SYSTEMWIDE CHALLENGES TO INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEPLOYMENT: An Analysis of the Central Florida Experience

90

SYSTEMWIDE CHALLENGES TO

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS DEPLOYMENT:

An Analysis of the

Central Florida Experience

Wendell C. Lawther University of Central Florida

Harold E. Worrall Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority

Jorge Figueredo Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority

LawtherIWorralllFigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

INTRODUCTION

he Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 199 1 T (ISTEA) established the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems program. Now known as the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program, great strides have been made in developing the technology necessary to deploy ITS in urban and rural areas nationwide. Much of what now exists, however, has been developed in a piecemeal fashion. Even though more fully integrated systems such as those supported by the Model Deployment Initiative (MDI) have been created, many jurisdictions face significant challenges and barriers to implementing ITS.

Intelligent Transportation Systems can be defined as:

The application of advanced sensor, computer, electronics and communications technologies and management strategies-in an integrated manner-providing traveler information - to increase the safety and efficiency of the surface transportation system (ITS Awareness, slide 3).

ITS helps to significantly relieve traffk congestion. It is estimated that traffic has increased by 30% in the past ten years, with the number of cars on the road projected to increase by another 50% within in the next decade. Over two billion hours are lost annually by travelers caught in traffic congestion (ITS, MDI, 1998). Nationwide, in various deployment contexts, significant benefits have been demonstrated. In Atlanta, the NaviGator traffic management system, by sending service patrols to vehicles that had been stranded, saved travelers an average time of 23 minutes per trip in 1997, an economic value of over $44M. (ITSA, 2000). The use of ramp metering has shown reductions for several metropolitan areas in the number of crashes on freeways that range from 15-50%. In Orlando, the introduction of electronic toll collection has saved travelers annually an estimated $227 million in reduced travel time, lower fuel costs and fewer vehicle crashes. (Proper, et. al., 2001). In many areas, however, there remain challenges in communicating the significant benefits that ITS can provide.

91

This review highlights the major aspects of ITS deployment, briefly defining its major components. A general analysis of barriers that must be overcome before ITS integration can occur is then presented. The

The Review of Policy Research, Summer 2002 19:2

Central Florida experience is assessed as an example of a system that has begun to implement ITS components but faces many challenges before it is fully deployed.

TEA-2 1 AND ITS DEPLOYMENT AND INTEGRATION

The deployment and integration of ITS has evolved through various stages. Established with the passage of ISTEA in 1991, the ITS Program began by funding and supporting over 300 separate projects nationwide in the first few years. Many were field operational tests (FOT’s) that helped develop and refine appropriate ITS technologies. Early Deployment Plans (EDP’s) for many metropolitan areas were also supported. These encouraged stakeholders to assess needs, identify and prioritize ITS related projects, and plan for deployment.

A major effort in the area of integrated programs was the Model Deployment Initiatives (MDI) Program, announced by Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena on January 10,1996. As part of Operation Timesaver, the MDI Program was envisioned as a key start to achieving the goal of reducing the travel time of Americans by 15% in the 75 largest metropolitan areas (USDOT, 1998). Systems in four metropolitan areas were chosen: Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio and the New York /New Jersey Corridor. The intent was to use these MDI’s as examples of working systems for other metropolitan areas.

92

With the passage of The Transportation Equity Act for the 2lSt Century (TEA-2 1) in 1998, the emphasis has shifted to deployment of integrated ITS infrastructure. No longer will funding support the deployment of infrastructure components in metropolitan areas. Only integration of existing systems or deployment of new integrated systems will be funded in these areas (ITS in TEA-2 1, 1999).’

What is not clear is the definition of integration, and whether the legislation allows for the integration of parts or sub systems of a complete ITS system. Certainly, there must be flexibility, as the needs and designs of complete systems vary across metropolitan jurisdictions. It seems likely that states will play a major role in defining integration in the process of funding and deploying those efforts.

The effort to establish a national ITS architecture has identified 3 1 User Services grouped into seven User Services Bundles:

LawtherlWorralVFigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

Travel and Transportation Management Public Transportation Operations Electronic Payment Commercial Vehicle Operations Emergency Management Advanced Vehicle Control and Safety Systems Information Management (Odetics ITS Division, 1999)

Of the seven bundles, the ones most currently relevant for those supporting ITS deployment in Central Florida is Travel and Transportation Management and Electronic Payment. Brief definitions of the most relevant user services found within these two bundles follow.

Freeway Management

As part of the Traffic Management Center (TMC), freeway management refers to the monitoring of traffic conditions on a freeway system. Appropriate information concerning travel speeds and congestion are collected through closed circuit cameras and surveillance detectors placed in freeway, as well as from service patrols and incident management teams. This information is passed along to enroute and potential travelers via variable message signs, advisory radio broadcasts, and website travel speed maps.

Incident Management

As accidents and vehicle breakdowns occur along the freeway system, traffic operators act as part of a team to assist service patrols, law enforcement and fire department personnel to more quickly respond.

TFaffic Signal Control

The coordination of traffic signal timing patterns across all relevant metropolitan streets is the main responsibility of this system. The traffic signal patterns may be pre-set to be altered during rush hour or other parts of the day. Or, they can be changed given specific incidents or non-recurring special events. Traffic signal control reflects a formal or informal arrangement to share information across multi-jurisdictions.

93

94


Electronic Toll Collection

Electronic toll collection (ETC) through the use of a transponder or “tag” that is physically attached to a vehicle can greatly increase the ease and speed by which a vehicle travels through a toll plaza. There is no need to stop to manually toss coins into a coin basket or pay a toll operator. In addition, data from the ETC system can also be used to help monitor traffic flow and congestion.

Advanced naveler Information Systems

Information concerning traffic flow and congestion is collected from a variety of sources and passed along in real-time to travelers. Information can be provided through a variety of modes, including Web sites, kiosks, variable message signs, or radio advisory bulletins (USDOT, 1999: 4- 24).

Integration of these user bundles is dependent upon a variety of factors. The existence of legacy, non-ITS systems will influence and often support ITS deployment. In addition, in defining integration, the jurisdictional focus must be specified. ITS may be integrated along a freeway corridor, cutting across several jurisdictions. For those jurisdictions that contain only arterial roadways, for example, ITS integration may focus only on traffic signal coordination in the absence of any traveler information services.

In one sense a traffic management center collects traffic flow information from freeways and/or arterial roadways is the heart of any integrated system. As part of an incident management system, it identifies accidents or incidents blocking traffic and sends service patrols to respond or contacts law enforcement agencies to send ambulances or other appropriate response vehicles.

The information fed to an Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) can vary as well. Information concerning delays caused by traffic flow may be sent to travelers on the freeway system via variable message signs. Within one system, this effort would represent one relatively small degree of integration. If, in addition, the same information was transferred to Web sites and kiosks located in Central Business District locations, the degree of integration would be higher.

Lawther/WorraWFigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

Some types of integration may only occur at the more complex, control coordination level. Many traffic control systems may control all traffic signals within one city or county, but not across jurisdictions. If these systems are linked to freeway management and incident management, then there must be a commitment to change signal patterns if traffic congestion or incidents warrant it. Otherwise arterial roadways chosen by travelers as alternative routes in light of an accident on a freeway will themselves become overly congested.

SYSTEMWIDE CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

The first step in moving toward integration is to assess the already deployed ITS technology, as well as to identify management systems that would lend themselves well to integration. In doing so, the organizations and jurisdictions that control or are responsible for these systems are also identified.

Two patterns of ITS deployment are common. In those metropolitan areas where congestion is not a high public priority, and public support for ITS deployment is low, efforts must begin with those that are the most visible. Incident Management, including the use of service patrols, incurs universally favorable reaction. Traffic signal coordination, if successhl in defining “smart corridors”, can help to elicit support from local traffic engineers and other transportation professionals. If traveler information exists, it is often in the form of variable message signs (VMS’s) or HAR. ATIS, involving public-private partnerships, will likely occur at a later time period.

If congestion is a high priority public policy issue, ATIS may be deployed concurrently with incident management and traffic signal coordination. The amount of public support for ITS may build quickly if the benefits of receiving information about traffic speed and congestion from a website are significant to the area traveler.2

INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS

95

Even though the technology now exists to deploy an integrated Metropolitan ITS, there are several institutional and organizational barriers that must be overcome before implementation can become


reality. These are non-technological barriers that involve formal and informal relationships among people, governments, and private enterprise. They may present the most important and complex challenges.

Organizational and managerial challenges include interagency coordination, intra agency support and coordination, developing new public private partnerships, and managing necessary operational tests. DeBlasio, et. al. (1999) identify several ways to overcome these challenges and successfully deploy ITS in a metropolitan area.

The creation of a regional management structure, including clear definition of agency roles and responsibilities, is key to the success of the ITS implementation. There are several possible structures. An Executive Committee, comprised of representatives from all participating jurisdictions/agencies, is common to most efforts. Depending upon the scope of the ITS deployment effort, a full-time Project Manager may be required. This individual is assigned responsibility for appropriate and timely communication, workload plans, flexible contracts between public and private partners, and evaluation of final results. An appropriate committee structure, one that creates separate committees for each of several technological and managerial areas required, will help to clearly identify appropriate lines of authority and facilitate coordination.

96

Clarifying the appropriate role of the State Department of Transportation is also key. In many projects, the state DOT has been the lead agency that has championed ITS deployment. In others, it has acted as a liaison between the federal funding agencies and the executive committee of the ITS project. Since it has.a larger, more regional jurisdiction than other transportation agencies in a given area, its role must be clarified and accepted by other agencies.

Inherent in establishing this type of structure is the need for strong support from all jurisdictions/agencies involved. Top management support for the ITS deployment is needed. Since ITS is still a relatively new topic for many metropolitan areas, and expertise and understanding of the benefits of ITS may be lacking, there may be a tendency for agencies to give it low priority. Given that in some cases the agendas and activities of transportation agencies in a region have precluded cooperation, there must be a deliberate effort to overcome barriers that

LawtherNorralYPigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

are based in different organizational cultures (Blythe and DeBlasio, 1995).

The nature of public-private partnerships must be clarified as well. In many cases, this means a change from the traditional vendor-customer relationship. Small, entrepreneurial private firms must be treated as significant participants by public sector officials who are often part of large, public sector agencies. There are cultural or sector biases that must be overcome. The private sector must be aware of the political realities faced by the public sector, as well as federal procedures and contracting requirements. Public sector officials must hlly understand that private sector vendors must make a profit or a return on their investment. Efforts to market or publicize partnerships delivering ATIS, for example, should involve extensive cooperation among public and private partners to ensure that private vendors will remain viable (Lawther, 2001).

Another set of barriers are those surrounding procedural and regulatory issues. Contracting procedures that are used in the areas of construction and consulting services may not be sufficient to include private sector concerns with proprietary information, intellectual property rights and liability. The four MDI sites have employed ten different contract mechanisms, working out intellectual property rights issues early in the partnership development process (DeBlasio, et. al., 1999)

More specifically, since ITS technology is changing, the performance requirements that are common in construction contracts may not be applicable. There is also a concern with auditing requirements, as private vendors may not wish to disclose information during an audit that competitor companies could then obtain under the Freedom of Information Act. There needs to be flexibility in determining scope of work requirements and accompanying costs, as this approach is best for the inherent ambiguity of processes and policies that accompanies ITS deployment.

97

Accompanying the complexity of multi-partnered projects are funding issues that must be resolved. It has become common to require matching funds from private vendors in creating public-private partnerships. Often these are in the form of the value of proprietary software development, as well as contributions of time from engineering


and other personnel. Public partners must be certain that the private sector contributions are not “inflated” with contributions of software and staff time accurately calculated.

Federal funding delays must be avoided. Questions and concerns regarding the state DOT oversight and participation in the ITS effort, as well as the private role and contribution, should be resolved to the satisfaction of federal officials early in the project. In addition, state and local agencies should receive assurances that the federal funding will not be granted with “strings attached” that will hinder effective agency participation.

A third funding issue concerns local government budget constraints. Not all local governments feel that ITS can benefit them. They also lack a sense of project ownership if they have not actively participated in the evolution of the management structure. Also, they may be reticent to become involved if they feel there will be added operations and maintenance costs after ITS technology has been deployed.

98 CENTRAL FLORIDA: ITS DEPLOYMENT ISSUES

Participants from two major agencies that have a significant influence on transportation in the area have played key roles in Central Florida ITS deployment. One lead agency is the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Five which has already begun ITS operations along the 1-4 Corridor that runs through Orlando from the northeast to the southwest.

The second is the Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) which controls the major freeway system that crosses Orlando east to west, as well as the beltway which crosses most of the east and part of the west side of Orlando.

The evolution of ITS deployment in Central Florida began with the TravTek field operation test in 1992-93.3 More recently, FDOT completed a Metro Orlando Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP) (FDOT, 1998). During the same period, OOCEA adopted an ITS Master Plan as well. In the Spring of 2000, at the direction of FDOT personnel, an informal group of local and state transportation officials that became known as the Central Florida ITS Awareness Group began meeting bi-

LawtherIWorralllFigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

monthly. Similarly, in as part of its Statewide ITS Master Plan (adopted in August, 2000), an 1-4 Corridor task force was created to develop ITS deployment plans that would govern this freeway ultimately from Jacksonville through Orlando to Tampa.4 In June of 200 1, a draft regional agreement was circulated by FDOT in an attempt to further evolve ITS deployment efforts.

METRO ORLANDO: ITS STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN

The Metro Orlando Strategic Deployment Plan identifies groupings of user services, outlines ITS needs and potential improvements, and provides an evaluation matrix to prioritize the selection of specific user services. Those user services awarded the highest priority will be implemented within the short term (0-5 years). Those given lower priority will be implemented medium (6- 10 years) or long term (1 1-20 years).

Each user service is rated using a set of criteria. All criteria employed a scale of 1-10, from lowest to highest degrees of the specific criteria. In addition, each criterion was assigned varying weights. The evaluation criteria include the following:

Institutional Framework-the requirement of regional integration of ITS technologies for many of the user services further requires cooperation among various public agencies. This criteria measures the degree of existing andor anticipated cooperation.(weight= 10)

Existing Infrastructure-the degree to which existing ITS infrastructure already provides a user service. (weight=8)

Addresses Identified Congestion/Safety Problem-how well the specific user service addresses identified congestion or safety problems. (weight=S)

Compatibility with Policv and Goals-the degree to which a user service meets goals identified in regional policies and plans.(weight=l 0)

99

Consistent with Local NeeddPriorities-the degree to which the user service is consistent with the local needs and priorities as reflected by local government plans and by local government transportation

100

The Review of Policy Research, Summer 2002 192

officials.(weight=8)

Ease of Implementation and Cost Concerns-two criteria are folded into one: the ease of implementation, dependent upon the complexity (including overcoming institutional barriers), and the cost of implementing the user service. (weight=8)

Consistent with TIP and 1-4 MMMP-the degree to which the user service is consistent with local Transportation Improvement Plans and with the 1-4 Multi Modal Plans. (weight=6)

Available Technology-whether or not there is a practical and fully developed technology available. (weight=5)

As indicated in Table 1, the user services traffic control and incident management finished tied for first, scoring a perfect 630 points. The third highest priority was electronic toll collection systems, scoring a 10 on all but addressing the congestiodsafety problems. Tied for fourth were enroute driver information and route guidance. Given the lowest priority, those not rated within the top fifteen, were user services dealing with commercial vehicle operations and advanced traveler control systems (FDOT, 1998: 4-204-23) .

TABLE 1 : Top Rated User Services Metro Orlando Strategic Deployment Plan

1. Traffic Control 2. Incident Management 3. Electronic Payment Services 4. En-route Driver Information 5. Route Guidance 6. Emergency Vehicle Management 7. Ride Matching and Reservation 8. Pre-Trip Travel Information 9. Railroad Crossing Safety 10. Demand Management and Operations 1 1. Traveler Services Information 12. En-Route Transit Information 13. Public Transportation Management 14. Emergency Notification and Personal Security 15. Personalized Public Transportation

630 points 630 598 578 578 534 518 5 14 503 474 43 8 3 94 350 344 296


Analysis

Traffic control and incident management are closely related, as both significantly impact congestion. With the increasing population of Central Florida, traffic congestion has long been recognized as a major problem, especially along the 1-4 Corridor. For both, existing technologies are attempting to deal with these problems. Variable message signs exist along sections of 1-4. Highway advisory radio broadcasts assist travelers. Service patrols, law enforcement personnel and ambulances will respond to incidents, especially during peak traffic periods.

The existing TMC operated by FDOT for Metro Orlando does have real-time incident detection capabilities. With additional traffic sensors and cameras stationed along Central Florida freeways, for example, response times to the scenes of accidents can be reduced even more. The need for regional coordination in signalized traffic control, though, may present institutional barrier complexities. Some ITS technologies, such as ramp metering, do not exist and may not be as easy to implement as the evaluation criteria have indicated.

In some respects it is surprising that electronic payment systems are given the third highest priority, as the OOCEA and the Florida Turnpike are the only agencies that collect tolls in the Central Florida area. Perhaps the authors of the SDP are suggesting that with the introduction of additional ITS technologies designed to monitor traffic flow that congestion can be lessened along the OOCEA freeways. As indicated by the OOCEA ITS Master Plan, discussed below, the use of fiber optic communication lines will enable the ETTM system to collect data in real-time and more quickly transmit this data as part of an incident management system.

The two Advanced Traveler Information System user services that rated highly, en route vehicle information and route guidance, are correctly identified in a secondary priority. Without the data collected by the freeway management system, real-time information would not be available to transmit to traveler^.^ En route information is provided by Variable Message Signs (VMS) and Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), and not through the in-vehicle navigation systems found in San Antonio and other more integrated systems.

101


Without improved traffic control services, including signalized traffic control on alternate roadways, the VMS and HAR services may be of limited use. Many travelers on 1-4, for example, as indicated in the traveler survey that is part of the data collected for the Metro Orlando SDP, would not seek alternate routes if they encountered a VMS that indicated severe congestion ahead.

The pre-trip traveler information and ride matching reservation user services, ranked 7th and gth, suffer from a lack of institutional infrastructure, as there are presently no websites showing a real-time traffic speed map nor are there traveler kiosks stationed in convenient downtown locations.6 Until these user services can be furnished, route guidance for travelers in their vehicles will be less effective as well.

OOCEA: ITS MASTER PLAN

The Draft Expressway Management Concept Plan, submitted to the OOCEA in July 1998, complements many of the issues identified by the Metro Orlando Strategic Deployment Plan. Incident management

102 is seen as the foundation of the OOCEA's ITS Master Plan. It is estimated that over 70% of all congestion experienced by motorists on freeways during the next decade will be due to accidents, stalls or breakdowns on the highway (BRW Team, 1998: 2-1).

Incident detection occurs using a number of sources: automatic incident detection algorithms, closed circuit television (CCT), cellular callers, call boxes, service patrols, police and ambulance services. This information is received by a Traffic Management Center (TMC), verified by CCT, and then distributed by the TMC operator to the appropriate agencies. The OOCEA's TMC should be linked to the FDOT regional TMC and other local traffic control centers that exist in Central Florida.

Of secondary importance is the distribution of the incident information to travelers, as part of an ATIS. The OOCEA would use variable message signs and highway advisory radio broadcasts to deliver this information along its freeways.

LawtherNVorrall/Eigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

SYSTEMWIDE: ITS CHALLENGES FOR CENTRAL FLORIDA

The ITS systems represented by the MDI’s, especially those in Phoenix and Seattle, represent an ITS development that is much more integrated, and more fully developed than what exists in Central Florida. Both the Orlando SDP and the OOCEA ITS Master Plan have taken a first step by prioritizing needs and identifying ITS user services to help meet these needs. Implementation on a more regional basis, though, faces several implementation challenges.

Institutional and Organizational Barriers

ITS planning must be incorporated into the already existing local government planning processes. At present, few ITS projects have been part of the plans developed and supported by the local Metro Planning Organization (MPO). Once this barrier is overcome, inclusion of ITS in the MPO planning process will help ensure federal funding for ITS projects. Greater support for ITS from local transportation officials, legislators, and the general public will also accrue. 103

The establishment of the National ITS Architecture, already underway at national levels: will help ensure compatibility for all ITS projects developed in Central Florida. At a minimum, the design guidelines that are part of this architecture should include recommendations for system interfaces among the various systems. Greater regional cooperation is much more likely as well.

The most challenging institutional/organizational challenge will be to establish a complete operational and management system, identifying the appropriate roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction within Central Florida as each part of the ITS deployment is implemented. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s) that incorporate measurable objectives within stated time frames, and detailed work plans established to reach these objectives, are essential.

An MOU could be established to increase coordination among FDOT, the City of Orlando TMC’s and the planned OOCEA TMC. Also, agreements concerning a coordinated incident management system will incorporate not only these three organizations, but other


local law enforcement and transportation planning jurisdictions within the Central Florida region.

To some extent, the responsibility of improved en route traveler guidance, through additional VMS placed on 1-4 and on the OOCEA freeway system, is easily identified. The messages that are viewed on these signs, however, will require additional coordination and agreement. For vehicles traveling along a north-south corridor, from Tampa to Daytona Beach, the expressway system, more specifically the Eastern Beltway (Route 417) offers an alternative to congestion on 1-4. Travelers intending to move through Orlando on 1-4 may wish to travel on the expressway system if there are substantial delays on 1-4. Similarly, travelers on the East-West Expressway intending to travel north or south on 1-4 may wish to take an alternate route if there is congestion. VMS on both 1-4 and on the expressway system need to provide messages about congestion on each other’s roadways.

Traffic control improvements may depend upon providing alternative routes to the freeway system if congestion exists on the

104 freeways. In part, coordinated signal controls that cut across jurisdictions, as occurs in Houston and Phoenix, for example, may be one partial answer. Agreements to allow more centralized control of traffic signals may be more difficult to achieve.

To the extent that jurisdictions in Central Florida have varying priorities, different from those found in the SDP, the institutional barriers will be more dificult to overcome. Both FDOT and OOCEA need to continue to champion the cause of ITS, getting priorities shifted and agreements worked out in the form of MOU’s.

Funding Barriers

TEA-21 funds will be a major source of support to develop a more integrated ITS system in Central Florida (ITS in TEA-2 1, 1998: 4). As initially stated, only the integration of existing ITS systems or the deployment of new fully integrated system will be eligible for funding.

One potential barrier is an unclear understanding of the meaning of integration as intended in the legislation. There are several relevant issues, some of which may have become at least partially clarified. A fully integrated ITS as represented by the MDI projects seems unrealistic


at present. The 1-4 Corridor project, which is modeled after other metropolitan Corridor projects, seems to be sufficiently integrated to receive TEA-21 support. Second, what time period(s) must be proposed in any application for the TEA-2 1 funding? The Orlando SDP identifies short term (0-5 years), middle term (6-10 years) and long term (1 1-20 years). If short term projects are likely to receive funding within the next five years from TEA-21, then integration that is “partial” but builds upon an existing system would be acceptable to federal transportation officials.

A third issue is the degree to which proposed ITS projects must involve more than one jurisdiction or agency. One possible definition of TEA-2 1 fundable ITS integration is by user services. For example, since incident management is a high priority, and some systems do exist in Central Florida already, a multi-jurisdictional incident management system may be eligible for funding. It would seem as though the more jurisdictions that are involved, e.g., both FDOT and OOCEA, the City of Orlando, and Seminole, Orange, Osceola and Volusia Counties, the greater the chance of receiving funding. The evolution of the Central Florida ITS Awareness group from an informal meeting of interested parties towards a formal MOU supports greater integration.

1 05

In contrast, a fourth issue is the definition of “newly integrated” as it pertains to one jurisdiction. Would TEA-21 support a system that developed linkages between a Traffic Management Center and traveler kiosks if it only contained information about congestion on 1-4 and not on any other freeways?

Finally, the issue of public-private partnerships as it pertains to integration must be clarified as well. It may be that funding potential is improved as funding from private sources can be provided, at least for some aspects of ITS such as ATIS. This may be even more true if the funding of an ITS infrastructure component from non-federal sources was coupled with a request for TEA-21 system. An existing ITS could be “upgraded” by the addition of a missing component, e.g. a website, and thereby further the chances of receiving support from TEA-2 1 for TMC linkages.


CONCLUSION

Federal commitment to ITS, as reflected by the funding levels found in TEA-2 1, is high. With the growing population, especially in urban areas, alternatives to building more roads that ITS offers are becoming increasingly attractive. The technologies available to implement many aspects of ITS are currently available. With acceptance of a national ITS architecture soon to occur, design barriers that decrease linkages across jurisdictions will be fewer.

Even though transportation planning has encouraged multijurisdictional or regional efforts, agreements among cities, counties, and agencies have not always been easy to achieve. This is especially true when contributions of time and money must be allocated from a variety of sources to facilitate success. The intent in Central Florida to prioritize ITS implementation efforts, starting with selected user services in the short term and completing others in a longer term, is most likely the most successful approach.

106 Evaluation of existing ITS components, as well as projecting the benefits of future deployment, will be a significant means of convincing the motoring public that ITS should be supported in Central Florida. To the extent that the value of ITS deployment can be viewed as having a higher benefit than alternative projects that deserve public support, ITS will be more easily accepted and implemented.

ENDNOTES

' Funding for both infrastructure components and integrated systems will be available in rural areas.

For more detailed discussion of ITS evolutionary patterns, see Lawther (2001), especially pages 4-9.

For additional information see Inman and Peters (1996).

For additional information, see the 1-4 Corridor website at www.i4-its.com.

Two private ATIS vendors, Traffic Station and SmartRoute Systems, do provide limited incident information on their websites.

LawtherlWorraWFigueredo: Systemwide Challenges

A website at the University of Central Florida does provide traffic speeds for part of the 1-4 freeway.

REFERENCES

Bythe, Katherine E. and Allan J. DeBlasio 1995. ITS Institutional and Legal Issues Program: Analysis of ITS Operational Tests Findings and Recommendations. Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. BRW, Inc. 1998. OOCEA Systemwide ITS Master Plan: Expressway Management Concept. Orlando, FL: Author

DeBlasio, Allan, David W. Jackson, Anne C. Tallon, Gerald M. Powers and John P. O’Donnell. 1999. Successful Approaches to Deploying a Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation System. Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

Florida Department of Transportation. 1998.ITS Metro Orlando Strategic Deployment Plan. Tallahassee, FL: Author

107 Inman, V.W. and J.I. Peters. 1996. TravTek Global Evaluation and Executive Summary. McClean, VA: Office of Traffic Safety Operations and R&D, Federal Highway Administration

ITS Cooperative Network. 1998.ITS Awareness Seminar. Washington, DC: Author

ITS in TEA-21.1999.www.its.dot.gov

Intelligent Transportation Society of America. 2000. Saving Lives, f lme and Money: Using Intelligent Transportation Systems, Washington, D.C.: Author.

Lawther, Wendell C. 200 1 . Central Florida Implementation of ITS: Development of Public-Public and Public-Private Partnerships Final Report. (Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida)

Odetics Intelligent Transportation Systems Division, Lockeed Martin Federal Systems. 1999. National ITS Architecture Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration

Proper, Alan T., Robert P. Maccubin, and Lynette C. Goodwin. 2001. Intelligent Transportation System Benefits: 2001 Update. Washington, D.C.: Mitretek Systems, Inc.

The Review of Policy Research, Summer 2002 192

United States Department of Transportation. 1998.Intelligent Transportation Systems in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21"' Century. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.

1998(a).Intelligent Transportation Systems-Model Deployment Initiative. Washington, DC: Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office.

1997.Intelligent Transportation Systems Projects Book . Washington DC: Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office.

1999. Measuring ITS Deployment and Integration 1999. Washiqpn, DC: lntelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office.

1997(a). National ITS Architecture Implementation Strategy 1997. Washington, DC: Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office.

United States General Accounting Office. 1997. Urbun Transportation: Challenges to Widespread Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems. (Washington, DC: Author, GAOiRCED-97-74)

208 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Wendell C. Lawther is an Associate Professor ofPuhlic Administration at the University of Central Florida. His research and publication interests include private public partnerships, transportation policy, cind program evaluation.

Harold ct: Worrall, RE,, Ph.D., is the Executive Director of the Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority. He has served us transportation professional in the public and private sectorsfor more than 27 years. He is current President ofthe International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association.

Jorge Figueredo is the Director of Operations, Communications and Marketing for the Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority. He is completing his Ph.D. in Public Affairs at the Universitv ojCentral Florida.

Documents

SYSTEMWIDE CHALLENGES TO INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEPLOYMENT: An Analysis of the Central Florida Experience