Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program funds, and $9.6 billion in Equity Bonus 

Funds, totaling $26.5 billion pursuant to the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010, 

Pub. L. No. 111-147, Title IV, 124 Stat. 71, 78 (2010). 

58FHWA apportioned approximately $26.6 billion in total funds to states for highway 

infrastructure investment under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

59In fiscal year 2010, RITA obligated more than $112 million for programs operated under 

the ITS Joint Program Office, including connected vehicle technology research. Although 

the ITS Joint Program Office resides within RITA, the funding for the Joint Program Office 

is provided through the FHWA budget. A formal memorandum of understanding between 

RITA and FHWA specifies that the Joint Program Office administers ITS program funds 

under RITA program guidance, while FHWA provides budget and administrative functions. 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

DOT also provides funding for limited trial deployments of ITS. Since 

2005, FHWA has provided about $26.6 million and managed about 

$150.9 million of RITA’s funds for demonstration projects that support the 

use of ITS technologies in managing traffic congestion, including four 

Urban Partnership Agreement projects, two Congestion Reduction 

program projects, and two Integrated Corridor Management projects.60

DOT sponsors multiple activities and programs aimed at ensuring that the 

state and local transportation workforce and leaders have adequate ITS 

knowledge. RITA operates a Professional Capacity Building program that 

aims to enhance the professional development of current and emerging 

ITS professionals. According to RITA statistics, between January 2010 

and June 2011, the program reached over 3,400 transportation 

professionals through multiple activities, including 13 webinars, 8 webbased courses, 5 workshops, 6 presentations, and 12 peer-to-peer 

exchanges on topics such as ITS project management, systems 

engineering, adaptive signal control technology, and integrated corridor 

management. The program is in the process of refocusing its efforts in 

order to prepare transportation professionals for new connected vehicle 

technologies as well as to allow them to take advantage of proven ITS 

technologies.

In 

addition, FHWA has sponsored several smaller-scale demonstration 

projects that examine and test ITS applications, such as a demonstration 

project to develop an enhanced 511 traveler information system.

Similarly, FHWA conducts a variety of activities aimed at building the 

expertise of the state, regional, and local workforce in traffic operations 

strategies and associated ITS technologies. In addition to offering some 

training courses through RITA’s Professional Capacity Building program, 

FHWA offers its own training courses, technical assistance, and a variety 

of publications and guidance aimed at improving the management of 

traffic operations and the use of ITS. For example, between January 2010 

 

60The Urban Partnership program has provided funding to four cities seeking to relieve 

traffic using four strategies: tolling, transit, telecommuting, and technology. The 

Congestion Reduction Demonstration was a follow-on to the Urban Partnership program 

and provided funding to two cities to implement congestion pricing along with 

complementary transportation solutions, such as transit service and innovative 

technology. The Integrated Corridor Management Systems initiative funded two projects 

that focus on operating and optimizing the transportation system along a specific corridor 

through a combined application of technologies and a commitment of network partners to 

work together.

ITS Knowledge
 

Page 36 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

and June 2011 FHWA offered 52 workshops, 2 webinars, and 12 peer-topeer exchanges related to topics such as adaptive signal control 

technology, traffic incident management, and ITS performance measures. 

Most of these activities are sponsored by FHWA’s Office of Operations 

under individual program areas, such as traffic incident management, 

traffic signal management, congestion pricing, and real-time traveler 

information. FHWA also has an additional initiative—including guidance, 

training, and technical assistance—aimed at improving traffic signal 

management.

In addition, RITA and FHWA have activities focused on enhancing the 

knowledge of state and local leaders about traffic operations and ITS 

technologies. Through its Professional Capacity Building program, RITA 

emphasizes leadership awareness through activities such as peer-to-peer 

exchanges. RITA officials told us they are also considering possible new 

ways to reach high-level decision makers. FHWA is sponsoring an 

initiative that provides guidance to leaders in 12 states on how to 

integrate transportation operations and ITS technologies into the state 

planning process, with the intent of turning these states into models for 

other states. Furthermore, FHWA has an effort under way to identify and 

contact newly appointed state DOT leaders to discuss the benefits of 

operational strategies that use ITS technologies, including hosting 

workshops with top-tier leaders.

DOT promotes the coordination of ITS approaches among state and local 

government agencies, emphasizing the benefits of a regional approach. 

For example, FHWA promotes regional collaboration through its Planning 

for Operations program as well as the Regional Concept for 

Transportation Operations initiative. Specifically, this initiative provides 

state and local officials with various publications that encourage a 

coordinated regional approach in the planning for and deployment of ITSbased operational strategies, such as traffic incident management or 

traveler information services. RITA and FHWA also promote regional 

cooperation by sponsoring demonstration projects through the Integrated 

Corridor Management initiative. This initiative aims to integrate 

operational strategies and ITS technologies among transportation 

operators along a specific corridor, supporting interagency collaboration 

and the integration of systems. Additionally, RITA and FHWA promote 

ITS coordination through the development and support of ITS architecture 

and standards used to facilitate the exchange of information and ensure 

compatibility among ITS technologies at a regional level. One RITA 

official told us that the regional architecture is often the catalyst for 

interagency contact between state and local DOTs.

Coordination
 

Page 37 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Furthermore, FHWA encourages regional approaches by supporting 

alliances of transportation agencies in multiple states. For example, the I95 Corridor Coalition includes 40 member agencies, toll authorities, and 

other entities located along the corridor that work together with the aim of 

creating seamless operations across jurisdictions and modes. The 

coalition has been supported by RITA funds that are managed by FHWA 

and used for efforts that benefit all the coalition members, such as 

purchasing private sector data that are shared among the agencies. 

Similarly, the North/West Passage Corridor Coalition was created as part 

of a shared fund study, supported by FHWA, that combines funds among 

eight member states along the I-90 and I-94 corridors in order to develop 

effective methods for sharing, coordinating, and integrating traveler 

information and operational activities across state borders.61

The National Academies’ Transportation Research Board and we have 

identified a number of leading practices for successfully encouraging the 

adoption of new technologies.62 Of these, the ones we have identified as 

being most applicable for assessing DOT’s efforts to promote and support 

ITS use by state and local governments fall into three main areas (see 

table 3).

 

61The member states of the North/West Passage Corridor Coalition include Washington, 

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

62See Transportation Research Board, Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, 

Challenges, and Needs: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Synthesis 355 (Washington, D.C.: 2005); Transportation Research 

Board, Managing Technology Transfer: A Strategy for the Federal Highway 

Administration, Special Report 256 (Washington, D.C.: 1999); GAO, Technology Transfer: 

Clearer Priorities and Greater Use of Innovative Approaches Could Increase the 

Effectiveness of Technology Transfer at Department of Energy Laboratories, GAO-09-548

(Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2009); Rail Safety: Federal Railroad Administration Should 

Report on Risks to the Successful Implementation of Mandated Safety Technology, 

GAO-11-133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2010); NextGen Air Transportation System: 

Mechanisms for Collaboration and Technology Transfer Could Be Enhanced to More Fully 

Leverage Partner Agency and Industry Resources, GAO-11-604 (Washington, D.C.: June 

30, 2011); Best Practices: Stronger Practices Needed to Improve DOD Technology 

Transition Processes, GAO-06-883 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2006).

Increased Use of Leading 

Practices Could Improve 

DOT’s Promotion of ITS
 

Page 38 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Table 3: Leading Practices for Successfully Encouraging the Adoption of New Technologies

Leading practice Description

Developing a strategy to promote and 

support the use of technologies

Developing a strategy to promote and support technology use is a key component to 

the successful transfer of knowledge about and adoption of technologies. We have also 

found that collaborating agencies should work together to define and agree upon their 

respective roles and responsibilities.a

Choosing appropriate methods to promote 

the use of technology by the target audience

Identifying the primary users of a technology and choosing the appropriate methods to 

promote the use of a technology by that audience are key steps in fostering the 

successful transfer of knowledge about and adoption of technologies. We have also 

found that improving the availability and awareness of DOT resources can assist state 

and local officials in making decisions regarding transportation projects.b

Monitoring technology adoption Careful monitoring of the acceptance, adoption, and satisfaction among users of 

technologies being promoted can provide lessons about agency efforts to encourage 

technology implementation. Reporting this information can demonstrate program 

results and build support for the agency’s efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of GAO and National Academies’ Transportation Research Board reports.

a

See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

b

See GAO, Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address Intermodal 

Barriers, GAO-07-718 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007).

RITA and FHWA each have strategies that guide their efforts to promote 

and support the use of ITS technologies at the state and local levels. 

RITA has developed a strategic plan for its Professional Capacity Building 

program that outlines goals, performance measures, and an action plan 

for implementation of professional development activities for ITS 

professionals and leaders. In addition, RITA is developing a strategy to 

help ensure that the results of its ITS research become commercially 

viable and are adopted by the transportation community and is planning 

to issue this strategy in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012. Likewise, 

FHWA’s Office of Operations has developed a plan that outlines, among 

other things, the activities associated with promoting better traffic 

operations among state and local agencies, including the use of ITS 

technologies. The plan defines goals, performance measures, and 

activities for each traffic operations program, such as sponsoring 

workshops on real-time traveler information, developing guidance on the 

state of the practice for traffic incident management, and creating training 

courses on road weather traffic management.

RITA and FHWA coordinate on ITS research programs and in developing 

a strategic research plan for ITS, but they have not fully or clearly defined 

their roles and responsibilities for promoting and supporting ITS 

technologies. RITA and FHWA both participate in the ITS Strategic 

Planning Group, a departmental group that oversees DOT’s ITS research 

Develop a Strategy to Promote 

and Support the Use of 

Technologies 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

efforts. The Strategic Planning Group’s charter, a document that specifies 

the process for multimodal coordination, describes RITA’s leadership role 

in advocating for advanced ITS technologies that address congestion 

issues, among other things.63

Without clearly defining their respective roles, RITA and FHWA may not 

be fully leveraging their resources and their efforts may be fragmented.

However, the respective roles and 

responsibilities of RITA and FHWA in promoting and supporting ITS are 

not defined in the charter or in RITA’s strategic research plan. In addition, 

the ITS Professional Capacity Building strategic plan does not discuss the 

roles and responsibilities of the modal agencies, such as FHWA, in 

developing activities to support ITS professionals. Although RITA and 

FHWA officials said that they coordinate informally, we have found that, 

as part of agreeing to respective roles and responsibilities, collaborating 

agencies should clarify who will do what.

64

 

63The ITS Strategic Planning Group’s charter describes how RITA and the modal 

agencies should define their roles and responsibilities regarding ITS research programs.

RITA and FHWA carry out several similar efforts to promote ITS to a 

similar audience of state and local officials. Both agencies provide training 

and peer-to-peer exchanges that cover ITS technologies, and have 

numerous studies and guidance. For example, RITA, FHWA’s Office of 

Operations, and FHWA’s Resource Center each offer peer-to-peer 

exchanges to state and local agencies aimed at resolving issues 

associated with deploying ITS technologies or operational strategies 

using ITS. Specifically, between January 2010 and June 2011, RITA 

conducted one peer-to-peer exchange on adaptive signal control 

technology and FHWA conducted three peer-to-peer exchanges on the 

same topic. The Professional Capacity Building strategic plan includes an 

objective aimed at coordinating the educational efforts of a variety of 

organizations to avoid overlap, including RITA, FHWA, and their federal 

training partners, since they each offer multiple courses on ITS 

64We have previously identified a number of surface transportation programs where 

potential duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could exist. See GAO, List of Selected 

Federal Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, Provide Similar Services, 

or Are Fragmented across Government Missions, GAO-11-474R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

18, 2011). We have used the term “fragmentation” to refer to those circumstances in 

which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 

involved in the same broad area of national need. The presence of fragmentation and 

overlap can suggest the need to look closer at the potential for unnecessary duplication. 

However, determining whether and to what extent programs are actually duplicative 

requires programmatic information that is often not readily available.
 

Page 40 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

technologies.65

Furthermore, in comparing RITA and FHWA websites related to ITS, we 

found that each of the sites provided links to different studies and 

guidance for several of the same or similar ITS uses. For example, in a 

search for the benefits associated with arterial management applications, 

RITA’s and FHWA’s websites provided different documents with no clear 

coordinated approach to addressing the topic.

However, according to a RITA official, the focus of this 

effort is currently on meeting with select universities to identify the 

learning providers. One expert and a transportation agency said that the 

roles of RITA and FHWA should be better defined so that state and local 

government officials are aware of which agency is playing which role.

66

In addition, RITA’s role in promoting ITS technology is changing, and 

without defined roles and responsibilities for RITA and FHWA, it is difficult 

to assess how this change will affect DOT’s overall efforts for promoting 

and supporting the use of ITS technologies. As previously discussed, 

RITA’s Professional Capacity Building program is refocusing its agenda to 

prepare the transportation workforce to adopt new connected vehicle 

technologies and take better advantage of proven ITS technologies. This 

will result in activities sponsored by RITA to be more focused on 

connected vehicle technologies, according to a RITA official, resulting in 

fewer available resources to support the use of more mainstream ITS 

technologies. At the same time, as previously discussed, state and local 

governments face challenges using ITS, especially in building and 

maintaining ITS knowledge among staff. Not fully or clearly defining the 

roles of each agency may result in the inefficient use of resources that, 

Similarly, when searching 

for training opportunities on arterial management, we looked at two 

FHWA websites and a RITA website and found 16 different courses cited. 

FHWA officials noted that such inconsistencies exist because each 

agency has a different outlook on ITS technologies. In addition, the large 

array of information and pace of development make it difficult to 

completely align the websites.

 

65Federal training partners include the National Highway Institute and National Transit 

Institute. In addition, RITA and FHWA also work with other training providers, such as 

universities, professional associations, and private sector vendors of ITS.

66RITA’s and FHWA’s websites provide some links to each other’s ITS resources, such as 

between FHWA’s Arterial Management program and Adaptive Signal Control 

Technologies program and RITA’s ITS databases. 
 

Page 41 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

given the current fiscal environment, may inhibit RITA and FWHA from 

fully leveraging their resources to promote ITS.

Identifying Users and Selecting Methods

RITA and FHWA have defined their target audiences for promoting and 

supporting ITS technologies. RITA’s Professional Capacity Building 

strategic plan defines the target audience as the ITS practitioner, including 

federal, state, and local level professionals from all surface modes, 

decision makers, researchers, and students. However, a RITA official told 

us that the agency intends to more narrowly define its target audience to 

better focus its efforts. According to FHWA officials, FHWA defines its main 

audience as state DOTs, in part because of its role in administering the 

federal aid highway program. FHWA is building stronger relationships with 

metropolitan planning organizations and transportation agencies in major 

metropolitan areas as part of its efforts to promote improved traffic 

operations, according to an FHWA official. However, the official noted that 

it is difficult to work with local transportation agencies, since there are so 

many of them. As previously mentioned, smaller transportation agencies 

tend to face additional challenges in deploying ITS technologies, such as 

having limited time or knowledge to plan for ITS and difficulty recruiting and 

retaining a qualified workforce to manage ITS.

RITA and FHWA involve stakeholders in the process of developing 

activities and information on traffic operations and related ITS 

technologies. RITA has elicited input from stakeholders in developing its 

activities. For example, the agency conducted three user workshops in 

developing the Professional Capacity Building strategic plan, getting 

feedback from 148 multimodal public and private sector users in two 

interactive web meetings. RITA issued a request for information in July 

2011, seeking input from interested public, private, and academic entities 

in identifying the needs for ITS learning among transportation 

professionals and innovative techniques for delivering ITS learning.67

 

67See 76 Fed. Reg. 45334 (July 28, 2011).

FHWA also involves stakeholders at the program-planning level, 

specifically when major products are being developed. For example, an 

FHWA official told us that the Planning for Operations program used peer 

groups from metropolitan planning organizations to develop and review 

guidance materials.

Choosing Appropriate Methods 

to Promote the Use of 

Technology by the Target 

Audience
 

Page 42 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Experts, transportation agencies, and stakeholders we interviewed 

considered some of the activities sponsored by RITA and FHWA more 

useful than others. The 14 experts we interviewed considered training 

and education activities, including webinars, as well as technical 

assistance activities, such as the peer-to-peer exchanges, to be the most 

useful of the activities offered by RITA and FHWA.68

A RITA official told us that the peer-to-peer program may be phased out 

as RITA refocuses the agenda of the Professional Capacity Building 

program on connected vehicle technologies, leaving less of a focus on 

mainstream ITS. In RITA’s planning workshops, users indicated that they 

primarily would like real-world experience “from the source,” stating that 

opportunities to learn from peers, including peer-to-peer exchanges, are a 

desirable way to learn. In our interviews, two transportation agencies and 

three experts also said that it would be useful to have more opportunities 

to learn from peers. RITA’s refocused agenda could decrease the 

opportunities for state and local officials to participate in an effective 

method for relaying ITS information and technical assistance to DOT’s 

target audience.

Many of the 

transportation agencies and stakeholders we interviewed found webinars 

particularly useful. Additionally, experts and transportation agencies we 

interviewed, as well as stakeholders with whom RITA consulted indicated 

that opportunities to share information among their peers, either via 

workshops or peer-to-peer exchanges, provide valuable ways to learn 

from others’ experiences.

In contrast, other resources, such as the information sources sponsored 

by RITA and FHWA may not be as useful to state and local officials. 

According to the experts we interviewed, RITA’s and FHWA’s publications 

and guidance related to ITS, as well as the ITS databases, were not 

considered as useful as other activities.69

 

68We interviewed 15 experts, but the responses from 1 expert were not included because 

the expert was a provider of some of the activities sponsored by DOT. In the interviews, 

we asked experts their opinions on RITA’s and FHWA’s resources for training and 

education, technical assistance, outreach and publications, ITS databases, demonstration 

and pilot projects, planning and analysis tools, and policy and standards development. 

However, we did not ask experts specifically about the funding of ITS as part of the 

questions on RITA’s and FHWA’s resources.

While several transportation 

agencies noted that FHWA’s website is helpful, four experts and one 

69In May 2011, RITA made a new user interface available for the ITS databases.
 

Page 43 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

state and local official said that RITA’s and FHWA’s websites have too 

much information and are not well organized. In addition, three experts 

and one transportation agency commented that it is difficult to identify 

needed information given the amount of information available. 

Specifically, one expert noted there was little effort to highlight or 

summarize the most important information on these websites.

Users that RITA surveyed, as well as some experts and transportation 

agencies we interviewed, indicated that they would like specific benefit 

information related to ITS deployment.70

RITA officials told us that there are fewer evaluations being completed to 

include in the ITS databases, since DOT no longer provides dedicated 

funds for ITS deployments. In addition, as previously mentioned, DOT’s 

current ITS research agenda focuses on connected vehicle technologies. 

RITA officials also acknowledged that the information in the databases 

may be dated, but noted that the information is still useful. According to a 

RITA official, the information in the databases is updated on a rolling 

basis as DOT reports are completed and other external reports are 

submitted by state and local governments. A RITA official also stated that 

RITA tracks the monthly usage statistics for the ITS databases, although 

this doesn’t measure the usefulness of the databases. ITS-related 

information that is not easily accessible, timely, and relevant will not 

effectively meet the needs of state and local officials as they plan for and 

deploy ITS technologies, resulting in underused resources.

At the same time, the majority of 

experts we interviewed said that the ITS databases housing this type of 

information were only somewhat useful. Likewise, one transportation 

stakeholder did not think the databases were useful and found them 

difficult to navigate, while another stakeholder did not think the studies in 

the databases were useful. In addition, we searched the ITS database for 

the benefits associated with arterial management projects and found 125 

separate studies in six categories dated from 1994 to 2011. Of these 

studies, 21, or only 17 percent, were completed in the last 5 years.

 

70Future evaluations for the Urban Partnership Agreement demonstration project reports 

and the Integrated Corridor Management demonstration project reports will feature 

benefit-cost analyses that fulfill the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance.
 

Page 44 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Making Users Aware of ITS Resources

Transportation agencies may not be aware of all of the ITS-related 

activities and information offered by RITA and FHWA. In an informal poll 

that a RITA official recently conducted of transportation professionals at 

two outreach events sponsored by transportation organizations, RITA 

officials found that 10 of 29 professionals polled, or 35 percent, were not 

aware of the activities and information available through RITA, and 21 

percent were not aware of activities and information on transportation 

operations offered by FHWA. Likewise, four experts, a transportation 

agency, and a stakeholder we interviewed said that DOT could improve 

communications about ITS activities and information with state and local 

governments, for example, by becoming more engaged with state and 

local officials. For example, two experts said that transportation agencies 

were not aware of how to contact the ITS specialists in FHWA’s Resource 

Center that offer ITS technical assistance. According to two FHWA 

division office ITS engineers in California, although DOT sponsors 

Internet-based training, most local agencies have not taken advantage of 

these activities. An FHWA official also acknowledged that it is difficult to 

match users with their activities and get state and local officials to take 

advantage of the activities available.

RITA and FHWA are taking some steps currently to improve access to 

and awareness of ITS-related information and assistance. For example, 

RITA is developing plans to target audiences through partnerships with 

professional associations that may have more direct access to ITS 

practitioners, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers and ITS 

America. It also plans to more effectively use University Transportation 

Centers, which are established to “advance significantly the state-of-theart in transportation research and expand the workforce of transportation 

professionals.”71

 

71SAFETEA-LU §5402(a) (49 USC 5506(b)).

RITA is also planning to use video more aggressively to 

promote ITS activities and develop testimonials to promote the 

Professional Capacity Building program. FHWA is focusing on outreach 

and marketing as a critical element of an implementation plan for its traffic 

signals program, with the aim of increasing awareness and directly 

engaging stakeholders on the benefits and applicability of the strategy. 

SAFETEA-LU set a cap of $250,000 per fiscal year for DOT’s funding of 
 

Page 45 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

outreach for ITS-related activities, but this cap may be lifted in the next 

reauthorization of surface transportation programs.72

As noted earlier, RITA is developing a strategy, to be issued in the third 

quarter of fiscal year 2012, to help ensure that the results of its ITS 

research become commercially viable and are adopted by the 

transportation community. Such a strategy could provide an opportunity 

for RITA, as well as its partner FHWA, to further identify methods for 

improving access to and awareness on the part of state and local 

transportation agencies of ITS resources related to traffic management. 

Also, as noted previously, RITA is considering phasing out its peer-topeer program, while experts and transportation agencies we interviewed 

as well as stakeholders RITA consulted indicated that methods for 

sharing information among peers provide valuable ways to learn from 

others’ experiences. Therefore, this strategy could also provide an 

opportunity to identify ways to facilitate the exchange of information 

among state and local officials. However, RITA has not yet determined to 

what extent its strategy will address these issues.

Several options have been proposed for improving communication about 

ITS resources and facilitating learning exchanges. A 2011 report solicited 

by RITA to identify best practices for promoting ITS technologies included 

a recommendation that the agency create an ITS Partners program that 

would incorporate a number of its activities under a single brand, 

encourage and support the deployment of ITS by public agencies, and 

increase collaboration among federal agencies, state and local agencies, 

universities, and industry.73

While RITA is planning to enhance partnerships with professional 

associations and University Transportation Centers to leverage its 

resources, RITA has not yet decided on the extent to which it will 

Activities would include marketing the 

program, implementing an interactive website where agencies can share 

experiences, and establishing networks of individuals interested in 

specific topics.

 

72SAFETEA-LU limits DOT’s use of funds for ITS activities consisting of outreach, public 

relations, displays, tours, and brochures to no more than $250,000 per fiscal year. See 

Pub. L. No. 109-59, §5302(a), 119 Stat. 1144, 1805 (2005). 

73U.S. Department of Transportation, RITA ITS Joint Program Office, Key Findings and 

Recommendations for Technology Transfer at the ITS JPO (Washington D.C.: Mar. 21, 

2011).
 

Page 46 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

implement this recommendation. Officials cited restricted funding as a 

factor in their implementation decision. In addition, RITA’s Professional 

Capacity Building strategic plan includes a goal to establish an ITS 

learning portal for “one-stop shopping” of training courses, technical 

assistance, and peer-to-peer events. According to a RITA official, this 

effort is currently on hold, awaiting the results of a National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program study. This study, which is being conducted 

by the Transportation Research Board, is focusing on designing an 

Operations Center of Excellence that would facilitate implementation of 

best practices for traffic operations, including ITS, and promote 

collaboration among state and local government officials in developing 

best practices. The study will assess the needs of state and local 

transportation agencies, inventory the available resources, and analyze 

alternative methods to implement and fund such a center. The study is 

expected to be completed in early 2012.74

Both RITA and FHWA collect information to monitor the adoption of ITS 

technologies and use this information to understand the level of 

deployment and make decisions on how to encourage the future 

deployment of ITS technologies, according to officials from both agencies. 

DOT has not yet defined its 

role in establishing, supporting, and implementing such a center. A RITA 

official said that the organization would need extra funds if it was tasked 

with operating such a center and will wait for the outcome of the study to 

determine the role it can play. FHWA officials told us that they envision 

that they would be heavily involved in setting up the Operations Center of 

Excellence, but would prefer that it not be funded by DOT. Participation in 

this effort, if and when it is implemented, could allow both RITA and 

FHWA to identify and potentially take advantage of opportunities to 

leverage their ITS promotion and support activities with those of external 

organizations. Such leveraging is particularly important given federal 

fiscal constraints. As RITA develops its strategy for ensuring that the 

results of its ITS research become commercially viable and are adopted 

by the transportation community, it could benefit from working with FHWA 

to consider this range of options for improving communication about ITS 

resources related to traffic management, thereby enhancing access to 

and awareness of these resources, and facilitating learning exchanges 

among state and local governments, while leveraging its resources.

 

74The Transportation Research Board is also examining ways to improve the transfer of 

knowledge in order to improve traffic operations and use of ITS.

Monitoring of Technology 

Adoption
 

Page 47 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Nearly every year since 1997, RITA has conducted a national survey of 

state and local government agencies on the deployment of various ITS 

technologies and reported the results on its website. The deployment 

survey also gauges the factors affecting decisions to purchase ITS, views 

on benefits associated with ITS, and plans for continued investment. 

According to a RITA official, the agency uses the information on the level 

of current ITS deployments to help make decisions about future research. 

In addition, the survey provides feedback to RITA officials on the level of 

stakeholder interest in deploying specific ITS technologies and 

operational strategies. For example, the survey results assist the 

Professional Capacity Building program in determining the locations 

where ITS technologies are deployed and any gaps in deployment that 

merit attention.

FHWA also uses the deployment survey to understand ITS deployment 

trends. FHWA officials said they use the deployment statistics when 

developing operations-based initiatives, such as selecting the states to 

include in a program aimed at accelerating the integration of ITS and 

operational strategies into mainstream transportation planning. In 

addition, FHWA recently used the 2010 survey results when issuing a 

Final Rule for the Real-Time System Management Information Program, 

which requires states to establish programs to collect traffic and travel 

information. The survey was used to establish a baseline for the 

deployment of 511 traveler information services and determine the effect 

this rule would have on the expansion of 511 services, according to a 

RITA official.75 FHWA’s Office of Operations’ plan also incorporates 

deployment assessments for specific operations programs, such as the 

Road Weather Management program. This program tracks the rate of 

adoption of road weather technologies, such as a decision support 

system that helps winter maintenance managers make road treatment 

decisions.

As traffic congestion is projected to grow and state and local governments 

face fiscal constraints, ITS technologies and operational strategies 

supported by ITS provide opportunities for state and local governments to 

manage traffic congestion on the nation’s existing roadways. 

Furthermore, emerging uses of ITS technologies have the potential to 

 

75See 75 Fed. Reg. 68418 (Nov. 8, 2010). 

Conclusions 
 

Page 48 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

build upon existing investments in ITS by integrating real-time traffic 

information and instituting proactive management techniques. However, 

the challenges that state and local governments face in planning and 

funding ITS use, ensuring that staff and leaders have adequate 

knowledge of ITS, and coordinating ITS approaches impede their ability 

to make the most effective use of ITS technologies in addressing 

congestion.

While DOT’s efforts to promote and support the use of ITS technologies 

help state and local agencies address these challenges, the department 

could improve the effectiveness of these efforts through greater use of 

leading practices for promoting technology use. The lack of clearly 

defined respective roles and responsibilities of RITA and FHWA in 

promoting and supporting ITS raises questions about whether DOT could 

better leverage its resources and provide a more specific, cohesive 

strategy for ITS as it evolves. In addition, DOT’s activities may not be 

achieving maximum results, as state and local officials may have difficulty 

identifying the most relevant information or may not be aware of all of the 

ITS-related activities sponsored by RITA and FHWA. Taking steps to 

more effectively target efforts and leverage resources by further exploring 

internal and external opportunities to promote and support ITS 

technologies could better ensure that DOT’s activities achieve their 

intended purposes. Some options currently under consideration hold 

promise for facilitating the exchange of ITS information among state and 

local governments as well as for enhancing communication to improve 

access to and awareness of ITS-related resources. It will be important for 

DOT to work with its external partners and determine its role in these 

efforts to ensure it is fully leveraging its resources in promoting the use of 

ITS and maximizing its reach. If DOT does not effectively target and 

leverage its efforts to promote and support the use of current and 

emerging ITS technologies by state and local transportation agencies, 

DOT may struggle in helping these agencies transition to the next 

generation of ITS.

To effectively target efforts, leverage resources, better promote and 

support the use of ITS technologies by state and local governments, and 

improve access to and awareness of ITS resources, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Transportation take the following three actions:

• clearly define and document the respective roles and responsibilities 

of RITA and FHWA in promoting and supporting the use of ITS,

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 49 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

• revise ITS information on RITA and FHWA websites to improve its 

usefulness for state and local audiences based on their needs, and

• include in RITA’s strategy for promoting the adoption of ITS 

technologies plans for collaborating with external partners to (1) 

further enhance communication about the availability of ITS resources 

and (2) facilitate learning exchanges.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. DOT said it would consider our recommendations,

and provided technical clarifications that we incorporated into the report 

as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff that made significant contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

This report addresses (1) how state and local governments currently use 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies to manage traffic and 

emerging uses of these technologies that have the greatest potential to 

reduce congestion, (2) what types of challenges state and local governments 

face in using ITS technologies to manage traffic congestion, and (3) the 

extent to which the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) promotion and 

support of state and local governments’ use of ITS technologies have met 

leading practices and responded to challenges they face.

To determine how and to what extent state and local governments 

currently use ITS technologies to manage traffic, we analyzed DOT’s 

policy and planning documents and data on ITS deployment from its 2010 

ITS deployment survey. On the basis of interviews with DOT officials and 

analysis of the data, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for our purposes. We also analyzed pertinent legislation, documents, and 

studies of traffic management approaches and ITS deployment in the 

United States. We synthesized information from interviews with officials 

from DOT, including the Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We 

also interviewed officials from related associations such as the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and 

the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America).

We conducted site visits to Washington, D.C.; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 

Austin, Texas; and Los Angeles, California. At each site, we obtained 

documentation and interviewed officials from one or more state 

departments of transportation; one or more local government 

transportation agencies; the metropolitan planning organization; one 

FHWA division office responsible for the area; and, if applicable, any 

academics, researchers, or coalitions focused on ITS in that metropolitan 

area. We selected these locations from those with high congestion levels 

as determined by the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2010 Urban 

Mobility Report and varied ITS deployment levels as determined by 

DOT’s 2007 deployment survey database. We made a final selection of 

sites that included cities of different sizes and geographical 

representation, and one metropolitan area that spans more than one state 

(Washington, D.C.). We are not able to generalize our findings in these 

site visits to the whole country but used the other sources mentioned 

above to gain a more general perspective.

We also conducted a literature search to identify background materials on 

emerging ITS technologies, published research by prospective ITS experts, 

and leading practices in promoting and supporting the adoption of new 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

transportation technologies. The literature search focused on databases 

with transportation and engineering journal articles and conference 

proceedings (e.g., ProQuest and Transport Research International 

Documentation) as well as government reports (e.g., National Technical 

Information Service). The search terms used were related to using ITS for 

managing traffic congestion (e.g., incident response management).

We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 experts, whom we 

selected based on recommendations from officials at RITA, FHWA, 

AASHTO, and ITS America using several criteria. The primary 

requirement was that each individual have expertise in at least one of the 

following ITS fields that are important for traffic management: freeway 

management, arterial management, traffic incident management, 

roadway operations and maintenance, traveler information, and road 

weather management. In addition, we selected individuals with 

experience in the operations or deployment of ITS; planning, 

development, or evaluation of ITS projects; or experience with DOT’s 

efforts to promote and support the use of ITS technologies. In making our 

final selection, we considered publications and ITS experience and aimed 

to include a mix of individuals from state and local government, 

transportation associations, academia, and private industry. We selected 

experts based on how frequently they were recommended, a proxy for 

their standing within the ITS community, and to obtain a representative 

mix of officials from state and local government, academia, transportation 

associations, and private industry (such as consultants and ITS service or 

equipment providers). Through this representative mix, we believe that 

we have obtained a balanced set of perspectives.

We identified emerging uses of ITS technologies, which we defined as 

approaches that have begun to be used over the last 5-10 years, 

including approaches being researched or promoted by DOT, through 

interviews with DOT officials, experts, and a literature search. We 

excluded technologies with primary applications outside roadway traffic 

management, such as transit ITS, except when it had bearing on roadway 

traffic management. The scope of our work did not include connected 

vehicle technology or uses of ITS primarily aimed at other than managing 

and reducing traffic congestion, such as rural safety. To determine what 

emerging uses of ITS technologies have the greatest potential to reduce 

congestion, we presented the experts with a list of emerging uses of ITS 

technologies that we identified. This list consisted of (1) real-time data 

capture, sharing, and management; (2) real-time traveler information; (3) 

integrated corridor management; (4) active transportation and demand 

management; (5) enhanced incident response management; (6) weather 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

responsive traffic management; and (7) work zone management. We 

asked the experts if there were other emerging uses of ITS technologies 

that they believe have significant potential to reduce traffic congestion, 

and asked them to rate these and the above ITS uses on their potential to 

reduce traffic congestion. On the basis of the expert ratings, we selected 

the four emerging uses that all experts ranked as having at least medium 

potential to reduce traffic congestion, and which the most experts (at least 

9 of the 15) rated as having high potential to reduce traffic congestion.

Table 4: Names of Experts We Interviewed and Their Affiliations

State departments of transportation

• John Corbin, Director of Traffic Operations, Wisconsin DOT

• Bill Legg, State ITS Operations Engineer, Washington State DOT

• Tom Sorel, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT

• Kirk Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT

Local and regional agencies

• Tom Batz, Deputy Executive Director, Transportation Operations Coordinating 

Committee (TRANSCOM)

• Randell Iwasaki, Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority

• Andy Mao, Chief Traffic Engineer, Harris County, Texas, Public Infrastructure 

Department

Academia

• Stephen Albert, Director, Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University

• Peter Sweatman, Director, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

• C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, Department 

of Civil Engineering, the University of Texas at Austin

Professional organizations

• Siva Narla, Chief Engineer and ITS Standards Program Manager, Institute of 

Transportation Engineers

• Jim Wright, 511 Program Manager, ITS, AASHTO

Private sector

• Abbas Mohaddes, Chief Executive Officer and President, Iteris, Inc.

• Robert Rausch, Vice President ITS Division, TransCore

• Ted Trepanier, Executive Director, Public Sector, INRIX

Source: GAO.

To determine what types of challenges state and local governments face 

in using ITS technologies to manage traffic congestion, we conducted 

interviews with and obtained documents from RITA and FHWA officials, 

and AASHTO and ITS America representatives; conducted interviews 

with identified experts; reviewed published research on ITS challenges 

identified through a literature search; gathered information through 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

interviews and documents collected during the site visits described 

above; and analyzed these various interviews and documents to identify 

the most frequently cited challenges. We did not otherwise assess the 

extent of these challenges in the locations visited, such as determining 

actual funding or staffing levels.

To determine the extent to which DOT’s promotion and support of state 

and local governments’ use of ITS technologies responded to challenges 

they face and met leading practices, we collected information on DOT’s ITS 

promotion and support through interviews with RITA and FHWA officials 

and reviews of RITA’s and FHWA’s program and strategic planning 

documents, including documents related to the professional capacitybuilding program and traffic operations improvement efforts. In addition, we 

reviewed RITA’s and FHWA’s efforts to promote and support ITS 

technologies, including various studies, guidance, websites, demonstration 

project and highway funding, and RITA’s ITS databases. We limited our 

work to DOT’s activities and information relevant to the promotion and 

support of state and local governments’ use of ITS, not including DOT’s 

efforts aimed at bringing new technologies to market. We determined how 

DOT is required to promote and support the use of ITS technologies 

through reviews of pertinent laws. To determine the extent to which DOT’s 

efforts are meeting the challenges and leading practices, we reviewed 

literature on promoting and supporting the use of new technologies, 

including prior GAO reports, Transportation Research Board publications, 

and other academic publications, particularly focusing on leading practices 

that encourage the adoption of transportation technologies by state and 

local governments. On the basis of the scope and nature of DOT’s efforts, 

we identified the following practices as most applicable: (1) developing a 

strategy to promote and support the use of technologies; (2) choosing 

appropriate methods to promote the use of technology by the target 

audience; and (3) monitoring technology adoption. We compared DOT’s 

efforts with these leading practices and evaluated any areas needing 

improvement. We also obtained the views of identified experts and state 

and local officials interviewed during site visits about the usefulness of 

DOT’s efforts and any needed improvements.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 through 

February 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Examples of DOT Activities That 

Address State and Local Challenges

Page 54 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Source: GAO.

Appendix II: Examples of DOT Activities 

That Address State and Local Challenges

Challenge Type of activity Examples

Strategic 

planning

Training and education FHWA’s Planning for Operations program sponsors webinars, case studies, 

and workshops.

Technical assistance FHWA’s Resource Center and division offices provide assistance related to 

planning for operations, including ITS expertise. 

Publications and guidance FHWA provides planning-related guidance on its website, including case 

studies, a desk reference on benefit/cost analysis, guidebooks, and reports.

ITS databases RITA’s databases provide information on the benefits and costs associated 

with ITS technologies.

Planning and analysis tools FHWA’s ITS Deployment Analysis System assists in planning for ITS 

deployments.

Funding ITS Federal aid highway funding FHWA provides federal aid highway funds to states, some of which can be 

applied to ITS projects. FHWA has estimated that between 3 and 5 percent of 

the total funds, or $800 million to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010, has been 

used for funding ITS.

Demonstration and pilot projects RITA and FHWA fund various projects aimed at applying ITS technologies, 

such as projects funded under the Urban Partnership Agreements, 

Congestion Reduction Program, and Integrated Corridor Management 

Program, totaling more than $177 million since 2005.

ITS knowledge Training and education RITA’s Professional Capacity Building program offers webinars, workshops, 

and presentations for ITS professionals. FHWA’s Office of Operations and 

Resource Center provide seminars, training courses, and workshops for traffic 

operations managers as part of their efforts to improve traffic operations, such 

as traffic signal management. FHWA also sponsors workshops to develop 

local ITS champions and educate newly appointed leaders at state DOTs. 

Technical assistance RITA and FHWA facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges to transfer ITS knowledge 

and experiences from model users to agencies with less experience. FHWA’s 

Resource Center and division offices provide assistance and guidance on 

ITS-related issues, such as systems engineering, regional architecture, and 

traffic operations.

Publications and guidance RITA’s website includes a searchable ITS library with a variety of studies and 

guidance. FHWA provides studies and guidance related to improving traffic 

operations in areas such as traffic incident management, traffic signal 

management, congestion pricing, and real-time traveler information, among 

others. 

Coordination Publications and guidance FHWA’s Regional Concept for Transportation Operations initiative offers 

studies and guidance to promote a regional approach to transportation 

management and operations

Demonstration and pilot projects DOT’s Integrated Corridor Management projects, jointly run by RITA and 

FHWA, promote interjurisdictional partnerships to transform the way a corridor 

operates. 

ITS standards and architecture These standards and architecture, supported by efforts of RITA and FHWA, 

define and support a common structure for regional ITS projects with 

interoperable technologies.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 55 GAO-12-308 Intelligent Transportation Systems

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. 

In addition to the individual named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant 

Director; Leia Dickerson; Jennifer DuBord; Colin Fallon; David Hooper; 

Erik Kjeldgaard; Terence Lam; Emily Larson; Sara Ann Moessbauer; 

Madhav Panwar; and Joshua Ormond made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542179)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.