Intelligent Transportation Systems: Improved DOT Collaboration and Communication Could Enhance the Use of Technology to Manage Congestion
Published: 2012-03-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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  congestion without major capital investments. 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.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.
These strategies often also have documented cost savings to  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.
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.
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.
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,  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.  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.
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. 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  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. 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.
Congress established the ITS program in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface  Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),  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, Congress authorized funds  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. 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. 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.
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.
section_title: State and Local Governments Use ITS in Various Ways to Manage Congestion, and Some New Uses of ITS Are Promising
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: State and Local Governments’ ITS Deployment
paragraphs: 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).
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. 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 miles covered by cameras increased from approximately 15   The 2010 deployment survey  percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2010.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.
Loop 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. 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 peak- period 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.that state and local transportation agencies generally develop and use   Some of these experts noted  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.
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).two broad themes: (1) using integrated data to manage traffic and inform  travelers, and (2) proactively managing traffic.
section_title: State and Local Governments Face a Number of Challenges in Using ITS Technologies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Strategic Planning Challenges
paragraphs: 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  making, were challenges faced by state and local governments in using  ITS. 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. 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.
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  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. Despite challenges, DOT reports  that some regions have effectively incorporated ITS into their planning  efforts, including Hampton Roads, Virginia. 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.
section_title: Funding Challenges
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  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. 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.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.
These funding issues exist within the context of an overall large funding  gap for maintaining and improving the nation’s surface transportation  infrastructure. 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  for U.S. highway maintenance and only 41 percent of the costs for  highway improvement for the period 2008-2035.
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.  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.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.
Ongoing costs of operations for  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  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. 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.
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.
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  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.
section_title: ITS Knowledge Challenges
paragraphs: 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. 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. These issues combine to affect the ability of state and  local agencies, especially smaller agencies, to manage ITS.
Many state and local transportation agencies struggle to maintain in- house 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  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. Additionally, the report found almost one-half of all 417  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.
Of 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. 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.
section_title: Coordination Challenges
paragraphs: 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   In addition, the DOT 2010  coordination across agencies is a challenge.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.
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  management and funding of ITS projects that cross boundaries. 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.
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  as 30 to 1.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.
section_title: Further Use of Leading Practices Could Enhance DOT’s Promotion of ITS and Better Address Challenges
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: DOT’s Efforts to Promote and Support ITS Technologies Help Address State and Local Challenges
paragraphs: 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.
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. For  example, funds from the Highway Trust Fund’s National Highway System,  Surface Transportation, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality  Improvement programs are eligible to be used for the deployment and  operations of ITS technologies. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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 web- based 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.
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  and June 2011 FHWA offered 52 workshops, 2 webinars, and 12 peer-to- peer 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 ITS- based 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.
Furthermore, FHWA encourages regional approaches by supporting  alliances of transportation agencies in multiple states. For example, the I- 95 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.
section_title: Increased Use of Leading Practices Could Improve DOT’s Promotion of ITS
paragraphs: The National Academies’ Transportation Research Board and we have  identified a number of leading practices for successfully encouraging the  adoption of new technologies. 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).
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  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. 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.
We 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. technologies.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.
However, according to a RITA official, the focus of this  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. 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.
RITA’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. given the current fiscal environment, may inhibit RITA and FWHA from  fully leveraging their resources to promote ITS.
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.  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.
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. 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.
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.
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.agencies noted that FHWA’s website is helpful, four experts and one   While several transportation  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. 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.
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.
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-the- art in transportation research and expand the workforce of transportation   RITA is also planning to use video more aggressively to  professionals.”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  outreach for ITS-related activities, but this cap may be lifted in the next  reauthorization of surface transportation programs.
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-to- peer 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.program, implementing an interactive website where agencies can share  experiences, and establishing networks of individuals interested in  specific topics.
Activities would include marketing the  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  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   DOT has not yet defined its  expected to be completed in early 2012.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.
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.
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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
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  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 capacity- building 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Examples of DOT Activities That Address State and Local Challenges
paragraphs: Examples  FHWA’s Planning for Operations program sponsors webinars, case studies,  and workshops.
FHWA’s Resource Center and division offices provide assistance related to  planning for operations, including ITS expertise.
FHWA provides planning-related guidance on its website, including case  studies, a desk reference on benefit/cost analysis, guidebooks, and reports.
RITA’s databases provide information on the benefits and costs associated  with ITS technologies.
FHWA’s ITS Deployment Analysis System assists in planning for ITS  deployments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These standards and architecture, supported by efforts of RITA and FHWA,  define and support a common structure for regional ITS projects with  interoperable technologies.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.