I would like to welcome you to Seattle and the Second National Symposium on Integrated Transportation Management Systems. The Symposium is sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, in cooperation with a number of other groups and organizations. Local sponsors include the Washington State Department of Transportation, the City of Seattle, King County Metro, and the City of Bellevue.
The opening session this afternoon is intended to set the tone for the Symposium. As the speakers at the Symposium will highlight, Integrated Transportation Management Systems, or ITMS, concerns more than just incorporating freeways and arterial streets into a coherent management system. A truly integrated system must also include other modes and functions. These may include transit, law enforcement, emergency services, information, planning, and many other applications.
ITMS represents a single system that is multimodal, multi-disciplinary, and multi-jurisdictional. Although establishing communication links among the different modes and agencies is a critical element, ITMS goes beyond this. It also encompasses how the information will be used and what actions will be taken to address specific issues.
Seven resource papers were written for the Symposium. These resource papers help define the ITMS concept and the various components of an integrated system. The papers also address many of the key issues and opportunities that may be encountered in planning, implementing, and operating ITMS.
The opening session will be followed this afternoon by another plenary session describing the benefits of ITMS in three areas - the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in Minnesota; Montgomery County, Maryland; and Dallas, Texas. Three more case studies will be presented Tuesday morning. This session will highlight the experiences from Monroe County, New York; San Antonio, Texas; and Seattle, Washington.
The second session on Tuesday morning will examine four key issue areas that are critical to the deployment of ITMS. The areas to be addressed are roles and responsibilities, legal and procurement, system integration, and operations and maintenance. That session will help establish the focus for the workshop sessions on Tuesday afternoon, which will be oriented around the four issue areas.
The workshops represent a significant part of the Symposium and will provide you with the opportunity to discuss the issues and the opportunities associated with ITMS in more detail. More importantly, you will have a chance to help identify solutions to these concerns, establish priorities for further action, and outline other needs and opportunities with ITMS.
The results from the workshops will be presented at the general session on Wednesday morning. Each of the workshop leaders will summarize the main points discussed in the Tuesday afternoon sessions, and the top five issues will be identified. You will then have the opportunity to rank or prioritize the major issues from all the workshops.
The outcome of the Symposium, which will be published by TRB, will be used in a number of ways. First, the issues and actions steps will be provided to TRB, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the different modal agencies, ITS America, and other national organizations. They will also provide important input for the Advance Transportation Management Systems (ATMS) conference to be held in St. Petersburg, Florida this October. The results will further be utilized in planning for the Third TRB ITMS Symposium, which will be held in Boston in June of 1996. Finally, the results will be of benefit to you and others responsible for planning, implementing, and operating ITMS.
Your participation in the workshops and the Symposium is critical. It is only through your involvement that we will be able to identify the key issues and opportunities with ITMS. I encourage you to share your ideas and experiences with others. The Symposium will only be a success with your participation. I am looking forward to an interesting and productive two days.
ITMS: Definition of the ConceptI would like to start by introducing the members of the Symposium Planning Committee. Les Jacobson served as the Chair of the Committee. In addition to myself, the other members included Donald Dey, Frank Dolan, Raj Ghaman, Jeff Lindley, Jonathan McDade, Joseph McDermott, and James Robinson. These individuals put a great deal of time and effort over the past year into planning the Symposium. I hope you will find the next two days to be stimulating, challenging, and thought provoking.
As Les noted, seven resource papers were prepared for the conference and provided to you in advance. We have six of the seven authors with us this afternoon. They are Tip Franklin, Matt Edelman, Katherine Turnbull, Sarah Siwek, Jim Kerr, and myself. Douglas Wiersig was not able to attend due to a conflict.
Rather than asking each of the authors to present their papers, we have asked two outside experts - G. Scott Rutherford from the University of Washington, and Leslie Kelman from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro Toronto) - to summarize the highlights from the papers. We will then provide the opportunity for you to ask questions of the authors and for them to raise any additional points. We hope this interaction will continue throughout the Symposium.
As a way of establishing a common ground for the Symposium, I would like to start by defining ITMS and summarizing a few highlights from my resource paper. Although we often use the word systems, the focus of this Symposium and ITMS is on a single transportation system. This point is reinforced in all the resource papers, especially the two addressing system engineering and system architecture.
The benefits of ITMS will be described in the second session today. Selected ITMS case studies will be presented tomorrow morning, followed by presentations on the major issues associated with deploying ITMS. These plenary sessions will set the stage for the workshops which will help develop a strategic agenda to advance ITMS.
You may have noticed that there has been an important change from a traffic orientation to a transportation orientation with ITMS. This reflects a move beyond just coordinating the freeway and arterial street systems. ITMS is really focusing on the fundamental aspects of the transportation system; the movement of people and goods. With the addition of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), the flow of information - which affects the movement of people and goods - is now an important part of the basic function of the transportation system.
Interrelated with this change is the movement from a traditional control philosophy to a management philosophy. In the past, the focus often was on controlling the signal systems, ramp meters, and other elements of the transportation system. More emphasis is now being placed on management of all elements of the system. This new approach focuses on the primary objective of ensuring an effective and an efficient transportation system. Effectiveness relates to doing the right things. This might include encouraging commuters to carpool when possible or to leave earlier or later to maximize the effectiveness of the system. Once the proper balance is achieved, the efficiency of the system can be maximized.
A number of underlying issues related to the urban transportation system may cause problems in the deployment of ITMS and the effective and efficient operation of the transportation system. First, specialization can lead to problems. For example, many areas have city, county, and state departments of transportation, as well as multiple agencies responsible for transit, police, traffic, and other services. Each of these agencies have their own missions. Further specialization usually exists within each of these agencies. Traditionally, we have looked at planning, design, and operations as separate disciplines. In reality, however, all of these functions are interrelated. For example, an understanding of operational issues is critical to ensure good planning.
This fragmented approach worked well before we began to experience significant demands on the transportation system. The inability to expand the system in many areas has resulted in the need to better manage existing resources and facilities, however. ITMS and other tools and techniques will be critical to enhancing the overall management of the different elements of the transportation system.
It is also important to remember that ITMS is a process, not a solution. ITMS is not the answer. Rather, it is a process to help ensure a more efficient transportation system. ITMS includes enhanced monitoring of the system, using the resulting information to evaluate various alternatives, prioritizing the options, and selecting and implementing the best approaches. The process does not end here, however. An ongoing effort is needed to continue to monitor, fine tune, and evaluate all components of the system.
There are a number of tools and techniques that will need to be used as part of ITMS. These include transportation systems management (TSM), congestion pricing, the various management systems, travel demand management (TDM), transportation control measures (TCMs), and ITS. Like ITMS, none of these are the ultimate solution. Rather, each approach can be used to help address the issues facing metropolitan areas throughout the country.
It is also important to realize that a number of institutional considerations may need to be examined in implementing and operating ITMS. Developing working relationships among the various agencies and groups responsible for ITMS will be critical. A number of good approaches have been used in different areas to facilitate multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction, and multi-disciplinary efforts.
At the federal level, there is an effort underway to develop a national ITS system architecture. This will assist in bringing all the various components used by different agencies together into a compatible system. The national architecture will help specify the interrelationships and interfaces among the various components. This does not mean that we will have total standardization. Rather, it will help ensure that information can be exchanged among numerous agencies and groups.
In conclusion, the deployment of ITMS will continue to evolve. This Symposium is part of that process. The results from the Symposium will assist in the ongoing development and deployment of ITMS. Your participation over the next two days will be critical to helping advance the state-of-the-practice and state-of-the-art related to ITMS. Thank you.
Resource Papers - Environmental and Multimodal IssuesIt is a pleasure, but also a challenge, to summarize resource papers prepared by other authors. The task was made easier, however, by the excellent quality of the papers prepared for the Symposium. I was asked to review two of the resource papers. The first, ITMS Environmental Considerations and Issues, was prepared by Sarah Siwek of Sarah Siwek and Associates. The second paper, Multimodal ITMS: From Integrated Traffic Management to Integrated Transportation Management, was written by Katherine Turnbull of the Texas Transportation Institute.
Leslie and I were given a further challenge to integrate the concepts presented in two other resource papers into our presentation. These papers were Systems Engineering - A Short Course in the Obvious by Tip Franklin of TRW, Inc., and An ITMS Architecture Considered by Jim Kerr and Greg Mosley of NET Corporation.
I will review the major points of the first two papers and then summarize a few common themes and issues, including those from other papers. To accomplish this, I will address the main points of each paper.
Sarah Siwek's paper starts out appropriately with a categorization of the problems facing the transportation system today. These include the growth in nearly everything - population, vehicles, households, vehicle miles of travel (VMT) - except transportation services. She also points out the well known fact that even if the necessary funding was available, it would be very difficult to build additional transportation facilities due to social, environmental, and other concerns.
The paper notes that the ITS automated highway system will not be a reality for a number of years. Other parts of ITS, such as driver information systems, do show promise of an early integration into ITMS, however. All these factors lead to the conclusion that we must find better ways to manage, maintain, and operate the current transportation system. Hence, ITMS becomes a critical component in maintaining an adequate transportation system.
The paper addresses the environmental issues related to developing and implementing ITMS. To accomplish this, a broad view of environmental issues is considered. As a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, air quality has been the most visible catalyst for changing the transportation planning and decision making process. These two Acts have pushed transportation professionals into considering factors that were often ignored in the past.
Ms. Siwek suggests that these air quality issues have tended to take precedence over other environmental issues. She further suggests that a broad range of environment concerns need to be addressed to help ensure that ITMS is implemented in an environmentally sound manner. Issues noted by the author include the generation of toxic and hazardous wastes, energy and other natural resource restraints, improving conditions for minorities and low income groups, strengthening communities, preserving historic and cultural resources, reinvigorating central cities, and preserving open space, vistas, agricultural land, endangered species, wet land habitat, and water quality.
The author points out that even if technology eliminates the air quality issue - and we hear stories of low emission vehicles - congestion will still be a concern. In addition, the other environmental and social issues will still need to be addressed. Thus, the paper stresses that it is important to focus not just on air quality, but on all the environmental and social concerns facing metropolitan areas today.
Ms. Siwek suggests that ITMS can be of help in realizing environmental goals only if environmental concerns are considered in two important phases of the ITMS process. The first phase involves planning, project selection, and design. The second phase includes implementation, maintenance, and operations. To enhance environmental concerns, it is critical that all modal considerations are fully integrated into both of these phases.
The author provides the following examples to illustrate this point. First, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) access and egress, as well as other transit needs, should be considered as part of the arterial street and freeway systems. Further, consideration should be given to all modes, including non-motorized modes, in all travel corridors.
Environmental concerns should also play a central role in the second phase of ITMS. Complex trade-offs are often made in the implementation, operation, and maintenance process. Environmental concerns should be given adequate consideration in this process. The paper cites the issues related to NOx emissions as one example of the complex nature of this step. NOx emissions are lowest when vehicles operate at speeds under 15 miles per hour (mph). Emission rates increase at speeds over 15 mph, however, and increase sharply at speeds over 45 mph. If the intent is to manage NOx emissions, one policy might be to keep speeds below 45 mph. Accomplishing this may be difficult, however.
A recent report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) documents examples of successes and failures in the operation of traffic control systems. Although the report does document traffic signal and air quality benefits of properly installed and maintained signal systems, it is critical of systems that have not been maintained properly. For example, the ATSAC system in Los Angeles resulted in an 18 percent reduction in travel time, a 44 percent reduction in vehicle delays at traffic signals, and a 14 percent reduction in air pollutants. At the same time, many other signal systems are not maintained properly, and benefits are unrealized.
The paper concludes by pointing out the critical role ITMS will play in both short- and long-term solutions to transportation and environmental problems. Ms. Siwek further suggests that transportation and environmental professionals need to work together to ensure that this happens.
As a side note, I would also suggest that consideration be given to the urban development patterns that ITS may encourage. The emerging pattern may not help solve the long-term environmental and social problems noted earlier. If this is the case, we may wish to address some of these issues with the selective application of ITS. It is also important not to over promise with ITMS and ITS. At the same time, other strategies, such as land use, TDM, and selected improvements, should not be totally ignored.
The second paper, Multimodal ITMS: From Integrated Traffic Management to Integrated Transportation Management, is by Katherine Turnbull of the Texas Transportation Institute. This paper begins properly with the acknowledgement of the difficulty of implementing ITMS in a system of multiple agencies and jurisdictions. The paper is divided into four sections - the multimodal ITMS concept and its components, the technical and institutional issues associated with implementing ITMS, alternative implementation strategies, and the conclusions and suggestions for further research.
The paper notes that the ITMS concept began in many areas with centralized efforts to monitor and manage vehicle traffic on freeways. The system on the I-5 Freeway here in Seattle, which is called the FLOW system, is one example of this. There are many other examples of similar systems across the country.
The paper goes on to describe how the capabilities of these systems are being rapidly expanded with ITS. Transit and emergency services are now being included in the overall management of many travel corridors. The paper suggests that the ITMS concept must now be expanded to encompass all transportation functions - including toll facilities, non-motorized transportation, transit services, HOV lanes, parking, TDM, commercial vehicles, response teams, railroads, and land side access to ferry, airports, ports, and railroads. This is quite a list of elements to be integrated and quite a challenge to the transportation industry.
Thus, Dr. Turnbull suggests that the components of ITMS should include the entire transportation system. The paper provides an excellent inventory and detailed discussion of each mode and function. Examples are provided of current and proposed projects that incorporate these different elements into ITMS. I would urge you to read this part of the paper, as I do not have time to discuss each area in detail.
A common theme among all these components is the huge advantage the transportation industry can realize by sharing information. This is noted in the paper as being the key to providing cooperation in many other areas.
The paper next focuses on a discussion of the technical and institutional issues associated with planning, implementing, and operating ITMS. I will start with the technical issues, as this is an area which we may actually be able to address. As we all know, the institutional issues are often much harder to resolve. Many different technologies are currently being deployed, including loop detectors, closed circuit television, video imaging, and many other elements.
ITS promises to enhance our capabilities to collect and share information. Advances in technologies have been made not only in the highway mode. Transit systems throughout the country are using automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to monitor the location of buses, to provide real-time information to passengers, and to improve system reliability and on-time performance. Railroad companies, as well as police and fire agencies, are utilizing a wide range of technologies to support their functions.
The challenge, of course, is to ensure that all these systems are compatible. Remember Granada? There were four service branches within one department, within one country, that could not communicate with each other as they were being invaded by the U.S. because they were using different radio frequencies. Imagine dozens, even hundreds, of agencies, as well as the private sector, trying to communicate on the system we are trying to design. Obviously, an excellent system architecture is required to facilitate this. The resource paper by Kerr and Mosley addresses the system architecture issues in more detail.
The national ITS system architecture is now under development by the U.S. Department of Transportation. A number of workshops have been held throughout the country to help facilitate this effort. How the communication systems will be linked together and whether a central facility or a networked distribution system will be developed are key questions to be resolved. I think the technical issues associated with ITMS can be solved if we define the problems correctly.
The institutional issues may be a different story, however. Institutional issues are often not as easy to deal with, and we have a long history of problems with agencies working together. To help address these concerns, the paper suggests starting early in the process to build relationships among agencies and their staff. Establishing the roles and responsibilities of different groups is a critical early step in the process. The mix of public and private groups involved in ITMS make this an even more difficult process. Uncertainty or mistrust may exist among these groups and these issues will need to be overcome to advance ITMS.
For example, selecting a lead agency may be difficult. Many times the state department of transportation takes on this role. In other cases, a multi-agency group may be created to lead the ITMS implementation effort. The paper suggests, however, that in all cases, support from management is critical. The need for a project champion is also important. This champion should be someone who is a senior executive or manager that believes in the project, has the ability to get the needed resources, and helps keep you out of trouble - or at least gets you out of trouble when you get into it.
Along with a project champion, a strong project manager is also needed. This may be an absolute zealot, who works night and day to ensure that the project is accomplished successfully. It is this combination of a project champion and a project manager that I think will be needed to advance ITMS.
Funding is also a critical institutional element. It is often easy to diminish the importance of funding, but it should not be overlooked. The numerous agencies involved in ITMS may complicate funding cycles, grants management, and determining the fair share for different groups. The addition of private sector involvement in ITMS increases the complexity of funding issues. The numerous groups involved in ITMS also offer the opportunity to maximize funding and utilize innovative approaches to financing.
The paper notes that there are many legal issues to be addressed in the deployment of ITMS. These will be discussed more in the Tuesday morning session and in one of the workshops. Legal issues include resolving questions related to the ability of agencies to enter into agreements with other agencies, private businesses, and other groups. Liability, insurance, and privacy are other legal issues that may arise in ITMS. These are issues that often become critical in the implementation stage and can delay projects if they are not addressed early in the planning process.
Some areas have established separate organizations to deal with these issues. For example, Houston and New Jersey have developed new agencies with responsibilities for developing and operating ITMS.
Alternative implementation strategies are examined next in the paper. As mentioned previously, there are many ways to plan, implement, and operate ITMS. These range from one agency or a group of agencies working together in one area to multiple agencies in multiple areas linked together by different communication technologies. Regardless of the exact organizational structure used, the paper identifies three basic levels of sharing that may be considered. These are the sharing of information, the sharing of facilities, and the sharing of control. Accomplishing each step is more complicated and more difficult.
Although the sharing of information is the least threatening of the three, it is still very difficult to achieve in many cases. For example, local jurisdictions would like to know if a freeway is closed and 40,000 vehicles will be rerouted onto the local street system in their jurisdiction. Sharing information between a state ITMS and a local area can help address these types of potential issues.
The second level identified in the paper is sharing facilities and equipment. This might include sharing a central computer, fiber optic networks, or a facility where staff from numerous agencies interact on a regular basis. Accomplishing this level will require agencies to work closely together and may involve the sharing of financial and human resources.
Numerous approaches could also be taken at the third level, which involves sharing control. For example, one agency may be responsible for all of the regionally important components of the system such as the freeways and the major arterials. Control might pass to other agencies for minor arterial streets, downtown streets, and other system elements. The control of different levels and activities will need to be worked out by the different agencies. Sharing control represents the more difficult and threatening issues to be addressed in the deployment of ITMS.
The author suggests a logical progression from sharing information, to sharing equipment and facilities, to sharing control. All of these levels are appropriate for ITMS, and benefits can be realized at each level.
In the conclusion, the paper identifies technical and institutional issues that need further research. The bottom line, however, is that ITMS is important for maintaining the health and economic and social vitality of urban areas. Further, both papers emphasize that ITMS represents one of the last chances to significantly improve the transportation system. Setting aside past problems and focusing on the critical issues will be necessary to meeting the goals of ITMS and enhancing the transportation system.
Resource Paper - Disciplines that Make ITMS Work and Multi-Jurisdictional Issues in ITMSWe will be discussing ITMS over the next two days. As part of this discussion, it will be important to identify what we mean by transportation management and ITMS. A transit agency representative may think transportation management should only help encourage more people to use public transportation. A bicycling enthusiast might suggest that it only means more people traveling by bicycle. The construction industry probably thinks it only means restricting vehicles from facilities during reconstruction. Pedestrians are interested in being able to cross roads and walk in a pleasant environment. Our job as transportation professionals is to bring all these ideas and perspectives together in a common vision.
I was asked to review and discuss four of the resource papers. These were ITS: Disciplines that Make it Work by Douglas Wiersig of the Greater Houston Transportation and Emergency Management Center, Multi-Jurisdictional Issues in ITMS by Matt Edelman of TRANSCOM in New Jersey, as well as the system engineering and architecture papers noted previously. I found all of the papers to be interesting and well done.
Rather than reviewing the papers one at a time, I would like to summarize the issues and elements common to all four. After reading the papers, I identified six common themes. These are
· ITMS vision
· Agency relationships
· Technical and informational architecture
· Public and political relations
· System expansion
· Other concerns
I will discuss how these issues were addressed in each of the four papers.
The visions presented in the papers were slightly different. In two cases, the vision focused primarily on a total system definition and design (top-down), and the integration of all modes and facilities into a system. Although not contradictory, the other two papers suggested a vision focusing more on developing a system that is responsive to local needs (bottom-up). In reality, we will not be able to achieve uniformity across the country. Rather we will continue to see different strategies utilized by various agencies and areas.
There was more uniformity among the papers on the issue of agency relationships. All four authors seem to be in agreement that no one agency had to be in charge for a regional coalition to function effectively. Further, the authors suggested that individual agencies have enormous responsibilities, budget pressures, and demands from the public, media, and elected officials. ITMS should focus on helping agencies fulfill their responsibilities and allow them to better meet the needs of their customers.
Further, it was suggested that regional coalitions focus on those elements that can be done better collectively than by the individual agencies and then doing them well. A point I especially liked in one of the papers was the importance of focusing on early success. Maintaining uncomplicated accounting and billing systems was also noted as important for building good relationships among agencies.
Technical architecture and informational architecture represents the third common theme in the four papers. It is important to remember that in most areas ITMS will build on existing hardware and software components. Most projects will not be able to start with a clean slate. Thus, the issue in many areas will be how to link existing systems together. The two papers focusing on system architecture and system integration do an excellent job of discussing these issues in terms that non-technical people can understand.
I was pleased to see the fourth area - that of public and political relations - brought up in the papers. It is important to remember that we are not working in isolation and that developing good relationships with the public and with public policy groups will be critical to the success of ITMS. Creating an early awareness of program activities and an ongoing communication mechanisms were identified as important elements in the
ITMS development process. Building on past successes and taking incremental steps were also highlighted in the papers.
The next common theme addressed system expansion. The need for a system design, guidelines, and documentation for expansion was suggested in the papers, while at the same time maintaining the flexibility to respond to changing ITMS responsibilities. Providing the ability to accommodate new and expanding technologies and disciplines was also noted as important particularly as ITMS responsibilities and functions can change over time.
I grouped a number of other issues relating to both the internal and the external environment into the final category. First, there is a need for transportation staff and system integration staff to find a common ground and to use a common vocabulary. Second, representatives from groups responsible for buses, taxis, and other modes need to be included in the early planning and design of ITMS. These vehicles can act as traffic probes to further enhance the flow of information about conditions on all roadways to the system. It is also important to resist the temptation of technology for the sake of technology. The temptation of "technology toys" should be avoided as it sends the wrong message to the public and to decision makers. Rather, we should be focusing on what ITMS can do to address real problems today.
I would like to provide a few additional thoughts on some of the issues raised in the resource papers. First, the potential for political pressure must be realized. Focusing on short-term, as well as long-term goals, and early successes can help address these concerns. Being able to tell decision makers what you have done for them today will continue to be important.
Second, I hope funding needed to initiate ITMS and for ongoing operating costs will be discussed in the workshops. The lessons learned from signal systems and the freeway network is that funding is often available for the initial capital costs but not for ongoing operations and maintenance.
Public/private partnerships is a third area I hope will be explored in more detail in the workshops. Innovative partnerships involving public and private sector groups will be one of the keys to the successful deployment of ITMS. This approach is much different from the historical ways we have done business, and we have a great deal to learn.
The rate of technological change, and the fallibility of master plans, should be also considered. Technology is
evolving so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with the latest systems. The Houston and New Jersey case studies illustrate the importance of building on the successful deployment of proven technologies.
In deploying ITMS, we should build on our experience during the implementation of other transportation systems and projects. The lessons we can learn include the fact that implementing improvements often disrupts normal operations, hardware is generally cheaper than the software needed to run the system, determining central or local intelligence and communication requirements will be an issue, staff involvement in the development and design is key, and a realistic approach should be taken to the design life of a system. A staged implementation process for ITMS is the most appropriate.
In Toronto, we have focused on different levels of integration. We started by integrating the signal and the freeway systems, which are both the responsibility of Metro. This was expanded to include the traffic systems and general traffic services, which are also under the direction of Metro. Traffic and road functions were then added, followed by the provincial roads, traffic, and police functions, and then transit.
In conclusion, the key focus for ITMS is to help agencies meet their responsibilities. This approach provides a more realistic focus rather than arguing over management and control functions. The approach we have used in Toronto is to focus on how we can help agency personnel do their jobs, rather than doing their jobs for them.
A number of elements can be identified for ITMS to be a success. First, successful systems are systems that work. They are also systems that are viewed positively by other agencies. An approach that focuses on working cooperatively with other agencies, rather than one focused on controlling or competing will be viewed more positively. Successful systems have political and public support, and they help meet the needs of agency customers.
Finally, I would like to offer an acronym - POTS and PANS - for your consideration. This stands for Partnerships in Operating Transportation Systems (POTS) and Public/Private Alliances and Networking for Success (PANS). I think these better reflect the approach that is needed in advancing ITMS. I am a little wary of the term integrated, as it often implies control. I would rather see the use of terms like partnerships, which better reflects what we are trying to accomplish.
Panel DiscussionQuestion: Many of the papers noted the importance of institutional issues. Do you have any suggestions on how to address these?
Edelman: There are a number of ways to address the institutional issues associated with ITMS. Engineers are trained to do things according to standards and rules, and not causing any problems. In ITMS, engineers may need to assume a much different role - that of creating change and developing new organizations, institutional arrangements, and systems. Engineers will need to be bolder and will need enhanced communication skills to make ITMS successful.
Turnbull: Thinking through potential institutional issues before you start planning and developing ITMS is critical. Identifying possible problems will allow you to take a proactive approach to addressing these. Involving the key players early in the planning process is also important.
Houston provides a good example of the development of a strong working relationship between Houston METRO, the transit agency, and the Texas Department of Transportation. The relationship between these two agencies has evolved over the last 15 to 20 years. This does not mean they always agree or that there are not problems, but they have been able to work through issues and have been able to move forward with a number of joint projects.
It is also important to remember that the institutional issues often come down to the people within different agencies establishing good working relationships. Personnel do change over time too. A group that worked well together 5 or 10 years ago may have changed as people move up in organizations or change jobs. As a result, ongoing attention should be focused on ensuring strong institutional arrangements and working relationships.
Siwek: One thing most of the cities in Los Angeles County can agree on is that they need funding from the county wide transportation authority for improvements. It is also fair to say that many of these cities have learned that they can be more powerful and can leverage more funding by building coalitions with other cities in a travel corridor or area. Thus, I would suggest communities work together and build on the elements that can be agreed upon to develop an initial system. Focus on what you agree on, not what you disagree on. Additional components, other modes, and other groups can be brought in as the system evolves and matures.
Question: Several of the papers talked about the need to get other modes and agencies involved in ITMS. Looking at the attendance list for the Symposium, it appears that only a few representatives from transit agencies, toll facilities, and other groups are here. A number of the case studies indicate that when you get these groups to the table, good things start to happen. How do you get these groups to the table initially?
Turnbull: The point was made earlier that personnel within most agencies are very busy taking care of daily operations and problems. A good place to start to get other groups involved is to show them the benefit of ITMS, and specifically how ITMS can help them do a better job and meet the needs of their customers.
To some extent this may be a promotional or outreach activity. One of the things that may be appropriate for discussion in the workshops is how we can do a better job getting other groups involved. This might include developing information on successful projects, especially those involving multiple diverse groups.
Once you get these groups to the table, the next step is to keep them there. This means involving them throughout the planning, design, and operations phases and making them an integral part of the process. The need to involve many diverse groups is critical to the success of ITMS and ITS.
Edelman: One of the things I have found is that there is a middle ground to involving other groups. If you are too visionary and too aggressive, other groups will have an excuse to resent you as being an empire builder. If you are too weak and unfocused, they may question why you are bothering them. You need to find a middle ground that focuses on the specific needs of these groups. It also helps to find a few individuals in the different agencies who believe in the benefits of ITMS and are willing to work with you.
The involvement of police departments in TRANSCOM helps prove this point. We had worked to get numerous police departments in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut area to share incident information with TRANSCOM. Our efforts were not very successful until we found one police officer in the Bergen County Police Department. Once he began providing information on accidents on facilities within his jurisdiction, which was then shared with other departments, other departments became interested.
This approach is a lot like the movie Norma Rae in which Norma Rae believes in the Union and begins to recruit others. We need to find a lot of Norma Raes in different agencies and get them involved in ITMS. This happened to us in the case of the police departments and TRANSCOM.
Siwek: Two other points are important to remember in getting other agencies and groups involved in ITMS. First, the management system provisions of the ISTEA offer real opportunities for agencies to work together on these types of issues. Second, the financial constraint of the ISTEA also offers a catalyst to get numerous groups working together on ITMS and other projects. Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) and other plans can no longer be wish lists of projects. Rather the projects in the TIPs must be matched to available resources.
The other way to get groups to work together is not one you want to use, but it has happened so often recently in the Los Angeles area that it is worth mentioning; that is natural disasters and emergencies. When an earthquake hits or some other major problem arises, the public and policy makers want to hear what can be done, rather than what cannot be done. These types of problems tend to bring all groups together to work toward a common goal. The team work developed during these situations can often be continued on an ongoing basis.
Urbanik: It is also important to remember that the development of strong working relationships does not happen over night. The relationships in Houston have been developed over a 20-year period. A single project - the North Freeway Contraflow HOV lane - brought the state and city transit and highway agencies together. This project was a success, and this success lead to other projects, including the ITMS center and other ITS projects.
Question: Many transportation agencies lack expertise in system architecture and system integration. Are there any good examples or experiences that can be used to help those agencies?
Kerr: That is a good point. Typically, many state departments of transportation do not have a system engineer or even a computer engineer who could help with these activities. As a result, consultants will usually be needed to help with system engineering and system architecture. The big challenge is to overcome potential fears early in the process related to technology issues. The system engineering process is intended to be a simple method to step through from the basic requirements down to the system level. I think the challenge is for the traffic and transportation staff at state departments of transportation to express their needs in a way that can be implemented. The system engineer can then start thinking about the precise benefits anticipated from the system.
Franklin: I would agree with that point. I often get a blank look from transportation engineers when system engineering is mentioned. System engineering is not normally funded in a low-cost bid environment. Once you get beyond this, however, people realize that system engineering is just a common sense approach to building a system. It should also be realized that although system engineering is not a rigid process, it does provide structure to the system development process. System engineering helps ensure that the ultimate system meets the project objectives and is controllable and expandable. In most cases, it will be less expensive to use a system engineering approach because there will be fewer problems in the development process and with the final system.
Question: Given that many metropolitan areas already have different traffic signal system and other equipment, how can ITMS be quickly deployed?
Franklin: First, the objectives that each area wants to accomplish must be identified. The approach taken will depend both on the objectives of the system and the existing infrastructure in the area. ITMS involves a large capital investment. Existing systems and equipment can form the base of ITMS if future growth can be supported. A requirements document can be developed based on the capabilities of the existing system or it can be started from scratch. The requirements document can step through to the ultimate system. This approach may be especially appropriate with limited budgets.
Kerr: There are probably two major scenarios that would inhibit ITMS deployment. One would be when no infrastructure exists and a large scale effort is needed to initiate a system. The other case would be a region with a well developed infrastructure. Although this infrastructure may be the greatest attribute for the area, it may also be the greatest weakness. This would be especially true if the existing systems are proprietary in nature. One of the greatest challenges in ITMS may be overcoming the proprietary nature of many existing systems and technologies.
Question: What are the first steps that should be taken in the development of ITMS?
Franklin: One of the fist steps is to identify the goals and objectives of the system; that is what is expected from the system. Examining the basic responsibilities of the agencies involved is a good way to start this process. Once this step has been accomplished, you can start to determine the best way to meet this objectives. The experience with the 1984 Olympics showed that no one agency needs to be in charge for a system to function well. The key is to determine how to share critical information among agencies and groups, without giving up individual operating control.
Urbanik: There are a number of different elements that may be critical to the success of starting a new effort. In some cases, a project champion may be needed. The Houston case study highlights the success of the project champion approach. Houston also provides an example of taking advantage of opportunities that may emerge. For example, one of the HOV lanes was added to help traffic management during the reconstruction of a freeway.
Turnbull: Many areas have some type of multi-agency group in place that could be used to help advance ITMS. This might be a group formed as part of the activities of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), a corridor management team, or a special project team. Building on an existing, multi-agency group is a good way to start identifying the need for ITMS and the opportunities and issues associated with developing a system. If a multi-agency committee does not exist in an area, contacts between agency staff can be used as a starting point to develop one.
Question: What implications do you think the current political climate has for ITS and ITMS?
Siwek: I think ITMS and ITS offer tremendous opportunities to address many of the critical problems facing metropolitan areas today. They can further help address environmental issues. As such, there should continue to be support for ITMS and ITS. There may be less of an emphasis in the future on the use of command and control approaches to reducing emission through transportation investments, however. It is important to remember that even if the air quality issues are solved, there are still major congestion problems in most metropolitan areas.
Edelman: While clean air is certainly one of the benefits of ITMS, it is not the only benefit. If you asked the groups involved in TRANSCOM, they would probably note the major benefit from the system is that it helps them do their job better. They might note clean air as a further benefit, but not the first.
Question: What are the financial implications of ITMS and what are potential funding sources?
Edelman: ITMS both costs money and saves money in the short-term and the long-term. In the area of construction coordination, it probably saves money to share one common database among three states, as is done in TRANSCOM. This represents a more efficient use of resources. TRANSCOM also functions as a test bed for operational tests and demonstrations. Additional funding will be needed to expand and continue operations, however. Funding will certainly continue to be an issue in most areas.
Franklin: One of the key elements of system engineering is to identify external constraints. Funding is usually the major constraint on most projects. To help keep costs reasonable, it is important to focus on realistic goals and objectives. A phased implementation approach can then be used to develop the system in an incremental way.
Question: How does congestion pricing fit into ITMS?
Siwek: There are a number of congestion pricing demonstrations currently being funded by FHWA. All of these are in the planning stage, however, so there is still no real experience with congestion pricing in this country. I believe that all of the demonstrations are considering ITS technologies as part of the project infrastructure.
Edelman: Congestion pricing cannot realistically be implemented without ITS and a regional coalition. Political support will be needed to implement any type of congestion pricing system. A regional coalition and ITS will also be needed to make it work.
Question: Are there any examples of ITS and remote vehicle emission testing?
Siwek: There has been a remote sensing demonstration project in California, but the results are not yet available. There is also a study that estimated the emission reduction potential of automating the toll collection on the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey.