Statement of
CHRISTINE
JOHNSON
Director, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint
Program Office
U.S. Department of Transportation
Before
the
Committee
on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee
on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety
United
States Senate
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss some of the challenges that face our Nation’s transportation system and the role of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in meeting these challenges.
As Secretary Mineta has said, transportation is key to
our Nation’s well-being, whether measured as economic growth, as international
competitiveness, or as quality of life.
On the whole, our system of highways and bridges works well in
maintaining the strong economic performance of the country, and a recent
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) survey of surface transportation
customers shows increasing levels of satisfaction with the physical condition
of our infrastructure. However, the
same survey shows traffic congestion and highway safety are growing concerns
for the traveling public. The survey
also reveals that the public is reluctant to turn to capacity expansion as a
first alternative to alleviate congestion because of the costs in taxes,
environmental impacts, and space.
Survey respondents favored solutions that minimize delays associated
with roadwork and make our existing system function better--operational
solutions, many of which are underpinned by ITS infrastructure. Through application of modern information
technology and communications, ITS can improve the quality, safety, and
effective capacity of our existing infrastructure. While good operation does not replace construction, it can
certainly enhance it.
With the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21), Congress reaffirmed the role of the
United States Department of Transportation (DOT) in development and integrated
deployment of ITS technologies.
Authorization of $1.3 billion through Fiscal Year 2003 has made possible
significant advances in the ITS program, and I would like to highlight some of
the accomplishments.
The
ITS Program under TEA-21 has four primary features: (1) research and
development funding providing for significant research; (2) incentive grants to
States and cities to foster integrated ITS deployment; (3) a requirement that
all ITS projects carried out using Federal-aid highway trust funds use
nationally established ITS standards and be consistent with a national
architecture; and finally, (4) in an attempt to “mainstream” ITS into regular
transportation investments, TEA-21 makes clear that many categories of
Federal-aid highway funds can be used for the purchase and operation of ITS
technology. In my testimony today, I
would like to provide a status report on each of these areas.
ITS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Let
me begin by discussing our research and development efforts. TEA-21 authorized a total of $603 million in
ITS research and development funds for fiscal years 1998-2003. For fiscal years 1998-2001, after specific
statutory reductions, $342 million have been made available in approximately
the following proportions:
§ 60% for research and field tests;
§ 14% for development of standards and maintenance of the National Architecture;
§ 9% for training and technical assistance to States, local governments, and transit properties;
§ 7% for evaluation; and
§ 10% to provide technical support for the administration of the program.
These
resources have been used to advance the state-of-the-art in ITS through
research and development, demonstrate new technologies through operational
tests, promote integration through the National ITS Architecture and ITS
Standards, and foster deployment by providing technical assistance and training
to State and local governments.
ITS
research and development is a very complex program that is roughly equivalent
in size to FHWA’s Surface Transportation Research Program. I would like to highlight some of the major
initiatives that are underway in the ITS research and development program as a
result of TEA-21.
Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative (IVI).
The
IVI is focused on reducing motor vehicle crashes by enhancing driver
performance through technology while, at the same time, mitigating the
distracting impacts that the introduction of vehicle-based technology can have
on the driver. This is a multi-modal effort within the Department, carried out
by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on transit buses, by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) which has the lead and works with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on trucks and motor
coaches, and in FHWA on specialty vehicles like snow plows. The majority of the
program, however, is focused on passenger vehicles and is carried out primarily
by NHTSA. Our research indicates that,
when fully deployed, approximately 1.1 million or about 17% of all passenger
vehicle crashes could be prevented using three of the simpler warning
systems–rear-end collision, road departure, and lane collision warning
systems. This would represent a savings
of about $20 billion in annual economic costs due to automobile crashes. In order to seek a full range of views on
IVI program priorities and directions from major stakeholders and the
scientific community, we have asked a panel of experts from the National
Academy of Sciences to provide periodic guidance and assessment of the work
underway.
Early
IVI research has already contributed to the emergence of a number of
vehicle-based safety systems that are available in the U.S. market today,
including rear-end collision and rollover warning for heavy trucks, night vision
systems for passenger cars, and adaptive cruise control and lane departure
warning for both cars and heavy trucks.
However, recognizing that these technologies, in combination with other
in-vehicle devices, can have a distracting influence on the driver, decreasing
safety rather than improving it, we are also conducting research on driver
distraction, independently and in cooperation with automobile manufacturers and
others. In addition, we are advancing
concepts which enhance communication between the vehicle and roadway
infrastructure to address problem areas such as intersection and
run-off-the-road crashes.
Intelligent
Infrastructure
Metropolitan
and Rural Operational Test Program.
Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA), the ITS program funded over 80 operational tests that demonstrated the
effectiveness of numerous advanced traffic management technologies that have
become a part of the deployment program.
Through focusing resources on a priority set of field operational tests
under TEA-21, we are greatly widening the original vision of ITS. For example, we are working closely with:
§ the Department of the Interior, to examine the potential of ITS for reducing congestion in National Parks;
§ police, fire and emergency medical service (EMS) communities, to implement use of ITS for quicker identification of crashes and improved coordination of the emergency response;
§ the National Weather Service, to obtain better surface weather information for winter maintenance and to better inform travelers during major weather evacuations;
§ highway agencies interested in applying variable speed limits within work zones as a way to increase the safety and reduce overall delays in construction areas; and
§ local communities, to examine ways ITS can be used to improve the safety of pedestrians.
Commercial
Vehicle Operations. The goal of
this program is to improve the safety and productivity of commercial vehicle
operations by using electronic clearance of trucks through weigh stations,
using e-government technology to streamline the credentialing process and, most
importantly, by making carrier safety information available to inspectors at
the roadside. The program also has
great potential for streamlining border crossings. Work is underway in more than 40 States to plan, design, and
implement these technologies. Complete
systems are in place in four States, with three more States scheduled for
completion by the end of this year.
Support for Deployment. Deploying ITS at the State and local levels
requires a change in transportation culture and the development of new skills
among the staff. It requires a shift in
thinking, from primarily construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure, to
active management of the transportation system to assure smooth operation and
maximum safety. It requires a
broadening of the traditional civil engineering skill base to include systems
engineering, computer science, and electrical engineering. To meet these challenges, we have
implemented an aggressive training and workshop program for Federal, State, and
local transit, public safety, and highway officials. Topics being addressed range from architecture and systems engineering,
to communications design and software procurement. We currently offer over 25 training courses in various aspects of
ITS planning, development, deployment, and operations. Our course on the National ITS Architecture
has been provided to over 2,600 Federal, State, and local officials and
consultants. In addition, we have also
provided extensive technical assistance to States and local governments through
our field and headquarters staff, and through a peer-to-peer technical
assistance program. One of the most
effective programs involves ITS scanning tours for local officials which allow
them to see ITS deployments and talk directly to other officials on why the
decision was made to deploy ITS.
Intelligent
Railroad Systems. The Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and the FTA are working together on the
development of Intelligent Railroad Systems, a subset of ITS. Intelligent Railroad Systems will
incorporate new sensor, computer, and digital communications technologies into
train control, braking systems, grade crossings, and defect detection, and into
planning and scheduling systems as well, and will apply to freight, intercity
passenger, and commuter railroads.
Work has begun on the development of the architecture for Intelligent
Railroad Systems.
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
The second major provision for ITS in TEA-21 is the Deployment Incentives Program. TEA-21 provided $679 million in Deployment Incentives funds. These funds serve as a bridge between the research program and, ultimately, the mainstreaming of ITS. A particular focus was integrating legacy, or pre-existing, systems. The belief was that, while the States could purchase hardware with non-ITS Federal-aid highway funds, a Federal incentive was needed to encourage them to go the “extra mile” in making systems talk to one another. An additional objective of the program is to advance the deployment of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Network (CVISN). In fact, Congress set a goal to have a majority of the States deploy CVISN by September 30, 2003.
The ITS Deployment Incentives Program
has been fully earmarked by the Appropriations Committees each year since
1998. These earmarks have directed the
funds to specific State and local jurisdictions, but have also specifically
required that the funds be used in accordance with the provisions contained in
TEA-21. As the attached Chart reveals,
the number of projects relative to available dollars has been steadily
increasing. While the Department
believes that the program would be most effective if the funds were
competitively awarded, we have worked closely with the recipients to ensure
that the funds are being used to advance the goals of TEA-21. However, because of the earmarking, it is
doubtful that we will meet the congressional goal of CVISN in a majority of the
States by the end of 2003.
A
mid-term assessment of the Deployment Incentives Program conducted by the
Department in 2000 showed that this program was fostering deployment and
integration across almost all of the key elements of ITS infrastructure.
NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS
Architecture
Conformity.
The
third focus of the ITS program in TEA-21 is on the National ITS Architecture
and Standards. TEA-21 included a
provision that all ITS projects funded out of the Highway Trust Fund had to
conform with the National Architecture.
The goal was to foster integration and interoperability.
We
have worked closely with our State and local partners to develop an approach
for implementing this requirement that would give States and metropolitan areas
freedom to develop their own architectures, that fit their unique needs, but
with key elements compatible with the National Architecture. By taking this approach--that “one size does
not fit all”-- we have received broad support from the transportation community
on the National Architecture requirement.
We
are now in the process of rolling out an aggressive program of training,
workshops, and direct technical assistance to highway, transit, and public
safety agencies to help them develop architectures. In addition, there are comprehensive workshops for States to
develop their own CVISN architecture based on the National Architecture and
Standards. To date, approximately 100
State, regional, or project architectures are underway and 34 States have
completed CVISN architecture. Thirteen
regions have completed architectures.
Standards.
TEA-21
calls on the Department to develop and implement standards on a very aggressive
schedule. It then requires recipients
of funds to use these standards when purchasing ITS technology.
We
have partnered with industry standards-setting groups for development of more
than 80 standards. The Secretary of
Transportation has identified eighteen ITS standards to be critical to national
interoperability. To date, nearly 55 standards have been completed and all but
two of the standards that are critical for national interoperability have been
completed. Work is also progressing on
the development of ITS standards at highway-rail intersections.
We
are now shifting our attention to the implementation of these standards. Working with State and local governments we
are testing the standards, using the ITS Deployment Incentives program to
provide early field demonstrations of the standards, and working through our
field staff to provide training and technical assistance in the procurement and
use of the standards. We believe this
is a critical step before we officially adopt these standards, in order to
insure that they are robust and well accepted by users.
MAINSTREAMING
The
last ITS element in TEA-21 that I would like to address is “mainstreaming” and,
in doing so, answer a few questions that I know surround the program. Why isn’t ITS deployment more visible? Is it working? Why don’t we see more of it?
And, can’t we do better than overhead message signs that say “Congestion
Ahead?”
TEA-21
clarified that non-ITS Federal-aid highway funding sources (National Highway
System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Program (CMAQ)) could be used to purchase and operate ITS
infrastructure. And, as we look across
the United States, we see many encouraging signs that ITS Deployment is
happening: More than 40 States are
planning, designing, or deploying a part of CVISN; 55 of our 75 largest
metropolitan areas have begun significant deployment of ITS; nearly 70% of all
toll facilities use electronic toll collection; more than 50 traffic control
centers are in operation and many more are planned; more than 31% of
fixed-route buses in our larger metropolitan areas are equipped with automatic
vehicle location technologies; and more than one million vehicles are equipped
with automatic crash notification. More
than 700 traveler information websites have been created (over 500 exclusively
transit sites, nearly 200 exclusively traffic sites, and several multimodal
sites); and now, with the allocation of the 511 telephone number, traveler
information will soon be a telephone call away. The first 511 call took place in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
metropolitan area in June of this year, and work is underway to implement 511
in Virginia, Arizona, California, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Utah.
These deployments are making a
difference in reducing crashes, managing congestion, and improving the quality
of life in communities. For example:
§ A study in Virginia illustrated that if ITS had NOT been deployed on I-66, congestion would have been 25% worse!
§ The Ramp Metering Test in Minneapolis demonstrated that ramp metering improved freeway travel time 22%, reduced crashes 24%, and improved freeway throughput 14%.
§ Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) reduced paratransit expenses in San Jose, California, from $4.88 to $3.72 per passenger.
§ Evaluations
of adaptive traffic signal control systems have demonstrated reduction in
delays of 14% to 44%, and a similar reduction in stops of 10% to 41%.
§ Studies in 3 cities (Los Angeles, Rochester, and Phoenix) showed that pedestrian detection devices that automatically activate traffic and crosswalk signals at intersections reduced pedestrian and vehicle safety conflicts by 40% for some types of conflicts to as much as 89% for certain others.
§ In a study of 40,000 inspections, safety inspectors increased the number of unsafe commercial drivers and vehicles removed from the highway from 8,000 to 12,000 by using advanced safety information systems instead of traditional methods.
Further, as President Bush’s energy policy recognizes, in reducing congestion ITS is a valuable strategy for fuel conservation. Every year we catalog results of the studies on ITS deployment in an annual report on ITS benefits.
While we are encouraged by these examples of deployment, and the benefits they have demonstrated, there are very few places where a complete metropolitan system could be considered to be in place, let alone a Statewide or National system. One recent estimate suggested that over the last decade we have moved from about 6% of our major metropolitan systems being instrumented to about 22% today. Not bad, but a long way from complete! Hence, we still face “Congestion Ahead” signs, as opposed to signs that give us detailed information on travel times and alternate routes--as they do in Paris.
Although ITS solutions are eligible
for most Federal-aid funding categories, these projects are competing with
traditional construction needs for the available funds. This may negate the effectiveness of the
TEA-21 provisions making non-ITS funds available and may be slowing
deployment. FHWA is conducting
interviews and surveys to determine if this is a valid assessment.
Our
experience suggests that some of the issues may be deeper than money. The institutions that we have today,
particularly at the State level, were organized around constructing projects or
enforcing the law. Those missions are
quite different from the mission of managing or operating a road system to a
particular performance level.
Historically, adding capacity was the solution to congestion
issues. Today, however, we need to
focus more broadly on how to improve safety, productivity, and the operations
of the specific highway and of the transportation system through ITS
techniques.
For example, we have begun to realize
that no institution “owns” the congestion or safety problem at the local level
or State level, and no institution has the right players around the table such
that they could be accountable for the daily performance of the system. The exception is the rare occasion when a
major special event, such as the Olympic Games, comes to town. Except for those special events, no
institution has enough of a stake in the performance of the system on a daily
basis to insist on developing the electronic network that would enable the
effective operation of the system.
And so, deployment is occurring at
the margins, as budgets or earmarks permit, or major special events
demand.
THE ROAD AHEAD
In many ways, the nationwide
deployment of ITS mirrors the creation of the Interstate System, both in its
potential for profoundly changing the delivery of transportation in the United
States and in the magnitude of the challenge in getting it accomplished.
If we are going to move from spots of
deployment to a full “electronic” National system of smart vehicles and smart
roadways for safety, savings, and productivity, it will require the same type
of programmatic commitment and institution building that we undertook for the
Interstate system in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
It will require us to do more than try to fit ITS into existing funding
mechanisms, Federal regulations, and a transportation culture that has been created
around a construction mission. It will
require us to step back and think as boldly and as creatively as our
predecessors did when they created the blueprint for the Interstate System.
As we begin to look toward the
reauthorization of the surface transportation program, it will be important to
consider what needs to be done to create an environment where we have the
funding, institutions, and policies that will support the achievement of this
vision.
In
closing, thank you again for this opportunity to describe the status of the ITS
program. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions you might have.
CHART
|
Fiscal Year |
Number of Projects |
Funding Available |
|
FY’98 |
44 |
$83.9M |
|
FY’99 |
71 |
$92.7M |
|
FY’00 |
79 |
$98.4M |
|
FY’01 |
96 |
$103.5M |