Urban Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (Letter Report, 02/27/97, GAO/RCED-97-74).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program,
focusing on: (1) how DOT has changed the focus of the ITS program since
Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA); (2) progress in deploying integrated ITS and the key factors
affecting deployment, including the status of the ITS national
architecture (the framework which identifies the components of an
integrated ITS) and technical standards; and (3) ways in which the
federal government can facilitate the deployment of ITS in urban areas.

GAO noted that: (1) DOT's long-term goal for the ITS program, the
deployment of integrated ITS, has not changed since Congress passed
ISTEA; (2) however, DOT has recently changed the program's short-term
focus to include a greater emphasis on deploying ITS technologies rather
than simply conducting research and operations tests; (3) its new focus
emphasizes the deployments of integrated intelligent transportation
technologies in selected urban areas, outreach and training to overcome
the barriers to deployment, and a continuing research program to develop
long-term intelligent transportation applications; (4) although the
program envisioned the widespread deployment of integrated, multimodal
ITS, this vision has not been realized; (5) in part, the limited
deployment of ITS is the result of the natural evolution of the program;
(6) the national architecture for the systems was not completed until
July 1996, and a 5-year effort to develop standards is planned for
completion in 2001; (7) in addition, the widespread deployment of ITS
faces several significant obstacles; (8) these include a lack of
technical knowledge and expertise among the state and local officials
who will deploy the systems, a lack of quantitative data proving the
systems' cost-effectiveness in solving transportation problems, and a
lack of funds; (9) the federal government can take programmatic and
financial actions to promote the deployment of ITS; (10) the
programmatic actions include providing technical assistance and training
to state and local officials, disseminating information on the costs and
benefits of intelligent transportation efforts, and completing the
development of the technical standards in a timely manner; (11) while
officials from all 10 urban areas GAO contacted stated that ITS are a
potentially useful tool in solving transportation problems, there was a
wide variety of opinions on the appropriate federal role for funding the
systems' deployment; (12) six urban areas stated that a large-scale
federal deployment program would be necessary to achieve widespread
deployment; (13) in contrast, the remaining four opposed a large-scale
program because it would limit local flexibility and would encourage the
deployment of ITS where other, possibly more cost-effective efforts
could be undertaken; (14) officials from 5 of the 10 urban areas also
stated that a smaller-scale federal seed program could also be effectiv*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-74
     TITLE:  Urban Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment 
             of Intelligent Transportation Systems
      DATE:  02/27/97
   SUBJECT:  Federal aid for transportation
             Transportation research
             Ground transportation operations
             Technology transfer
             Technical assistance
             Highway planning
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Urban transportation operations
             Traffic regulation
             Human resources training
IDENTIFIER:  DOT Intelligent Transportation System Program
             Minnesota Guidestar Program
             District of Columbia
             Chicago (IL)
             New York (NY)
             Philadelphia (PA)
             DOT Intelligent Transportation System Model Deployment 
             Initiative
             San Antonio (TX)
             Phoenix (AZ)
             Seattle (WA)
             DOT Surface Transportation Program
             National Highway System
             Minneapolis (MN)
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

February 1997

URBAN TRANSPORTATION - CHALLENGES
TO WIDESPREAD DEPLOYMENT OF
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

GAO/RCED-97-74

Intelligent Transportation Systems

(342923)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOT - United States Department of Transportation
  ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems
  ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
  PTI - Public Technology Incorporated
  PTI/DOT -

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-275239

February 27, 1997

The Honorable John Chafee
Chairman, Committee on Environment
 and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R.  Wolf
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) in 1991, the Department of Transportation's Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) program has received federal funding of
$1.3 billion to advance the use of computer and telecommunications
technologies to enhance the safety and efficiency of surface
transportation.  The wide array of ITS technologies includes
automated toll collection systems that eliminate the need for
vehicles to stop at toll plazas; real-time information on traffic
conditions and transit schedules for travelers; and automated traffic
management systems that can adjust traffic signal systems to respond
to real-time traffic conditions. 

Concerned about the prospects for deploying integrated ITS in urban
areas, you asked us to (1) report on how the Department has changed
the focus of the ITS program since the Congress passed ISTEA; (2)
examine progress in deploying integrated ITS and the key factors
affecting deployment, including the status of the ITS national
architecture (the framework which identifies the components of an
integrated ITS) and technical standards; and (3) identify ways in
which the federal government can facilitate the deployment of ITS. 
To respond to these objectives, we focused on the deployment of the
metropolitan ITS infrastructure; we did not examine the development
or deployment of other ITS elements, such as commercial vehicle
operations and the automated highway system.  We interviewed
transportation officials in 10 urban areas that are among the
nation's largest and most congested--and therefore likely to have the
greatest need for ITS--and reviewed the existing studies on the ITS
program.  (A more detailed description of our scope and methodology
is in app.  I.)


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Department of Transportation's long-term goal for the Intelligent
Transportation Systems program--the deployment of integrated
intelligent transportation systems--has not changed since the
Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 
However, the Department has recently changed the program's short-term
focus to include a greater emphasis on deploying intelligent
transportation system technologies rather than simply conducting
research and operational tests.  Its new focus emphasizes the
deployments of integrated intelligent transportation technologies in
selected urban areas, outreach and training to overcome the barriers
to deployment, and a continuing research program to develop long-term
intelligent transportation applications, such as the automated
highway system. 

Although the program envisioned the widespread deployment of
integrated, multimodal intelligent transportation systems, this
vision has not been realized.  In part, the limited deployment of
intelligent transportation systems is the result of the natural
evolution of the program.  For example, the program's national
architecture and technical standards, which define the elements of
the intelligent transportation systems and how they will work
together, are prerequisite to a large-scale, integrated deployment of
the systems.  However, the national architecture for the systems was
not completed until July 1996, and a 5-year effort to develop
standards is planned for completion in 2001.  In addition, the
widespread deployment of the intelligent transportation systems faces
several significant obstacles.  These include a lack of technical
knowledge and expertise among the state and local officials who will
deploy the systems; a lack of quantitative data proving the systems'
cost-effectiveness in solving transportation problems; and a lack of
funds, in the light of other transportation priorities. 

The federal government can take programmatic and financial actions to
promote the deployment of intelligent transportation systems.  The
programmatic actions include providing technical assistance and
training to state and local officials, disseminating information on
the costs and benefits of intelligent transportation efforts, and
completing the development of the technical standards in a timely
manner.  While officials from all 10 urban areas we contacted stated
that intelligent transportation systems are a potentially useful tool
in solving transportation problems, there was a wide variety of
opinions on the appropriate federal role for funding the systems'
deployment.  Six urban areas stated that a large-scale federal
deployment program would be necessary to achieve widespread
deployment.  In contrast, the remaining four opposed a large-scale
program because it would limit local flexibility and would encourage
the deployment of intelligent transportation systems where other,
possibly more cost-effective efforts could be undertaken.  Officials
from 5 of the 10 urban areas also stated that a smaller-scale federal
seed program could also be effective in fostering deployment. 
Finally, officials from 9 of the 10 areas stated that federal
financial assistance is needed to maintain deployed intelligent
transportation technologies. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

During fiscal years 1991 through 1997, the Congress provided the
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program with about $1.3
billion\1 for research and development, operational testing of the
ITS technologies, and various activities to support deployment.  The
research and development efforts have explored new technologies and
applications, while the operational tests have been the bridge
between basic research and development and deployment.  The
activities to support deployment have included the development of an
ITS architecture and a series of early deployment plans.  All of the
program's efforts are building on the important goal of developing a
fully integrated ITS environment. 

In an integrated ITS, all of the components of the ITS are linked, so
as to produce greater benefits than would a fragmented deployment of
the systems.  For example, transit agencies use automatic vehicle
location technology to manage bus fleets, and city departments of
transportation can use advanced traffic signal control systems to
optimally manage traffic.  If these systems are linked, the speed and
location data on transit buses can be used to monitor the traffic
flow on arterial streets, which are typically not monitored, and
traffic signals can be adjusted to enable transit vehicles to stay on
schedule.  Furthermore, if these systems are linked to a traveler
information system, travelers can access both transit and traffic
information from a single source and use this information to decide
when and how to travel. 


--------------------
\1 Appendix II contains a figure showing the level of funding for the
ITS program from fiscal years 1991 to 1997. 


   THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFOCUSED
   THE ITS PROGRAM TO EMPHASIZE
   THE DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES
   AND SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

ISTEA required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to prepare a
strategic plan that would specify the goals and objectives of the ITS
program.  In December 1992, DOT issued its plan, which stated that
the long-term goal of using ITS technologies was to develop an
integrated intermodal surface transportation system that would be
safer, make more efficient use of the existing infrastructure, and
enhance users' choices of travel modes.  The plan assumed that
building more highways was not the solution to congestion in urban
areas and that the implementation of ITS technologies could reduce
congestion and accidents, improve transit service, conserve energy,
and minimize environmental impacts. 

To meet its long-term goal, DOT initially outlined the four major
components of the ITS program:  research and development, operational
tests of promising technologies, automated highway system
technologies, and deployment support.  DOT anticipated that these
four program components would serve as the basic foundation for
developing short-term ITS technologies, identifying long-term
advanced systems, and providing the basis for the future deployment
of ITS technologies.  Following its initial program direction, DOT
funded over 300 projects and identified several promising ITS
technologies.  DOT initially anticipated that the federal government
would play a major role in identifying and developing these
technologies, but individual users and private-sector manufacturers
would pay for a substantial portion of the ITS deployment costs; no
special federal funding program would be needed for the routine
deployment of ITS.  State and local implementers were expected to
deploy ITS using existing federal program funds. 

However, as part of its ISTEA reauthorization proposal, DOT is
refocusing the program to place a greater emphasis on ITS deployment. 
According to DOT officials, the new ITS program will retain a
research and development element and continue the long-term goal of
an automated highway system but will refocus short-term efforts to
include an emphasis on deploying ITS technologies and integrated ITS
systems.  In addition, the program will emphasize outreach and
training to help the states and local governments overcome the
obstacles to widespread deployment.  DOT's earlier approach
envisioned that most deployment efforts would not be funded by the
federal government.  DOT now believes that widespread deployment will
not occur unless federal funding assistance is provided.  As a
result, DOT proposes to expand federal financial assistance by
providing funding incentives of $100 million annually to help the
state and local governments fund the cost of deploying and
integrating the ITS technologies.  DOT intends that these incentives
will help to promote integrated urban ITS as well as systems for
improving the regulation of commercial vehicles. 


   SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES LIMIT THE
   WIDESPREAD DEPLOYMENT OF
   INTEGRATED ITS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

While data on the status of ITS deployment is not conclusive, most
deployments have occurred in larger urban areas.  However, even the
larger areas are not deploying the kind of integrated systems
envisioned in ISTEA.  This is due, in part, to the fact that ITS is a
relatively new research program that is still evolving and has yet to
fully implement some fundamental program components, such as the
national architecture and technical standards.  In addition,
significant obstacles are precluding the more widespread deployment
of ITS.  These include a lack of technical expertise and knowledge
about ITS among those who will actually deploy the systems; a lack of
cost-benefit data about ITS; and a lack of funding dedicated to ITS,
in the light of other priorities for transportation investments. 


      ITS DEPLOYMENT HAS BEEN
      CONCENTRATED IN LARGE URBAN
      AREAS BUT HAS NOT OCCURRED
      IN AN INTEGRATED MANNER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Studies of the status of ITS deployment show that deployment has been
concentrated in larger urban areas--those with populations of over 1
million.  According to a 1995 study by Public Technology Incorporated
(PTI),\2 70 percent--7 of 10--larger urban areas were using ITS
technologies to help solve their transportation problems.  In
contrast, the study reported that 43 percent of the urban areas with
populations between 100,000 and 1 million were using ITS and that 14
percent of the urban areas with populations of less than 100,000 were
using ITS.  In another study, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak
Ridge) conducted a survey of the nation's 75 largest urban areas and
found that most larger urban areas had deployed ITS technologies but
that deployment was less common in smaller urban areas.\3

Data on which specific ITS technologies have been deployed are
inconclusive.  For example, according to the PTI study, the only ITS
technology that a large number of urban areas had deployed was
traffic signal control systems--systems designed to manage traffic
flow by coordinating in real-time the timing patterns of traffic
signals.  The study reported that 60 percent of the larger urban
areas had deployed such systems.  In contrast, the Oak Ridge study
showed that larger urban areas have planned or implemented a wide
array of ITS technologies, including traffic signal control systems,
freeway operation centers, incident management technologies,
electronic toll collection, and transit technologies.  In addition,
our interviews with transportation planning officials in 10 of the
nation's larger urban areas and a 1996 study of 7 urban areas by the
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center\4 found that freeway
management systems, incident management systems, and traffic signal
control were the most widely deployed.  The Volpe study also found
that multimodal traveler information and electronic fare payment
systems were the least deployed. 

An example of an area that has widely deployed ITS technologies is
Minneapolis.  The Minneapolis ITS program, part of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation's "Guidestar" program, first began
operational tests in 1991.  Since that time, about $50 million in
public funding and $13.5 million in private resources has been
invested in Guidestar projects.  With these funds, Minneapolis has
upgraded its traffic management center to better monitor traffic flow
and roadway conditions and has installed ramp meters at numerous
on-ramps of the major expressways.  These meters control the flow of
traffic entering the expressways and, according to DOT, have helped
increase highway speeds during rush hour by 35 percent.  Other
projects in the Guidestar program include the use of "smart tape"
that will notify those motorists who stray onto the shoulders of
highways, the electronic enforcement of traffic laws, improved
oversight of commercial vehicle (truck) regulations, and a systems
architecture to help integrate all ITS components. 

Despite these deployment efforts, existing ITS studies and the
transportation officials we interviewed indicated that urban areas
have not integrated the individual ITS technologies.  According to
the Oak Ridge study, very few areas are designing and implementing
ITS in an integrated manner.  The Oak Ridge study found no examples
of a fully integrated ITS.  In addition, the Volpe study found that
transportation agencies were implementing ITS to improve the
efficiency of their agencies but were not integrating these
technologies with other transportation agencies.  For example, the
study said that transit agencies have usually functioned
independently of highway agencies and are developing stand-alone
systems.  Several of the transportation planners we interviewed also
noted that the deployment of ITS technologies had occurred in a
non-integrated manner in their areas.  For example, transportation
officials in the Washington, D.C., area stated that local
jurisdictions had implemented electronic toll collection, traveler
information, and highway surveillance systems without integrating the
components into a multimodal system. 


--------------------
\2 PTI is the nonprofit technology organization of the National
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the
International City/County Management Association.  In 1995, PTI
conducted a nationwide survey of over 2,000 large and small local
governments to identify ITS issues.  PTI received over 400 responses
from a wide cross-section of small and large units of local
governments. 

\3 The summary data on the survey conducted by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, as presented by the U.S.  Department of Transportation,
Joint Program Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems, appear
in A Report to Congress:  The National Intelligent Transportation
Systems Program (draft, Jan.  1997). 

\4 Intelligent Transportation Systems:  Assessment of ITS Deployment,
U.S.  Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs
Administration-Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (July
1996). 


      WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ITS
      ARCHITECTURE AND THE
      ISSUANCE OF TECHNICAL
      STANDARDS ARE NEEDED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

According to DOT and several transportation officials we contacted,
widespread and integrated ITS deployment is dependent on the
existence of a national ITS architecture and technical standards. 
However, the ITS architecture was not completed until July 1996, and
DOT has just begun an extensive outreach and training effort to
ensure that transportation officials around the nation have an
adequate understanding and working knowledge of the architecture. 
Furthermore, a 5-year effort to develop technical standards began in
January 1996.  Several transportation officials stated that an
effective outreach effort for the architecture and the timely
completion of the standards are critical to ensure that the maximum
benefits are obtained from the extensive ITS deployments that some
urban areas plan for future years. 

The ITS architecture identifies the basic components of an integrated
ITS, the functions such components perform, and how such components
"interface" or share information with each other (see app.  III).  A
commonly used metaphor in describing the architecture is a home
stereo system.  The stereo industry has determined the overall
architecture--that is, the functions that will be performed by the
speakers, amplifier, radio receiver, compact disc player, etc.,--as
well as how these systems will interact to produce a desired sound. 
Within these constraints, the manufacturers may produce a wide array
of product types, and an individual may design a stereo system
suiting his/her own needs and budget. 

Technical standards are an outgrowth of the system architecture--they
specify, in detail, how the components will communicate to one
another.  For example, the architecture states that electronic toll
collection will include a roadside reader that can read an in-vehicle
electronic toll tag.  The architecture does not specifically state
how this linkage will be made.  Instead, the standards prescribe the
form and content of messages between the reader, the toll tag, and
the toll facility.  DOT and ITS America\5 have been supporting the
development of standards throughout the architecture development
effort and in January 1996, contracted with five organizations to
begin a 5-year effort to develop standards.  While the standards
development effort is scheduled for completion in 2001, some
high-priority sets of standards are scheduled for completion within a
year. 

Adhering to the technical standards is important because the
purchasers of ITS equipment do not want to be locked into proprietary
systems that cannot be integrated with those of other manufacturers
and for which replacement equipment or service may not be available
if the vendor goes out of business.  For example, in the 1970s the
Chicago Department of Transportation contracted for a custom-designed
traffic signal control system.  Subsequently, the vendor went out of
business, and the city had to scrap the system and purchase a
completely new system. 

Effective outreach and training for the architecture and standards
and the timely completion of technical standards are critical in the
light of the extensive plans for future ITS deployments.  Officials
from most of the large urban areas we contacted consider ITS a key
component of their future transportation systems and plan to devote
more resources to ITS in upcoming years.  The transportation planners
we contacted stated that they plan to implement more ITS projects in
the future.  For example, the New York City area's short- and
long-term ITS deployment plans include over $450 million in ITS
projects.  In addition, DOT has awarded over $26 million in early
deployment planning grants to 75 urban areas to determine their
short- and long-term ITS deployment needs. 


--------------------
\5 ITS America is a consortium of private firms, public agencies,
academic institutions, and related associations that plan, promote,
and coordinate the development and deployment of ITS technologies in
the United States. 


      LIMITED TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE,
      COST-BENEFIT DATA, AND
      FUNDING CONSTRAIN DEPLOYMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Our discussions with transportation planning officials in 10 urban
areas and our review of several existing studies indicate that the
lack of (1) knowledge about ITS applications at the state and local
level; (2) data on the costs and benefits of ITS technologies; and
(3) funding for ITS, in the light of other transportation investment
priorities, are the key obstacles to the widespread deployment of ITS
technologies. 


         TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
         SEE NEED FOR ITS
         TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.1

In our discussions of the potential for ITS deployment with
transportation planning officials in 10 large urban areas, the
officials consistently expressed concerns about the lack of knowledge
about ITS at the state and local level.  According to these
officials, most transportation engineers do not possess the technical
skills needed to operate and maintain advanced ITS computer and
telecommunication technologies.  Similarly, the deputy executive
director of the Institute of Transportation Engineers said that
although the Institute was involved in developing the national
architecture and the members of the Institute attended numerous
training and outreach sessions, most members do not have the systems
integration background needed to develop a clear understanding of
what the architecture is, how it works, and how it benefits the ITS
applications.  He said that most state and local implementers of ITS
will have to rely on system integration consultants to ensure that
their systems are compatible with the national architecture.  This
view was also expressed by the executive director of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials at an ITS
conference.  He said that the states and urban areas have a shortage
of technically trained persons to deal with ITS because
transportation agencies are primarily staffed with civil engineers,
not electrical engineers or system integrators, and new skills are
needed. 

The issue of technical knowledge was also identified as an obstacle
to deployment in several studies we reviewed.  According to DOT's
1997 report on nontechnical barriers to ITS deployment,\6 the
staffing and educational needs of transportation agencies is one of
the most pressing issues confronting the ITS program.  The report
concludes that the successful deployment of ITS depends on retraining
the existing employees and hiring individuals who possess new skills. 
Similarly, PTI's survey of urban areas found that a lack of staffing
and employee training was an obstacle to deployment:  56.6 percent of
respondents cited staffing and training as a problem.  PTI also held
a series of focus groups with local officials in 1995 and found that
elected officials do not talk about ITS deployment as a priority and
that few see any political benefits in spending more time and money
on ITS.  The 1996 Volpe Center report identified both the lack of
training and education among the staff required to work on ITS
projects and a lack of awareness about ITS among politicians and
agency managers as barriers to successful ITS deployment. 


--------------------
\6 A Report to Congress:  Nontechnical Constraints and Barriers to
the Implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Joint Program Office for Intelligent
Transportation Systems (draft, Jan.  1997). 


         TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
         SEE NEED FOR COST-BENEFIT
         DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.2

Our discussions with transportation planning officials also revealed
that the lack of quantitative data on the costs and benefits of
deploying ITS is also seen as a deterrent to deployment.  According
to one official, there are no adequate economic models that local
transportation planners can use to determine the costs and benefits
of ITS, thereby making it difficult to justify expenditures on
ITS-related projects.  Several officials told us that quantitative
data proving that ITS could reduce traffic congestion or make transit
more reliable would enable them to secure funding for ITS projects. 

The lack of cost-benefit information was also seen as an obstacle in
some existing studies.  Over 43 percent of the respondents to the PTI
survey indicated that the lack of cost-benefit data and the lack of
proven applications were obstacles to deploying ITS.  In addition,
the 1996 study by the Volpe Center concluded that relatively few
formal cost-benefit analyses of ITS had been conducted.  The report
further stated that transportation officials needed to conduct more
analyses of the benefits of ITS deployments and that such data are
needed to justify spending funds on ITS. 


         TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
         SEE NEED FOR ITS FUNDING
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3.3

Our interviews with transportation planning officials and review of
studies indicate that the competition for limited financial resources
between ITS and traditional transportation projects will limit the
deployment of ITS.  For example, officials from the Philadelphia
urban area stated that they have plans representing over $100 million
in ITS projects, but because of the pressing needs of their existing
transportation infrastructure, it was doubtful whether they would
implement many of their planned ITS projects.  The officials were
particularly concerned that the need to repair the deteriorating
roads and bridges in their area would leave little funding for ITS
projects.  In addition, all of the officials we interviewed from the
10 urban areas stated that because federal law precludes the use of
federal funds to maintain ITS technologies, it will be difficult for
some areas to deploy ITS.  These officials were concerned that
transportation planners in some areas would not want to make large
capital investments in ITS technologies that could not subsequently
be maintained. 

Eighty percent of the PTI survey's respondents cited insufficient
funding as an obstacle to deploying ITS.  PTI concluded that the
majority of local jurisdictions believed that the funding levels for
ITS need to increase in order to successfully deploy ITS.  In
addition, the Volpe Center's report concluded that, due to funding
limitations, transit agencies will spend little to deploy ITS
technologies unless such funds are earmarked for ITS deployment and
that transit administrators feel that pursuing ITS projects will
force other budget items to be dropped or reduced.  The Volpe report
stated that these factors would reduce the viability of ITS projects
for transit.  Finally, a 1997 DOT draft report\7

concluded that the competition for limited financial resources
between ITS and traditional transportation projects will limit ITS
deployment. 


--------------------
\7 A Report to Congress:  The National Intelligent Transportation
Systems Program, U.S.  Department of Transportation, Joint Program
Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems (draft, Jan.  1997). 


   FEDERAL ACTIONS TO FOSTER THE
   DEPLOYMENT OF ITS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The federal government can take a number of actions to address the
major barriers to ITS deployment that we identified.  DOT can take,
and in some cases has taken, a number of measures to address the
programmatic barriers.  These include continuing and expanding
training and outreach programs, effectively disseminating information
about success stories and the costs and benefits of ITS deployments,
and completing the development of the ITS technical standards. 
Congressional action would be required to address the financial
barriers.  Among urban transportation planners, we found a wide range
of opinions on the desirability of expanded federal deployment
assistance and on how such assistance could best be structured. 
However, all officials we contacted said that the flexibility to use
federal-aid funds for maintaining ITS efforts was desirable. 


      PROGRAMMATIC ACTIONS TO
      ADDRESS DEPLOYMENT OBSTACLES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Our review of the existing studies and our discussions with
transportation planning officials in 10 of the nation's larger urban
areas identified a number of recommendations on how DOT can assist
state and local implementers to overcome the key programmatic
obstacles to deployment.  First, to address the issue of training and
outreach needs, the 1996 Volpe Center Study proposed that DOT provide
education to state and local transportation staff and develop an
information transfer program whereby DOT would provide contacts to
state and local officials for answering ITS questions.  During our
interviews, most officials stated that providing training and
outreach was an important role for the federal government.  In
addition, providing training and technical assistance in deploying,
operating, maintaining, and conforming ITS technologies to the
national architecture and standards was frequently cited as one of
the most important actions the federal government could take to
foster deployment. 

DOT has taken some actions to address the programmatic obstacles. 
Through a 2-year cooperative agreement with PTI, DOT has implemented
an outreach and training program for local agencies.  Under the
agreement, PTI/DOT have created a network of local government elected
officials to help share information between DOT and local officials. 
DOT has also developed an ITS 5-year capacity-building strategic plan
for DOT staff, state highway agency staff, metropolitan planning
organization staff, and other local government staff.  The goal is to
expand the knowledge of ITS among federal, state, and local
transportation officials and to create a cadre of highly trained ITS
professionals who are able to plan, design, implement, operate, and
maintain ITS technologies. 

To disseminate information on the benefits of ITS, DOT is developing
benefits reports, in which it presents data based on the experience
gained in field operational tests and other deployed systems.  In a
September 1996 report,\8 DOT provided the results on the benefits of
ITS technologies, including time savings, crash reductions, and
customer satisfaction.  For example, the report indicates that the
use of advanced traffic management systems on an Interstate highway
in Minneapolis has reduced vehicle crashes by 27 percent.  Second,
DOT has implemented the Model Deployment Initiative.  The initiative
is designed to "showcase" sites that will demonstrate the costs and
benefits of an integrated ITS system.  DOT has selected four
metropolitan areas as model sites--New York City, San Antonio,
Phoenix, and Seattle--and expects these projects to be operational
during 1997.  However, the results from these model sites will not be
available until late 1998 or early 1999. 

Finally, the lack of technical standards is seen as an impediment to
the widespread deployment of ITS.  During our interviews, several
transportation planners said that DOT needs to ensure that the
efforts to develop the standards are completed in a timely manner. 
DOT has awarded contracts to five standards development organizations
to complete the 44 highest-priority sets of standards over the next 5
years. 


--------------------
\8 Review of ITS Benefits:  Emerging Successes, U.S.  Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (Sept.  1996). 


      MIXED VIEWS ON LARGE-SCALE
      FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
      FOR ITS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

The transportation planning officials we contacted had mixed views on
the need for dedicated federal funding for ITS deployment.  Officials
from 6 of the 10 urban areas supported a large dedicated program of
$1 billion or more per year, stating that, in the light of other
priorities, additional ITS deployments would not otherwise occur. 
Officials of the four other urban areas opposed such a program
because dedicated ITS funds would be too prescriptive and might
result in poor investment decisions.  In the absence of a large
program, officials from 5 of the 10 areas we contacted supported a
smaller seed program.  Officials from 9 of the 10 areas supported the
concept of using ITS funds to maintain ITS technologies. 

As shown in table 1, the officials we contacted were divided on the
need for a large-scale federal aid program dedicated to deploying
ITS.  Typically, the supporters contended that future ITS deployments
would be limited without specific funding for this approach.  For
example, a New York transportation planner stated that without
large-scale funding, ITS investment would have to compete for scarce
dollars with higher-priority road and bridge rehabilitation projects. 
The official believed that, under such a scenario, plans for
deploying ITS would be delayed.  Another official likened ITS to the
Interstate system, noting that without dedicated funding, the
Interstate system would never have been built. 



                                Table 1
                
                   Transportation Planners' Views on
                      Federal Financial Assistance

Type of program                                  Support        Oppose
------------------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Large federal program                                  6             4
Set-aside of existing program                          0
 New funds                                             6
Grant program                                          3
 Formula program                                       1
 Mixed grant/formula                                   2
Smaller seed program                                   5             5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of interview data. 

The six supporters of large-scale ITS funding all expressed a
preference for newly authorized ITS money, as opposed to a set-aside
of existing Surface Transportation Program or National Highway System
funds.  As one official noted, transportation officials would not
support taking money away from existing programs and distributing it
to ITS because there are too many other pressing needs. 

Three of the six large-program supporters favored a grant approach,
under which only applicants with a specific ITS proposal would
receive funds.  They stated that this approach would ensure that the
funds went only to areas with a definite need and would encourage ITS
innovations.  The advocate of the formula approach, which would
distribute ITS funds to all states on the basis of specific factors,
such as total urbanized population, supported the formula approach
because it would be to the advantage of his very populous urban area. 
The supporters of the mixed approach said that all areas should get
some ITS funds but that larger amounts should be available for areas
with well-developed plans for larger ITS initiatives. 

Four of the 10 officials we interviewed opposed a large-scale
federal-aid program.  All of these officials generally opposed the
establishment of additional federal funding categories.  One official
noted that transportation planners generally identify a problem and
then identify and assess potential solutions on the basis of the
projected costs and benefits.  Other officials noted that these
resource allocation decisions are best made at the local level, not
at the federal level, and that to prescribe ITS would reduce state
and local flexibility.  One official noted that earmarking large
funds for ITS could lead to calls for large-scale federal assistance
for intermodal projects, trucking projects, and so on.  Some
officials also said that such a program could drive unnecessary ITS
investment, as decision makers chased ITS capital money, even though
another solution might have been more cost effective.  Finally,
officials from one area noted that such a program was very premature,
stating that despite the exaggerated claims made by ITS proponents,
the benefits of many ITS applications have yet to be decisively
proven. 

In the absence of a large-scale program, the representatives from
five urban areas supported a smaller grant program of about $100
million annually nationwide that could be used to fund experimental
ITS applications, promote better working relationships among the
agencies and jurisdictions deploying ITS in a single urban area, or
support information systems for travelers.  The opponents of the
smaller program felt that this level of funding would be too small to
be of much assistance. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The reauthorization of ISTEA in 1997 represents an important
milestone for reassessing the direction of DOT's ITS program.  After
7 years and $1.3 billion in federal funds for an ITS program
emphasizing research and testing ITS technologies, DOT is proposing a
more aggressive federal role that focuses on deploying ITS systems,
particularly in large urban areas.  However, before DOT can
aggressively pursue ISTEA's goal of the widespread deployment of
integrated ITS, it must overcome the obstacles cited in this report. 
First, the system architecture is relatively new, and state and local
transportation officials have limited knowledge of its importance. 
Second, it will take time for state and local transportation agencies
to supplement their traditional approach to solving transportation
problems through civil engineering strategies with the information
management and telecommunications focus envisioned by an integrated
ITS approach.  In addition, time will be needed to assess the results
of DOT's model deployment program--a program designed to document the
benefits of an integrated ITS deployment program located in four
urban areas.  Programs that focus on training for state and local
officials on the system architecture and on more information on the
benefits and costs of ITS applications are necessary prerequisites to
the acceptance of ITS as an important tool for addressing
transportation problems.  Finally, widespread integrated deployment
cannot occur without the technical standards that DOT proposes to
complete over the next 5 years.  These standards are needed so that
state and local governments do not purchase ITS technologies, such as
electronic toll collection facilities, that are incompatible with the
system architecture and other ITS applications. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment and
met with the Director of the ITS Joint Program Office and her staff
to obtain the Department's comments.  In general, they said that the
report accurately portrayed the challenges that the ITS program faces
in fostering the widespread deployment of integrated ITS systems.  In
particular, they said that the report accurately highlighted the
nature and importance of the ITS architecture and standards.  They
reemphasized the fact that while ITS investments are being made, the
urban areas deploying ITS need to consider the integration of the
various technologies even in advance of the completed standards.  The
officials said that urban areas should plan to integrate their
systems as early as possible rather than waiting until they have
deployed individual ITS technologies.  The officials also noted that
we should reemphasize that our report focused only on metropolitan
ITS infrastructure and did not review other areas of ITS--such as
commercial vehicle technologies and the development of the automated
highway system.  We revised the beginning of the report to note that
we focused on metropolitan ITS infrastructure only.  Finally, the
officials provided several specific editorial comments, which we have
incorporated where appropriate.  The officials made no comments on
our overall conclusions. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We performed our review from October 1996 through February 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation; the Administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration; the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration; cognizant congressional committees; and other
interested parties.  Copies will be available upon request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV. 

John H.  Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation and
 Telecommunications Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To determine how the Department of Transportation (DOT) has changed
the focus of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program
since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA), we first determined the original focus of the program. 
We did this by examining DOT's ITS strategic plan and other
documents.  We also interviewed transportation officials at the
federal, state, and local level, as well as ITS experts in industry
and academia.  To determine any changes to the program's focus, we
interviewed ITS program management and reviewed their draft proposal
for reauthorizing the program. 

To examine progress in deploying integrated ITS and the key factors
affecting the deployment, we reviewed recent survey results and
research work prepared for DOT, conducted by Public Transportation
Technology Inc.  (PTI), the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  On the basis of our
review of these documents, we used a standards series of questions to
conduct in-depth interviews with transportation planning officials in
10 of the nation's largest and most congested urban areas who are,
because of their areas' size and congestion, likely to be familiar
with ITS technologies.\9 We discussed whether (1) these areas had
deployed ITS technologies, (2) which specific technologies they had
used an why, and (3) what if any plans they had for future ITS
deployment. 

To identify ways in which the federal government can facilitate the
deployment of ITS, we used a standard series of questions to guide
the discussions with the officials of the selected urban areas.  The
discussions covered the types of financial and nonfinancial
incentives that would be most effective in spurring deployment.  We
discussed the general pros and cons of federal financial assistance,
as well as how a financial assistance program might be structured,
including whether the program should be a large program of $1 billion
or more annually or a smaller seed program of about $100 million.  We
also used the results of the PTI and Volpe studies, in concert with
our interviews, to identify nonfinancial incentives the federal
government could take. 


--------------------
\9 These areas included Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami,
Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and
Washington, DC. 


THE ITS PROGRAM'S FUNDING LEVELS,
FISCAL YEARS 1991-97
========================================================== Appendix II

Figure II.1 shows the levels of funding for the ITS program.  The
total funding for the program, which includes projects in three modal
administrations--the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration--has increased from $22 million in 1991 to $233
million in 1997.  The total funding for the 7-year period (fiscal
years 1991-97) was $1.3 billion.  This funding includes $645 million
in contract authority granted for the program under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and $624 million
provided through the appropriations process. 

   Figure II.1:  Funding for the
   Intelligent Transportation
   Systems Program, Fiscal Years
   1991-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  For fiscal years 1992-97, ITS funding includes both the
contract authority granted under ISTEA and the funds provided through
the appropriations process.  In fiscal year 1991, funds were provided
through the appropriations process.  Fiscal year 1995 reflects a
rescission, and fiscal year 1996 reflects the reduction associated
with ISTEA section 1003. 

Source:  DOT. 


OVERVIEW OF THE ITS ARCHITECTURE
========================================================= Appendix III

   Figure III.1:  Integrated ITS
   as Defined by the Architecture

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  DOT.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The National ITS architecture provides overall guidance to ensure
system, product, and service compatibility/interoperability without
limiting the design options of a stakeholder.  The architecture
provides a common structure for the design of intelligent
transportation systems.  It is not a system design nor is it a system
concept.  What it does define is the framework around which multiple
design approaches can be developed, each one specifically tailored to
meet a user's individual needs.  The architecture defines the
functions that must be performed to implement a given user service,
the physical entities or subsystems where the functions reside, the
interfaces/information flows between the physical subsystems, and the
communication requirements for the information flows.  Figure III.1
outlines the physical architecture that defines the physical
components of an integrated ITS system. 

The physical architecture defines four systems that encompass 19
subsystems: 

Center subsystems deal with those functions normally assigned to
public/private administrative, management, or planning agencies.  For
example, the traffic management subsystem processes traffic data and
provides basic traffic and incident management services through the
roadside and other subsystems. 

Roadside subsystems include functions that require convenient access
to a roadside location for the deployment of sensors, signals,
programmable signs, or other interfaces with travelers and vehicles
of all types.  For example, a toll collection subsystem interacts
with vehicle toll tags to collect tolls and identify violators. 

Vehicle subsystems are installed in a vehicle.  For example,
commercial vehicle subsystems store safety data, identification
numbers, and other regulatory information to expedite commercial
vehicle clearance by interacting with roadside commercial vehicle
check points. 

Traveler subsystems are designed to be accessible to the traveling
public to help them make optimal travel choices.  For example, a
traveler at a shopping center can access an information kiosk to
determine which bus to take and the time of the next scheduled
departure.  Alternatively, a commuter can access information on
freeway traffic conditions via a home personal computer.  These
systems derive information from traffic, transit, and other
management centers. 

The architecture also identifies a basic communications
infrastructure by which these subsystems can share information.  It
is this communication between subsystems that results in a truly
integrated ITS system. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Joseph A.Christoff
Libby Halperin
Michael Hartnett
David Lichtenfeld
Gail Marnik
Luann Moy
Phyllis Scheinberg


*** End of document. ***