Meeting Minutes

July 31 – August 1, 2008



1. General
2. Meeting Attendees
3. Committee Members Absent
4. Meeting Agenda
5. Summary of Proceedings
a. Call to Order and Introductory Remarks
b. Crosswalk of Existing Program Initiatives to New Program Goals and Focus Areas
c. RITA Administrator’s Remarks
d. ITS World Congress Activity Update
e. University Transportation Centers Activity Update
f. Discussion of ITSPAC Advisory Memorandum No. 1
g. ITS Program Major Initiatives Updates
h. General Discussion
i. Summary and Wrap-up
j. Next Steps
6. Adjournment.

1. General

  • A meeting of the ITS Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC) was held July 31 to August 1, 2008, in the Admiral II-III Conference Room of the Courtyard by Marriott Capitol Hill/Navy Yard Hotel, 140 L St, SE, Washington, DC, 20003.
  • Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, the meeting was open to the public, and all documents made available to or prepared for or by the ITSPAC for the meeting are available for public inspection and copying in the ITSPAC Website at
  • These minutes provide a summary of the meeting proceedings. The detailed meeting transcript is available in the ITSPAC Website at As appropriate, topic headings in these minutes are followed by links to related documents available in the ITSPAC Website.

2. Meeting Attendees

a. ITSPAC Members

Mr. Joseph Averkamp, Metro Tech Partners
Mr. Scott Belcher, ITS America
Dr. Kenneth Button, George Mason University
Mr. Robert Denaro, NAVTEQ Corporation (Committee Vice Chairman)
Mr. Alfred Foxx, Baltimore City Department of Transportation
Mr. Randell Iwasaki, California Department of Transportation
Dr. Adrian Lund, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Mr. Bryan Mistele, INRIX
Mr. Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense Fund
Mr. Tomiji Sugimoto, Honda Research and Development America, Inc.
Dr. Joseph Sussman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Committee Chairman)

b. Ms. Shelley Row, Director, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) (Committee Designated Federal Official)

c. Others Present for All or a Portion of the Meeting

Mr. John Augustine, ITS JPO
Mr. Steven Bayless, Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Ms. Leslie Bellas, ITS America
Ms. Keli Braitman, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Ms. Valerie Briggs, ITS JPO
Mr. Paul Brubaker; RITA Administrator
Mr. Tom Bulger, Government Relations, Inc.
Mr. Michael Cammisa, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
Mr. Brian Cronin, ITS JPO
Ms. Suzanne Murtha, Kapsh TrafficCom
Mr. Greg Davis, FHWA Office of Safety R&D
Ms. Linda Dodge, ITS JPO
Mr. Robert Ferlis, FHWA Office of Operations R&D
Mr. Jack Ference, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
Mr. Yehuda Gross, ITS JPO
Ms. Kate Hartman, ITS JPO
Ms. Sarah Hipple, Nissan
Mr. Thomas Kern, ITS America
Ms. Jane Lappin, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Mr. Barney Legge, Citizant
Mr. Siva Narla, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Mr. Andy Palanisamy, Citizant
Ms. Marcia Pincus, ITS JPO (Committee Management Officer)
Mr. Paul Pisano, FHWA Office of Transportation Operations
Mr. James Pol, FHWA Office of Operations
Ms. Amy Polk, Citizant
Mr. Gary Ritter, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Mr. Steve Sill, ITS JPO
Mr. Vincent Valdes, Federal Transit Administration
Mr. Carlos Vélez, Citizant
Mr. Kyle Williams, Robert Bosch LLC

3. Committee Members Absent

Mr. Steve Albert, Western Transportation Institute
Ms. Ann Flemer, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland County, California
Mr. John Inglish, Utah Transit Authority
Mr. Thomas Lambert, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas
Dr. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
Ms. Iris Weinshall, City University of New York
Mr. Greer Woodruff, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Mr. John Worthington, TransCore

4. Meeting Agenda

July 31, 2008

  • Call to Order and Introductory Remarks
  • Crosswalk of Existing Program Initiatives to New Program Goals and Focus Areas
  • RITA Administrator’s Remarks
  • ITS World Congress Activity Update
  • University Transportation Centers Activity Update
  • Discussion of ITSPAC Advisory Memorandum No. 1

August 1, 2008

  • ITS Program Major Initiatives Updates
  • General Discussion
  • Summary and Wrap-up
  • Next Steps

5. Summary of Proceedings

Day 1: July 31, 2008

Call to Order and Introductory Remarks

Dr. Sussman, the committee chairman, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., welcomed all participants, and reviewed the two-day agenda. Dr. Sussman stated that the meeting agenda largely was driven by the ITSPAC’s Advisory Memorandum Number 1 , dated May 29, 2008,to the U.S. DOT, and that committee concerns expressed in that memorandum would be addressed during the meeting.

Mr. Replogle stated that he would like a discussion on the relationship between the environment and ITS added to the agenda. Dr. Sussman replied that the environment is one of the National ITS Program’s core goals, and the committee would discuss how much of a priority should be placed on the environment during the discussion of program goals, currently on the agenda.

Crosswalk of Existing Program Initiatives to New Program Goals and Focus Areas

(See “DRAFT Safety White Paper,” and “July 31 - August 1, 2008 Meeting Presentation,” slides 3-11,

Ms. Row, the Committee Designated Federal Official, discussed how the ITS Program will transition during the FY08 to FY10 period to a primary focus on safety to address the RITA Administrator’s challenge of dramatically affecting road safety by reducing the vehicle crash rate by 90% by 2030.

In FY 08 and FY 09, the ITS Program will continue to heavily support the Departmental safety and mobility goals, while beginning to migrate program resources increasingly toward the safety goal. The allocation of most of the ITS Program’s resources to safety by FY10 will be enabled by the completion of five of the eleven ITS Initiatives by FY 09 and another three completions by FY10.

In addition to the safety focus in programmatic activities, expectations are that in FY10 there will be opportunities for new, safety-focused research initiatives, with some new starts focused on mobility and the environment. To develop new research opportunities, the ITS JPO soon will be instituting technology scanning capabilities with other modes within U.S. DOT and external to U.S. DOT.

The ITS JPO is working to develop a program structure to support a safety focus that dramatically will affect road safety.

3. RITA Administrator’s Remarks

Mr. Brubaker quoted Mr. Iwasaki: “Government performs best when it has a clear goal and a clear deadline.” Therefore, he has challenged the ITS JPO to develop a program that will meet the safety goal of a 90% reduction in crashes by 2030, and described this goal as a ready-made business case for transportation reauthorization. It will help reauthorization to say to Congress “25% of congestion is caused by crashes, so crash reduction has congestion reduction and environmental benefits, too.”

Mr. Brubaker stated that the Program’s technology scan will incorporate private sector activities also. The private sector already has technologies that will make progress towards the safety goal.

A communications layer will enable the crash reduction goal, but have many other benefits also. A platform will be developed that is open to private sector and academia, as well as all levels of government. This platform will enable “situational awareness” so that a vehicle and driver will know what is going on around it/him/her.

This communications layer will enable also interoperability among systems from different providers. It will also enable collection of data that we haven’t had before, such as real-time emissions at the vehicle level for environmental monitoring.

The ITS Program is looking at what the other government agencies, especially the Department of Defense, are doing as far as having situational awareness with “communications on the move.”

Summary of Discussion Following Mr. Brubaker’s Remarks

Mr. Averkamp: Are you for an open architecture and standards for existing applications also?

Mr. Brubaker: Yes. This might (concern ) freak out E-ZPass a little bit, but I think this should not be such a big problem. But if they are smart they will adapt to this new open platform. I also want all these actors to be sharing data.

Mr. Replogle: As a way of framing the program, focusing on safety makes sense. I hear in the field that homeland security is raising issues about using GPS for tolling. How do we make sure that what other government agencies are doing doesn’t get in our way? Another new concept that’s coming is pay-as-you-drive insurance, which is estimated to reduce VMT by 8% and save many consumers many hundreds of dollars annually. You could also say that reducing VMT will reduce crashes. I also think you could tell your story better if you took some FY10 funds out of mobility and safety and put some funds (say 10%) into the environment.

Mr. Brubaker: An open platform will enable us to build and test new systems. Also, I don’t want to go into reauthorization with a “scattered” message without a goal and deadline.

Dr. Button: I like the idea of switching away from reducing congestion. We know how to reduce congestion. Technologies are out there to do it. Also, the environmental issue is not an ITS issue. To reduce VMT, simply raise the price of gas. I like the idea of evaluating projects holistically. Why did you pick crash rate as your metric?

Mr. Brubaker: Because people understand crash rate. If ITS is focused on reducing crashes, we can convince people of the importance of the ITS program after only talking with them for 30 seconds.

Mr. Mistele: I like the idea of focusing on safety. The private sector is investing a lot now in a two-way Internet Protocol with the vehicle. Don’t build a communications layer from scratch.

Mr. Sugitmoto: The government is right to focus on safety.

Dr. Sussman: How does this substantial emphasis on safety align with the priorities of the U. S. DOT overall ? Secretary Peters recently released a Reform Proposal on departmental goals. Safety is mentioned, but very far down (not highlighted ) .

Mr. Brubaker: The Reform Proposal gives more flexibility to state and local government s to use Federal transportation funds that address a variety of goals. Secretary Peters also has notified U.S. DOT leadership to think about alternatives to the gas tax. With high gas prices, VMT goes down. With increase in use of alternative fuels, revenue from gas tax also goes down.

Dr. Sussman: Alternative s to the gas tax, accomplished with technology, is a great question that should be researched by the JPO.

Mr. Denaro: We also need more research on secondary/ancillary benefits. Is $1 million in research in the environment enough or too much? I don’t know.

Mr. Brubaker: The most important thing isn’t necessarily the absolute of the safety goal . Most important is being able to build out an interoperable platform for ITS applications because that will scratch tons of itches. It will finally enable the mobile Internet to enable safety applications, and a legitimate U.S. DOT goal is to really zero in on that. But , it also will enable what the private sector is looking for, what the OEMs are looking for, and meet state and local data needs .

Dr. Sussman thanked Mr. Brubaker for his comments.

d. ITS World Congress Activity Update

(1) Ms. Row provided an update on U.S. DOT activities at the World Congress. (See “July 31 - August 1, 2008 Meeting Presentation,” slides 12-14,

The ITS World Congress will be held in New York City, November 16-20, 2008.

A U.S. DOT exhibit booth will focus on ITS Major Initiatives research results and will include five stations to showcase different programs.

Secretary Peters has been invited to speak.

Five stations will showcase different programs.

IVBSS will offer vehicle rides, CICAS will have a demonstration at the 11 th Street Theatre, and Safe Trip-21 also will have a demonstration.

(2) Mr. Ritter provided an update on Safe Trip-21, including World Congress demonstrations and exhibits. (See “Safe Trip-21 Presentation,”

The Safe Trip-21 goals are safety, mobility, and E-payment.

There are five SafeTrip-21 sites in the San Francisco Bay area: I-80, I-880, SR84, SR 237 and the VII California Test Bed. Nokia is also interested in testing technologies in the Lake Tahoe area. The goal is to have 1,000 real drivers test the system in 2008.

At the World Congress, the SafeTrip-21 connected travel exhibit will showcase multi-network VII communications connectivity, intersection safety alerts, situational safety alerts, intermodal trip planning, dynamic transit trip planning, GPS cell probe traffic data, and parking reservation/E-payment.

(3) Mr. Belcher provided an overview of the World Congress program, special events, and demonstrations. (See “15 th World Congress on ITS Presentation” at

There will be two DSRC-equipped test beds: one along 40 miles of the Long Island Expressway and another along 4 miles of the “ Manhattan loop” adjacent to the Javits Convention Center. On the Long Island Expressway test bed there will be a two-hour bus tour to the Long Island TMC and back, with a narrator discussing the technologies that are being demonstrated. The Manhattan loop will be a much shorter 40-minute bus tour.

In addition, another showcase location will be the 11 th Avenue Theater. The purpose of this venue is to showcase technologies that are not quite ready to “go live” in the real world and still need somewhat of a controlled environment. In addition to the vehicle demonstration, there will be a video program to tell people about the technologies and pull things all together.

Another key showcase venue will be the Traffic Management Center (TMC) of the Future in the Javits Center, which will address how TMCs of the future will differ from TMCs of today.

ITS America is working with many partners on a Media Day in October and on a media plan and media blitz during the World Congress.

Dr. Sussman : What will people actually see on th e 40-mile trip on the Long Island Expressway test bed?

Mr. Belcher : People will ride in a bus to the Long Island TMC and back, with a narrator telling them about the technologies that are being demonstrated. It’s a two-hour tour. The Manhattan loop is a 40-minute bus tour, much shorter. In addition, another showcase location will be the 11 th Avenue Theater. The purpose of this venue is to showcase technologies that are not quite ready to “go live” and still need somewhat of a controlled environment. In addition to the vehicle demonstration, there will be video to tell people about the technologies and pull things all together.

Dr. Button: Beware of a backlash against ITS because the roads are closed down.

Mr. Replogle: Janette Sadik Khan’s answer to that would be that ITS is important to make better use of roadways for all users, including transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Mr. Belcher : We’re considering having AARP and others offer one-day passes so that they can see the technology demonstrations.

Dr. Sussman : What are you doing to be media friendly? A mistake of the 1996 Olympics was that we made the media ride in the plain old buses along with everyone else. And we got hammered for it.

Mr. Belcher : We are working with many partners on a media plan and media blitz during the World Congress. We are also planning to have a Media Day in October. The other big showcase venue is the Traffic Management Center of the Future. We built a big space in the Javits Center for this “TMC of the Future” that will address how a TMC of the future is different from TMCs of today. Narration will be in English, Spanish, Japanese and Chinese.

Mr. Bulger: Some San Francisco elected officials absolutely love going to the World Congress. Will there be a political track?

Mr. Belcher : We’ll be bringing a lot of staffers and members. We ’re talking to Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar and Secretary Peters. We will have ITS America staff with elected and other political officials , so yes, coordinate with us and we’ll be happy to do that.

Also, the ITS World Congress is a great place to showcase what is feasible with technology and with deployment, so it is part of an effort to build momentum for reauthorization, to get money for ITS research and ITS deployment.

Dr. Sussman: I wonder about the partnership between the ITS America crowd doing their demonstrations, and the DOT people doing theirs. Are you comfortable with the way that is coming together, and can this committee have some confidence that's going to work out fine?

Mr. Belcher : Coordination is a challenge, but ITS America has a wonderful working relationship with the JPO. We are also working well with Gary Ritter at Volpe. It will all come together.

Ms. Row: ITS America has been most patient with the JPO. We are the ones who are trying to figure out what we will have ready to showcase in November.

Dr. Sussman : What I hope would happen is we walk out of ( here this meeting ) more comfortable than we were, say, in March ; t hat there's going to be something that the U.S. can be proud of.

Mr. Iwasaki: The other thing we did in San Francisco at the 2005 World Congress was to hold a state legislative hearing on-site. But , I don’t believe there will be a New York state legislative hearing at the November World Congress .

Mr. Belcher : We’re still in discussions with the New York State legislature about that.

Ms. Row: Another opportunity to showcase ITS to the political leadership is the 2009 ITS America Annual Meeting in June 2009 in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Sussman : You should get Mayor Bloomberg involved.

Mr. Belcher : Bloomberg is our opening speaker , and NYC Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan also will speak.

Mr. Denaro: How do you get tickets?

Mr. Belcher : You can both sign up ahead of time, plus there will some on-site sales. The NYC DOT/PD is giving us 300 people to help manage logistics.

Dr. Button: It’s ironic that people will have to purchase paper tickets for technology demonstrations. Also, what is the international participation, particularly in the demonstrations?

Mr. Belcher : We’ve got more Asian than U.S. OEMs participating in the demonstrations. We also have ministers of transportation from several countries attending.

Mr. Kern : Tickets can be ordered online or sent via snail-mail, and if slots are available on site, you can go to the virtual ticket booth and get a ticket that way.

Dr. Sussman: Is this material that you g ave out today the program of both the World Congress and the ITS America portion of it?

Mr. Belcher: Yes, everything is in there.


e. University Transportation Centers Activity Update

(See “History of University Transportation Centers Program,” and “July 31 - August 1, 2008 Meeting Presentation,” slides 15-16,

Ms. Row provided an update on coordination between the ITS Program and the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program.

U.S. DOT invests in the future of transportation through its UTCs, awarding university grants to advance the transportation research state-of-the-art and to develop the next generation of transportation professionals.

Current U.S. DOT-UTC coordination activities include:

  • Discussion on potential benefits of closer coordination between U.S. DOT programs and staff and university efforts and staff .
  • Initial outreach to RITA UTC staff .
  • Professional Capacity Building Program gap analysis .

U.S. DOT does not direct UTC research, but can provide UTC members topics of U.S. DOT interest for possible research. This has happened in the case of in-vehicle traveler information.

The Volpe Center has been working closely with the Vehicle Traffic Information Coalition (VTIC) to develop a research problem statement to see if any UTC members are interested in conducting this research.

The UTC program changed dramatically with the passage of SAFETEA-LU. There are over 60 UTC members, many of which are multi-school consortia. Many of the new members were designated Congressional earmarks. These schools are looking for fertile research topics on which to spend research funds.

Suzanne Sloan from the Volpe Center attended the UTC Annual Meeting in San Jose. The committee feels the UTC program represents a major opportunity for ITS JPO that should be pursued with more vigor. The JPO U.S. DOT indicated it will continue to pursue this relationship. The committee urged JPO to p and re-double its efforts.

f. Discussion of ITSPAC Advisory Memorandum No. 1

(See “July 31 - August 1, 2008 Meeting Presentation,” slides 17-18, and “ITSPAC Advisory Memorandum to U.S. DOT, Number 1,”

Ms. Row provided an update on U.S. DOT staffing coordination of ITSPAC Advice Memorandum Number 1, dated May 29, 2008. The memorandum was distributed informally to the ITS Management Council and the ITS Strategic Planning Group and transmitted formally to the U.S. DOT Secretary. It also was posted on the ITS JPO Website. Upon the Secretary’s review, the memorandum will be distributed to the wider transportation community. ITS JPO has drafted a response to the memorandum for the Secretary, who shortly will respond to the ITSPAC.

In February of every year, the ITS JPO is required to compile all advice received from the ITSPAC and the U.S. DOT’s response for inclusion in a report to Congress from the Secretary.

Ms. Row stated that it is the committee’s choice of how often to provide the Secretary advice. Dr. Sussman replied that the Transportation Research Board has a model of one advice letter per meeting, and that he did not believe that is overly onerous. Mr. Denaro stated his support for providing an advice memorandum subsequent to every meeting.

Day 2: August 1, 2008

g. ITS Program Major Initiatives Updates

(See “July 31 - August 1, 2008 Meeting Presentation,” slides 21-43, and “ITS Research Initiatives Program Status Summaries,”

Ms. Row described the context for updates on the ITS Major Initiatives. She requested that ITSPAC members consider answers to following questions during the updates:

  • Are these current and future activities likely to advance either the state of the practice or state of the art in intelligent transportation systems?
  • Are the technologies being researched and tested likely to be deployed by users? If not, what are the barriers to deployment?
  • What are the appropriate roles for government and the private sector in investing in these existing and future research and technologies being considered?

Ms. Row added that the emphasis of the Initiatives updates would be on past and planned accomplishments and would include FY08 and FY09 budgets, although, since many of the initiatives are either complete or nearing completion, the budget discussion would not be really relevant

Following are the salient elements of discussions during the Initiatives update presentations

Next Generation 9-1-1(NG9-1-1), presented by Linda Dodge, ITS JPO

NG9-1-1 has been a two year project, one that is winding down rapidly. We've had twenty-four months of intense work. The first slide shows the accomplishments this year. This is a portion of the fifty-two deliverables we’ve had in a twenty-four month period, so it was pretty ambitious , and everything currently is on time and on budget. We have completed our Proof of Concept testing at five sites. Those sites not only did the testing, but they also did live demonstrations . This gave us an opportunity for the jurisdictions share with not only the community that they serve, such as the public safety community, but also the user community what the NG 9-1-1 capabilities will be. And those demonstrations were very successful . Yes, Shelley?

Ms. Row: I just wanted to make sure that the Committee i s aware that NG9-1-1 is testing the IP text messaging capabilities, to get that into a Public Service Answering Point ( PSAP ) . So, they test instant messaging, telematics, voice over IP, text messaging, video -- trying to get those kinds of calls into a into a PSAP , which , currently, it's not able to do.

Mr. Averkamp: Is location information included in the 9-1-1 system ?

Ms. Dodge: Yes, location information is included.

Dr. Sussman: Is privacy a concern in this system ?

Ms. Dodge: In a way, but in an emergency, most people want to be found.

Mr. Averkamp: That’s true for all commercial applications when you turn off the geolocator function on your phone. However, it’s not disabled when you call a PSAP.

Mr. Denaro: Where does the NG9-1-1 system go next?

Ms. Dodge: It will transition to the National 9-1-1 Office, housed in NHTSA. The U.S. DOT has been praised for including stakeholders that it never worked with before.

Mr. Sugimoto: Who have you worked with in the medical field?

Ms. Dodge: We have worked with the emergency medical services ( EMS) community.

Ms Row: What this research did was develop a new architecture based on Internet Protocol (IP). The old system was based on a legacy system, not geared toward interoperability. Now that this system is set up, it’s the individual PSAP choice to convert to the new system, but there is no dedicated funding for this. The National 9-1-1 Office has some funds available.

Mr. Averkamp: The wireless industry has a fund available for PSAPs, from a 50 cent surcharge on every phone bill.

Ms Dodge: There is also some funding available from the National 9-1-1 Act.

Mr. Belcher: What is the business model?

Ms. Dodge: The business model goes back to the Emergency Services in 1972. The conversion to the new system will be costly, but compatibility with wireline phones still needs to be maintained.

Dr Button: This is a technology project. The political implications are only secondary.

Ms. Dodge: One of the tools that we are developing is a “spec sheet” listing the costs of equipment, so PSAPs can go to their local funding source with an accurate funding request. We will give this to the 6,000 PSAPs in the U.S. An additional funding request will go to Congress to give to the National 9-1-1 Office, so that more grants are available.

Dr. Sussman: What does it mean to say “No new FY2009 funds are anticipated? ”

Ms. Dodge: Some funds carry over from previous years, so there will be activity even though there are no new funds in FY09.

Emergency Transportation Operations (ETO) , presented by Linda Dodge, ITS JPO

Ms. Dodge : This initiative was not as focused as the N G 9-1- 1 Initiative. Basically, it represented approximately thirteen projects that, while they weren’t specifically connected, were very complimentary to one another. T he final $350,000.00 obligation this year will close out ETO . There were many research results , but t he Camera Phone project was a particular accomplishment of this Initiative, through CAPWIN, which gave camera phones to incident management response personnel to transmit video images of incidents.

Mr. Denaro: Did both the police and tow truck drivers have camera phones?

Ms. Dodge: Yes , but for the most part, t he tow truck drivers used the phones if they needed to request additional equipment and show the equipment they had .

Mr. Denaro: Was training on how to use the camera phones included?

Ms. Dodge: Yes

Ms. Row: Linda (Dodge ) is giving you one example of the 13 projects conducted under the auspices of ETO.

Ms. Dodge: A CD with key documents is coming out soon.

Dr. Sussman: The emergency responders are very interested in this.

Mr. Averkamp: When is this Initiative set to end?

Ms. Dodge: It formally closed out this past December.

Mr. Denaro: What is the distribution of this CD?

Ms. Dodge: It was distributed to our list of 2,000 people, plus U.S. DOT field staff. Also, it will be distributed at conferences.

Ms. Row: The cost of this Initiative was about $5.9 million over 3 years.

Ms. Dodge: It was originally estimated to cost around $11 million.

Rural Safety, presented by Linda Dodge, ITS JPO

Ms. Dodge : There was a solicitation of expressions of interest that was due May 12. 30 applications were received, 24 from states and 6 from counties. 20 of the 30 were collaborative in nature. They were selected for a response and invited to give more detail by July 7. Evaluation was specifically mentioned in the 2 nd solicitation. The ITS portion of this Initiative involves using proven technologies in an innovative way.

Mr. Denaro: Could you explain the scope of proposals that you received?

Ms. Dodge : Based on national rural crash data, we developed a list of research areas, but responders weren’t restricted to that.

Dr. Lund : Is this technology looking for an application?

Ms. Row: For the ITS portion, that’s true. But not for other areas of U.S. DOT involved in this Department-wide Initiative.

Ms. Dodge : Example technologies included in the proposals include: smart rumble strips to help people stay in lanes, active curve speed warnings, sensors to detect hydroplaning, etc. The target funding for this is $5.4 million.

Dr. Button: Are you assessing whether applicants actually do have a problem, rather than making up a problem to get the funding ?

Ms. Dodge : We asked responders to provide data to document the problem being addressed by their proposed systems.

Mr. Denaro: Did you ask for proposals that are both in-vehicle and infrastructure-based?

Ms. Dodge : No. We are looking only at infrastructure-based technology.

Mr. Averkamp: What are your performance metrics for the technologies?

Ms. Dodge : We have specific metrics, based on safety goals. We hope that the Deputy Secretary will be able to make an announcement August 18.

Mr. Denaro: Let’s go through our list of questions. Is this Initiative likely to advance the state-of-the-art or state-of-the-practice?

Mr. Belcher: Yes.

Mr. Iwasaki: Yes, and I’m not just saying that because Caltrans has an application in this program. A big problem with rural projects is spreading the word. We implemented a successful fog warning system at one site in California and didn’t expand it.

Dr. Button: Are you looking at whether these proposals are proposing a high-tech solution in cases where a low-tech, low-cost solution would work just as well ?

Mr. Pisano: Yes. Plus, we refer low-tech solutions to other offices within U.S. DOT to get funding through other programs.

Dr. Sussman: Will this program extend beyond the expiration date of SAFETEA-LU ?

Ms. Dodge : It could, depending on how many continuing resolutions we have.

Ms. Row: I wanted to note that this project is not on the budget handout that you received . $5.9 million was added.

Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS), presented by Steve Sill, ITS JPO

IVBSS is a $35 million project to develop and then , if successful in the development, to field test an integrated collision warning system that is on the vehicle. It does not need to communicate with other vehicles and is fully effective, regardless of the equipment on any other cars. So, it protects against lane change merge, which is where you may move into another lane, and there may be a car there, or a car may be moving toward you, or road collision and road departure. And in the case of the car system only, it also has a curve speed warning capability. We're looking at both an automobile system, and a heavy truck system, and both of these systems will be tested in the field for a period of one year. To date, we have completed Phase I, and what we have seen so far is that we have fully tested the system. It has demonstrated very good performance and very low false alarm rates. It has fully met all of its performance requirements.

Dr. Lund : There are products on the market that do already all of these functions .

Mr. Sill: Yes, but there is nothing on the market that integrates and prioritizes all three functions. Plus, our tests results show that the false alarm rate is much lower than what’s on the market now.

Dr. Sussman: Could you explain why there is a Federal role in developing in-vehicle technologies?

Mr. Sill: Federal involvement lets NHTSA know the benefits of this system so that the agency can take regulatory action much sooner, thus bringing life-saving technology to widespread deployment much sooner. We can evaluate close calls and near misses, which are not available from evaluating commercial deployment. Even a few weeks of acceleration can save many lives. Look to electronic stability control as an example. The Federal government did not get involved in deployment of this technology and it got to market far too slowly.

Dr. Lund : Shouldn’t development and testing costs be borne by the private sector? The insurance industry should be part of the business model.

Mr. Sill: Yes, but the insurance bases its rate discounts on data. This project is generating detailed data.

Dr. Sussman: Are you saying that there is a failure in the market in this situation?

Mr. Sill: It’s not a total failure, but Federal involvement can help accelerate deployment.

Mr. Belcher: There is a Federal role in this acceleration.

Mr. Denaro: Let’s ask Tomiji Sugimoto from Honda . Would Honda or other car companies find these data useful ?

Mr. Sill: Full disclosure. Honda is the vehicle manufacturer partner in the IVBSS Initiative.

Mr. Sugimoto: Yes. Government studies and OEM studies need to corroborate each other.

Dr. Lund : I think the electronic stability control case is a good example to justify Federal involvement in this case. ESC got to market in record time. Nevertheless, this Federal project will generate useful data, especially with regards to driver behavior. People change their behavior based on what systems are in the vehicle.

Ms. Row: NHTSA has been looking across the board at accelerating deployment of all sorts of safety technologies. NHTSA’s process is very data-driven. NHTSA’s regulatory process has the side benefit that it doesn’t even need to make a regulation, it just needs to propose a new regulation, and this affects driver behavior.

Mr. Sill: What our driver behavior observations tell us is that it doesn’t take long after installation of the cameras for people to go back to their bad habits. Unfortunately, we can’t observe long-term driver behavior in a one-year test.

Mr. Denaro: My discussions with OEMs reveal that they are eager to get data upon which they can make investment decisions. OEMs want to sell systems that huge numbers of people will want to buy. Another side benefit of Federal involvement is the publicity. Everyone says that “Safety doesn’t sell , ” b ut actual data will help marketing to consumers.

Mr. Mistele: What Bob Denaro is talking about is different than what this Initiative is actually doing.

Mr. Sill: We will be collecting all this data, but please note that we will be testing an integrated system. The test results will be different than if you tested any one of the individual warning systems. In this project, we are releasing much more data to the public than we have in the past.

Dr. Sussman: I think there is no consensus on Question 3, on the appropriate Federal role.

Mr. Averkamp: This is a $35 million project. You also have to think about how this project stacks up against others and how these funds could have been spent in a different way.

Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative (VII), presented by Valerie Briggs, ITS JPO

Ms. Briggs: VII is a cooperative program between U.S. DOT, all the states, and the automobile industry to develop an information infrastructure for exchanging data for safety and mobility applications. It started in 2004, and this year we actually did the proof of concept test, and we're getting results now, and it will continue through September. W hat we're learning is that the architecture works for the most part. It is not without its challenges. We found the DSRC Standards d o need to be tweaked, but generally, the architecture works. We can exchange data between the roadside and vehicles and among vehicles to support numerous safety, mobility, and commercial applications . A significant aspect of this initiative is the necessary cooperation among vehicle manufacturers.

Mr. Mistele: Does this project involve WiFi from vehicles to sensors along the road?

Ms. Briggs: Communications happens to and from vehicles and infrastructure, and also vehicle-to-vehicle. We don’t necessarily use WiFi as the communications protocol. Communications needs to happen when the vehicle is traveling at 70 mph. We are conducting a proof-of-concept test, to be completed in October with results available in November.

Dr. Sussman: What has changed in the re-scoping of the program?

Mr. Mistele: And what feedback did you get from the RITA Administrator that caused you to re-scope your program?

Ms Briggs: Previously, the program exclusively considered DSRC for communications , b ut there are many other options out there. Also, initially there was an assumption that the Federal government would fund a big portion of this deployment, and we can no longer assume that. Despite consideration of other options, DSRC is the only protocol that has all the properties needed. DSRC is an open standard, but it’s difficult to make money on a non-proprietary standard.

Ms Row: Originally, this program was focused on both mobility and safety. Now, it is focused only on safety.

Dr. Lund : I think the decision to de-couple mobility and safety is “dumb” b ecause consumers are willing to pay for mobility, not for safety. Also, how are you conducting this benefit-cost analysis ?

Ms Briggs: The Volpe Center is conducting this analysis. We have good estimates on the costs, -- i n-vehicle costs and infrastructure costs. What is difficult is estimating monetary benefits.

Dr. Lund : You should be doing an assessment, not a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Mistele: Please talk more about the in-vehicle v ersus infrastructure costs.

Ms Briggs: California has given us some good cost estimates. Plus, we have made assumptions, which is what one has to do in a cost-benefit analysis. Our cost estimates include long-term operations and maintenance costs in a 40-year time frame.

Ms Row: The initial cost-benefit analysis used the initial program scope ; i.e., only DSRC. The updated cost-benefit analysis will look at multiple scenarios.

Ms Briggs: We are using this cost-benefit analysis as a decision tool.

Dr. Sussman: Were there other re-scopes in addition to DSRC and the focus exclusively on safety?

Ms Briggs: Yes. There were many re-scopes.

Mr. Denaro: I’ve seen VII portrayed as a near-term program, but deployment seems like it’s going to take longer than that.

Ms Row: The SafeTrip-21 VII “sliver” is intended to be near term .

Ms Briggs: The next year’s budget for this Initiative is unknown.

Ms Row: The number being considered is $16 million, but that’s still not definitive.

Mr. Denaro: Let’s consider the three questions for this Initiative.

Mr. Averkamp: On Question 2, a big barrier to deployment is the lack of centralization of this system. The most efficient way to manage such a system is centralized.

Mr. Belcher: For me, a big barrier to deployment is the lack of commitment to a particular technology. It’s difficult because technology is always changing, but if you don’t choose a technology at some point, you’ll never deploy anything.

Mr. Iwasaki: Also, you need to think about what devices will be in the vehicle, in travelers’ hands, such as PDAs. In California, we have installed a DSRC-based system as part of the SafeTrip-21 demo. But there’s no way we would install this statewide, it’s just too expensive. Also, mobility is how we can “sell” VII.

Mr. Mistele: My concern is that the private sector is already doing a lot , so we have to wonder if VII will be deployed as currently envisioned .

Mr. Iwasaki: A safety system has to be far more robust than a private sector’s system for mobility. The system can’t fail at the moment that it’s supposed to be preventing a crash.

Ms Briggs: If this effort spurs the private sector to develop a robust enough safety system, then this program has been a success.

Mr. Averkamp: Mobility is what sells. This is why the private sector keeps peeling off mobility pieces and making money off them. Nevertheless, we need to be careful about overestimating the value of mobility applications.

Mr. Mistele: From a technology scanning point of view, you have to look at the car companies.

Ms Row: Often, the car companies come to us, telling us what research they need done. For example, they have asked us to research security issues, to detect and prevent “bogus vehicles” in a network.

Mr. Denaro: One thing I struggle with a little bit, in understanding this, is the integration of VII with the previous discussion of IVBSS. What is the end stage that is going to make sense, in terms of autonomous systems, etc . on the vehicles, versus VII ?

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS), presented by Valerie Briggs, ITS JPO

Ms. Briggs: CICAS is really three different systems, each addressing a different intersection scenario: red light violation, signalized left turn, stop sign approach. For the red light violation scenario, we successfully completed a pilot test and are ready for a field operational test (FOT). But, a decision was made not to proceed to a n FOT. The red light violation system was tested in Virginia. The signalized left turn assist system was tested in California.

Mr. Averkamp: Are all three systems DSRC-based?

Ms. Briggs : Yes. This is one of the reasons that a decision to go forward with a red light violation FOT was put on hold.

Dr. Sussman: Will this Initiative be merged with VII?

Ms. Briggs : Yes.

Dr. Lund : Do the tests include a measurement of how driver behavior changes in response to these systems?

Ms. Briggs : Yes.

Dr. Lund : Widespread implementation depends on local government resources, particularly at intersections which are mostly owned by local (not state) governments. This a barrier to deployment.

Mr. Foxx: This is a severe problem for local government. How can we deploy these technologies when we cannot even afford to maintain the asphalt and pavement markings ?

Mr. Iwasaki: If the controllers on the market would be made to be “VII-ready , ” the added cost to local government shouldn’t be too much. Local governments can deploy VII and CICAS technologies as resources are available.

Dr. Lund : For the left turn assist system, I’m concerned that the parameters are going to be set at an overly cautious level and people will start to ignore the system, so when does it help the driver?

Mr. Davis : The states have told us that crashes at rural stop-controlled intersections are very severe because of the high speeds on major arterials , so the system assists drivers trying to make a left turn through a divided highway. Now, h uman factors studies show us that many of t hese types of crashes involve human factors violations -- they are daytime accidents in clear weather , with clear sight distance , and with no driver distraction involved . They are just poor driver judgment. So, the intent of this infrastructure based device is to warn drivers and to give them a little heads up that there's traffic approaching from the left, from the right, or across the road, and they should not go.

Mr. Ferlis: Our data show that even a supplemental warning can add value.

Row: This program, as it was originally conceived, was designed to pursue a pre-DSRC, pre-VII technology. We are now rethinking this approach. We are not tied to such a low-tech solution. Also, note that the stop sign assist system is a warning that appears on the infrastructure (on the STOP sign), not an in-vehicle warning.

Mr. Davis : These warnings are purely advisory and they only activate to tell the driver when it is not safe to go.

Mr. Sugimoto: There are many options as to where the warning could be displayed.

Mr. Iwasaki: Caltrans built one of these systems and demonstrated it at the 2005 ITS World Congress.

Clarus, presented by Paul Pisano, FHWA Office of Transportation Operations

Mr. Pisano: First of all, Clarus it is not an acronym. It's the Latin word for clear. T he whole idea with Clarus is that , when it comes to weather, there is a difference between what happens in the atmo sph ere and what happens on the. We know that when it snows, the snow may or may not stick to the roadway, so we need to know what i s happening on the roadway itself. I f there is more timely, accurate , and relevant information about what is happening and what is going to happen with the weather forecast ; then traffic and maintenance manager s , traveler s , truck driver s , etc, c an make better decision s . So, Clarus is all about assimilating all of these weather-re la ted observations , turning them into better road/weather information products , quality checking them, and then disseminating them to the community, both public and private sector. O ver the past couple of years , a database management system was developed is now run by one of our contractors. W e are now at the point of conducting regional demonstrations in three phases . Phase 1 , which was completed in January of this year, was to work with three state teams to develop concepts of operations (Con Ops) of the services and products desired to better manage the system. Phase 2 was to connect as many states as possible to the system. We started this fiscal year with six states, and we added twelve new states. Phase 3 , where we are now , is to build, deploy , and evaluate the services captured in the Con Ops developed in Phase 1 . We turned these Con Ops into an RFP that closes today , and we expect to make an award by the end of the fiscal year. We expect to get about twelve months of developing these services, and then about twelve months of testing and evaluation.

Mr. Averkamp: I just want to confirm: This project is not funding deployment of additional weather monitoring stations.

Mr. Pisano: Correct. What this system does is integrate weather data from various sources and performs quality checks, which the states have historically not done. $5.5 million has either been committed or obligated through this program. Our target deployment goal is 30 states, not all 50. We are about half way there at 18 ½ states. We want to have a permanent home for this system. We are in discussion with the National Weather Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA ). Our goal is to transition this system to NOAA by 2011.

Dr. Lund : What is your definition of a “successful demonstration ? ” Are you going to evaluate agencies’ decisions or just measure whether or how much they use the data ?

Mr. Pisano: Metrics include more efficient winter maintenance, with less salt spreading and lower costs and improved services for travelers, which will have to use surrogate measures.

Ms. Row: This project creates a market. It can create data that the private sector can take and develop products that serve the market.

Dr. Button: Such systems are already operational on a non-integrated basis. What’s different about the system being developed in this Initiative?

Mr. Pisano: The data that is now available comes from proprietary system s , plus it doesn’t meet the needs of agencies ; i.e., what will be the condition of the pavement three hours from now?

Sussman: Does the system handle extreme weather conditions, such as tornadoes and dust storms ?

Mr. Pisano: Tornadoes are short-lived events; the system won’t really help with them very much. Dust storms are a visibility issue and the system will help with them.

Mr. Iwasaki: This system will really help with winter maintenance. The old practice was to spread way too much salt.

Ms. Row: Canada h as declared salt as a hazardous material.

Mr. Iwasaki: Most of the trees alongside the road going towards Lake Tahoe have died because of over-salting.

Mr. Belcher: Do companies know that these data are publicly available ?

Mr. Pisano: We’ve been working hard to get the word out. We have our big stakeholder meeting next week. We can definitely do more.

Ms. Row: One of the measures of effectiveness of this program is how much the private sector picks up the data.

Mr. Pisano: With respect to Question 3, the Federal role as a facilitator is very well defined.

Congestion Initiative , presented by Brian Cronin, ITS JPO

Mr. Cronin: The money that was originally slated for New York City was moved to add Chicago and Los Angeles to the evaluation. An independent evaluator has been selected.

The Congestion Initiative is a multi-modal, multi-agency funded, and OST- managed initiative . It is being funded as part of the ITS Program, as well as with Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Admin i stration funds . This year we’ve been working with the five selected deployment sites ( Miami , New York , San Diego , San Francisco , Seattle , Miami, and Minnesota) to obtain their legislative authority and implement the project. New York did not get their legislative authority , so w e pulled their funding back and selected L o s Angeles and Chicago . Funding has been obligated to Minnesota , Seattle and San Francisco. The major JPO activity is leading the evaluation , so Jane Lappin of the Volpe Center, and I have representatives from the modes and the Secretary's office looking at how to evaluate these different implementations? What do we look at? What data are we trying to generate? How are we going to show impact on congestion? W e selected an independent evaluator that this week is in Seattle and next week will be in Minnesota. The evaluator has been to Miami several times to look at how we are going to get this data, and how we are going to show t hat we're impacting congestion for tolling transit technology telecommuting . So, that's where we are this year.

Mr. Mistele: What happened to San Diego and Miami?

Mr. Cronin: There is a mix of funds going to San Diego for an automated bus guidance application. We expect to award those funds next year. Miami is still on the list.

Mr. Averkamp: Is the initiative actively pursuing telecommuting as a demand-management strategy?

Mr. Cronin: All the sites are doing something, but Minnesota is the most active, with a telecommuting partnership with Best Buy. Most of the ITS funds in these partnerships are going towards open road tolling.

Iwasaki: When is Seattle going to do the active traffic management project?

Mr. Cronin: Seattle is supposed to have their system up and running in 2009.

Mr. Replogle: Is there any ITS in San Francisco’s parking management system?

Mr. Cronin: Yes. San Francisco is using ITS in its parking management system for its on street public parking, but they are not using ITS funds to do this.

Dr. Button: Are any private parking facilities participating in San Francisco’s parking management program?

Mr. Cronin: No.

Mr. Replogle: Chicago is using parking pricing as the cornerstone of its pricing program. There’s no roadway pricing. Will your evaluation program include a documentation and outreach of best practices?

Mr. Cronin: We have a communications plan as part of the evaluation scope. We are trying to put on the www. F ight G ridlock N W ebsite as much information as possible.

Dr. Sussman: Is there any effort to document some lessons learned from the political failure of congestion pricing in New York ?

Mr. Cronin: We are not looking at that, but New York is and also the FHWA Pricing office.

Ms. Row: One of the challenges to the Urban Partnership Program was that it mixed about 10 different pots of money, each with its own restrictions. We were the only ones with funding for evaluation. There was a question as to the scope of the evaluation. The evaluation funds are going to be stretched quite thin.

Mr. Cronin: Four key objectives: What is the impact on congestion? What are the associated impacts, i.e., transit ridership, other measures? What are the lessons learned with regards to policy and decision making? What are the costs/benefits?

Mr. Belcher: One of the things that I want to get out of this effort is case studies that help me articulate the benefits of ITS. This will be helpful as we go into reauthorization.

Mr. Replogle: I agree. There have been difficulties in conveying the benefits of ITS. Sometimes, Congress has not shown enthusiastic support for this program. Articulating the benefits will be very important. This program should not been (be ) seen as a partisan effort, but instead something that delivers value to the travel er .

Dr. Sussman: Is there anything in structive to be learned from how the funds for this were combined ?

Ms. Row: It could not have happened without strong leadership from the Secretary’s office, plus the continuing resolution freed up a lot of money. T he Secretary’s office remains heavily involved. The funding for this program runs out in a few years.

Mr. Cronin: Hopefully, through these demonstrations we will prove that this approach works , b ut then it will be up to the local governments to find the money.

Dr. Button: You can do as many demonstrations as you like, but widespread acceptance of congestion pricing is dependent on political will.

Mr. Cronin: I definitely think that this effort has accelerated the political conversation by 10 years.

Mr. Replogle: What happened in New York advanced the conversation as well. Plus, just getting everyone on board in New York was a big achievement.

Integrated Corridor Management , presented by Brian Cronin, ITS JPO

Mr. Cronin: This initiative will facilitate the integrat ion of the operations and management of multi-modal corridor s to make and improve reliable person and goods through-put . It evaluates how we , from a management perspective, share data information, mostly from existing systems between freeway, arterial, and transit operators ; a nd then, how we take that information and make it available to the traveler . Over the last year we've worked with eight sites across the country to define the system concept, its requirements, what corridor management systems are able to achieve, and what are some gaps ? We completed the testing and modeling of a test corridor. We're now looking at what sort of strategies make sense . What are the interdependencies between those strategies, to sort of make that analysis before we jump into a demonstration ? We're just finishing up the process of completing the selection of three sites to do this modeling. Next year, we will be completing this modeling at the three different sites, and then we will be selecting up to three pioneer sites to actually demonstrate. They'll be bringing in their partners to implement and design their system. The proposed budget is $ 7.8 million, mainly reflecting the cost of the demonstrations.

Mr. Iwasaki: What do you mean by “selected up to three pioneer test sites ? ”

Mr. Cronin: All sites will be selected among our short list of 8. The three demonstration sites to be selected next year may or may not include the three AMS sites.

Dr. Sussman: What models are you using?

Mr. Cronin: We are using lots of different vendors and model types: microscopic, mezoscopic, demand models, direct models, etc.

Mr. Replogle: Is predictive modeling an objective?

Mr. Cronin: Several of the sites are interested in real-time predictive models. These might be included in the demonstration, but not in the AMS phase.

Dr. Lund : Is your objective to increase the number of trips along your corridor or decrease them ?

Mr. Cronin: Our metric is to increase person throughput. A variety of modes can be used: transit, etc.

Mr. Replogle: The FHWA Office of Planning is trying to advance these kinds of tools. You should coordinate with them.

Dr. Sussman: Is your objective with regards to the modeling to integrate various tools, not develop your own tool ?

Mr. Cronin: We are not trying to develop a tool, but we do want to work with vendors for them to develop tools that can better address agencies’ needs.

Mr. Replogle: The budget for this I nitiative is about equal to the budget of FHWA’s entire modeling improvement program. If you have $21 million remaining in this program, please make sure that some of those resources are used to disseminate better modeling benefits to hundreds of MPOs across the country.

Mr. Belcher: What I really like about this Initiative and the Congestion Initiative is that they are multi-modal, whereas most of the other JPO efforts are highway-centric.

Mobility Services for All Americans , p resented by Yehuda Gross, ITS JPO

Mr. Gross : The objective of this Initiative is to develop a Travel Management Coordinator Center (TMCC). We have established a partnership with nine federal departments -- between us and the U.S DOT and other departments, and between us and the FTA, which contributed funds in order for us to achieve our goals. Eight demonstration sites were selected through an RFP process to develop TMCC design s, and all sites have completed their designs. In FY09, three to four model deployment sites will be selected , and then we will conduct outreach and knowledge transfer products and activities to promote program impacts and institutional acceptance .

Ms. Row: In a given city, there are a variety of agencies that provide human services transportation, serving elderly, handicapped and low-income riders. This Initiative seeks to integrate all these agencies.

Mr. Gross : Our slogan is: “One vision, one call.” For example, in Pittsburg, there are 200 different providers. Also, in rural areas, there is no fixed-route transit, only para-transit. Right now, there could be three vans traveling roughly the same route from three different agencies.

Mr. Belcher: This is a massive coordination effort among agencies , some of whom have a very narrow mission.

Mr. Gross : In Camden County , (NJ ) t here are 24 faith-based services that are volunteering their services.

Dr. Button: In the U.K., there is also a need for health worker s who do in-home visits. Will this system provide a service to them, too?

Mr. Gross : We haven’t encountered that need yet. Our stakeholders didn’t understand language such as “concept of operations , ” so we used words such as “tell us your story . ” Proposals were due today.

Mr. Averkamp: Tell me more about exactly what this system will do.

Mr. Gross : We will develop software and actually build a center at multiple sites. There will be various approaches on the continuum between entirely physical and entirely virtual at different approaches.

Dr. Button: This system seems to work well with taxi cabs. Why wouldn’t it be applicable to this situation?

Mr. Gross : Because with taxi cabs, they are all serving the same population. With human services transportation, without coordination, different agencies are serving different population.

Mr. Denaro: With regards to Question 1, what do you see as the biggest deployment challenge?

Mr. Gross : Lack of political will.

Mr. Belcher: With regards to Question 2, there seems to be an obvious Federal role here.

Dr. Lund : What is a broker?

Mr. Gross : A broker is a private company

Dr. Button: What is the marketing plan once you have the results?

Mr. Gross : We have a steering group representing many stakeholders. We are working on a plan on how to market our results.

Electronic Freight Management , p resented by Kate Hartman, ITS JPO

Ms. Hartman : The Electronic Freight Management program is not a safety program o r a mobility program. Instead, i t's an efficiency and global connectivity program that is very much focused on the private sector. Also, it doesn't deal with the infrastructure or with vehicles. It deals with information and about goods moving through the system. It's also probably the only departmental program that deals with Victoria's Secret underwear and Chinet te paper plates. So, it's been an interesting project. The pilot program took place in Columbus, Ohio with limited brands, including Victoria’s Secret, The Limited, and Chinette. The goal is to develop tools that will help make the transportation network and supply chain operations more efficient. What this project has done is taken W eb services, service oriented architecture, and information processing and applied them to a supply chain . The project tracks packages throughout a supply chain without having any tag on the package itself. Without the system, packages were tracked by point-to-point communications, such as a phone call, text message, e-mail message, etc. We have completed the project successfully and are now in the adoption phase.

Ms. Row: There are already systems like this being used, but they are proprietary systems being used on closed networks, such as FedEx. This Initiative developed an open architecture.

Mr. Denaro: Who are the users of the system?

Ms. Hartman : Anyone along the supply chain can use the system.

Dr. Button: This system has homeland security applications, right?

Ms. Hartman : Yes. We are trying to work with customs agencies in the U.S. and other countries.

Mr. Belcher: Whom does this system benefit?

Ms. Hartman : Vendors that don’t use a closed system such as FedEx.

Mr. Denaro: Who implements this system? How is implementation funded?

Ms. Hartman : This system was picked up by Kansas City Smart Port. They are funding it with their own money. Our next steps are to conduct a few case studies on the adoption of this system.

Ms. Row: We received a very strong response to the RFI we issued, from all over the supply chain.

Ms. Hartman : The Federal role in this is one of a convener. There is such a demand for this system that we could walk away from it soon, after another case study or two.

h. General Discussion

Dr. Sussman : noted that t There i was great diversity among the ITS Initiatives . Is ; he questioned if there was a unifying an integrating theme underlying the Initiatives ? , and noted that i In the case of EFM it was not really an ITS technology project, but an Internet-based procedural undertaking.

Ms. Row : A replied that all the Initiatives, when launched, supported the 2004 U .S . DOT goals (in the case of EFM, the goal was/is Global Connectivity). She followed up by remarking that a A Federal role of convener is totally appropriate, and has historically produced beneficial results. She concluded by remarking that the Initiatives were generated through a process that involved all the modal administrations, and were deemed to address a compelling need.

Dr. Sussman : Is the ITSPAC evaluating a program that is in its twilight ?

Ms. Row : “Yes . ” M Most of the ITS Major Initiatives end in the next two years. T This, combined with reauthorization, creates a great opportunity to strategize.

Mr. Replogle : T This is why it is so important to articulate the goals of the ITS program , as well as the Federal transportation program. Safety is important, but so are is mobility, helping people with trip planning, demand reduction, seamless payment, etc.

Mr. Denaro : A Although the program will be focused on safety, that doesn’t mean that the other two goals (mobility, environment) go away.

Dr. Sussman : However, they may go away if you want to spend 70% of the budget on safety.

Ms. Row: The ITS JPO will not be in a position to reengage the community on strategic planning until it delivers its report to Congress in February 2009, which will include two parts: a documentation of the current program and a strategic vision of the future.

Dr. Sussman: How much has the JPO been involved in the U.S. DOT’s reauthorization efforts?

Ms. Row: To date, the ITS JPO has not been very involved in the U.S. DOT’s reauthorization efforts, but that will change. U.S. DOT now is in a unique position to approach reauthorization at the same time that the Administration is changing, so what will be prepared by this departing Administration will not be as detailed as in years past.

Dr. Sussman: Secretary Peters’ and Administrator Brubaker’s positions seem not to be well aligned on the question of mobility versus safety.

Mr. Belcher: This is something we may want to note in our note or letter back to the Secretary .

Dr. Sussman: The Committee presumably will do another Advice Memo. But it seems to me that the key question to provide advice on is whether the focus on safety is, in fact, the most productive way forward?

Dr. Button: The ITS budget is actually quite small, so having a focus on safety is a good idea, but the ITS Program should be clear about the ancillary environmental and mobility benefits in order to “sell” the program. For example, the way to sell congestion pricing is to bundle it with an information system.

Dr. Lund: The committee may want to note the apparent between Secretary Peters’ and Administrator Brubaker’s positions on mobility versus safety in its next advice memorandum. On the other hand, p I suggest that in our advice document we erhaps the committee should not get into disagreements between high-level members of the Department the Administrator and the Secretary, but , instead evaluate questions such as : , What are the technologies being looked at by the ITS Program? Are they being looked at correctly? What is needed that will be left out by the new emphasis on safety?

Mr. Denaro: Two meetings ago, the ITSPAC opined that there is not enough emphasis on safety. Now, some members believe that there is too much emphasis on safety. Perhaps it is a matter of degree, to find the right balance. Is 70/30 the right balance or 60/40, etc.?

Mr. Replogle: There should be a consolidated mission statement that would place an emphasis on safety, but also mention other goals and include metrics on those goals ; , i.e., reduction in greenhouse gasses. Why should safety be the only goal with a specific percent reduction target and a target date?

Dr. Button: I agree. It is much more difficult to develop metrics on environmental goals and mobility than safety. Also, mobility should include access to transportation. There are many ITS technologies that could improve access, not just what was talked about in the MSAA Mobility Services for All Americans Initiative.

Mr. Iwasaki: We need to keep in mind what percentage of crashes are “ITS-able .” . Where ITS really helps is in the area of the environment. Also, safety is not an urban or rural issue.

i. Summary and Wrap-up

Mr. Denaro: I believe there is committee consensus on saying in our Advice Memo in a convincing way that while safety is the focus , we should make sure we do a good job in the mobility and environmental goals , as well .

Mr. Sugimoto: We always have to think about the business model for these systems. The customer needs to feel the value of products every day. It is difficult to market products with safety benefits alone. A question is, “What is the ITS JPO’s role in developing a business model?”

Mr. Denaro: So, I guess our question is, what is DOT's role, or JPO's role, in worrying about the business model?

j. Next Steps

Mr. Denaro turned the proceedings back over to Dr. Sussman to discuss next steps .

Dr. Sussman thanked everybody for their diligence at this lengthy and intense meeting , adding that he believed the committee learned a lot and that he hoped that the committee would be able to make a contribution to JPO's future programs in the next committee advisory memorandum . Dr. Sussman recommended that, as with Advisory Memorandum No. 1, he and Mr. Denaro draft the memorandum and distribute it to committee members for comment by a date certain , interpreting any non-responses by that date as concurrence s with the memorandum . There was no dissent on Dr . Sussman’s recommendation.

Ms. Row stated that she w ould transcribe and distribute to all committee members their written comments on the ITS Major Initiatives to incorporate in the Advice Memo, as desired .

Ms. Row then discussed logistics of an ITSPAC meeting during the 2008 ITS World Congress in New York in November.

Dr. Lund stated that it would be better not to meet at the ITS World Congress because the Congress would be a huge distraction from committee focus on what ITS technologies are being developed and what needed technologies are not.

Mr. Denaro suggested that there c would be a tour program exclusively for ITSPAC members that would allow members to be more informed about the technologies when the group meets a month or so following the World Congress.

Ms. Row said that she needed to check on the legal requirements , to ensure that such a VIP tour would not require public notice and a court reporter.

The group agreed that meeting in early December 2008 would be a good idea, especially since the ITS Program Plan will have been published.

6. Adjournment.

Dr. Sussman again thanked all , and T the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

We hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Shelley Row
Committee Designated Federal Official

Joseph Sussman
Committee Chairman