Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies: Special Report 232 (1991)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

cia1 Report 232 Vehicle and Highway Technologies sportation Research Board na! Research Council -.., Ii

1991 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITFEE Chairman: C. MICHAEL WALTON, Bess Hams Jones Centennial Professor of Natural Resource Policy Studies and Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin Vice Chairman: WILLIAM W. MILLAR, Executive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Executive Director: THOMAS B. DEEN, Transportation Research Board ADM. JAMES B. BUSEY IV, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) GILBERT E. CARMICHAEL, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) BRIAN W. CLYMER, Administrator, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) JERRY R. CURRY, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) TRAVIS P. DUNGAN, Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) JOHN GRAY, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland (ex officio) THOMAS H. HANNA, President and CEO, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc., Detroit, Michigan (ex officio) LT. GEN. HENRY J. HATCH, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) THOMAS D. LARSON, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) CAPT. WARREN G. LEBACK, Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) GEORGE H. WAY, JR., Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) ROBERT J. AARONSON, President, Air Transport Association of America, Washington, D.C. JAMES M. BEGGS, Chairman, SPACEHAB, Inc. (former Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Washington, D.C. J. RON BRINSON, President and CEO, Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana L. GARY BYRD, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver L. STANLEY CRANE, (former Chairman and CEO, Consolidated Rail Corporation) Gladwyne, Pennsylvania JAMES C. DELONG, Director of Aviation, Philadelphia International Airport, Pennsylvania RANDY 001, Vice President and Director, IVHS Strategic Business Unit, Motorola Inc., Northbrook, Illinois S. EARL DOVE, President, Earl Dove Company (former Chairman, AAA Cooper Transportation), Dothan, Alabama LOUIS J. GAMIIACCINI, General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEP'I'A), Philadelphia (Past Chairman, 1989) THOMAS J. HARRELSON, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh KERMIT H. JUSTICE, Secretary, State of Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover LESTER P. LAMM, President, Highway Users Federation, Washington, D.C. DENMAN K. MCNEAR, Vice Chairman, Rio Grande Industries, San Francisco, California ADOLF D. MAY, JR., Professor and Vice-Chair, University of California Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley WAYNE MURI, Chief Engineer, Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, Jefferson City (Past Chairman, 1990) ARNOLD W. OLIVER, Executive Director, CEO, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas JOHN H. RILEY, CijiefuiStaff, Governor's Office, St. Paul, Minncsota DELLA M. ROY, Professor of Materials Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park JOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, J. R. East Professor of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JOHN R. TABB, Director, Mississippi State Highway Department, Jackson FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner, New Y.ork State Department of Transportation, Albany JULIAN WOLPERT, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Geography, Public Affairs and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, New Jersey

Special Report 232 Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C. 1991

Transportation Research Board Special Report 232 Subscriber Categories IA planning and administration IV operations and safety Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering directly from TRB. They may also be obtained on a regular basis through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB; affiliates or library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, write to the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Ave- nue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. Printed in the United States of America NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council. This study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation; the National Cooperative Highway Research Program; the Motor Vehi- cle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc.; DuPont; Motorola Inc.; 3M Company; 11 Morrow Inc.; and the Transportation Research Board. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board. Advanced vehicle and highway technologies. p. cm. - (Special report / Transportation Research Board, National Research Council ; 232) ISBN 0-309-05121-5 1. Motor vehicles—United States—Automatic control—Technological innovations. 2. Transportation, Automotive—United States— Communication systems. 3. Traffic engineering—United States—Data processing. I. Title. II. Series: Special report (National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board) ; 232. TL240.N27 1991 629.2—dc2O ISSN 0360-859X 91-41496 CIP

Committee for the Study to Assess Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies DANIEL Roos, Chairman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge R. WADE ALLEN, Systems Technology Inc., Hawthorne, California ALAN A. ALTSHULER, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts LAURIE L. BAKER, PACCAR, Inc., Bellevue, Washington DANIEL BRAND, Charles River Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver LAWRENCE DAHMS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California JOHN J. FEARNSIDES, The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia MARYANN N. KELLER, Furman Selz, Inc., New York, New York CRAIG MARKS, Allied-Signal, Inc., Southfield, Michigan R. ROBERT MAYES, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada D. BRUCE MERRIFIELD, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia JAMES PITZ, Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff, Cleveland, Ohio RICHARD A. PLACE, Dearborn, Michigan JEROME G. RIVARD, Global Technology and Business Development, Birmingham, Michigan DONALD L. RUNKLE, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan STEVEN E. SHLADOVER, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley PHILIPJ. TARNOFF, Farradyne Systems, Inc., Rockville, Maryland Liaison Representatives THOMAS J. CARR, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan LAURENCE J. CORTLAND, II Morrow, Inc., Salem, Oregon RANDY Dol, Motorola Inc., Northbrook, Illinois RONALD J. FISHER, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation DAVID J. HENSING, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM LEASURE, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation MARK R. NORMAN, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, Washington, D.C. DAVID REA, DuPont Automotive Products, Troy, Michigan LYLE SAXTON, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation RONALD A. WEBER, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota Transportation Research Board Staff ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Director for Special Projects JOSEPH R. MORRIS, Study Director NANCY A. ACKERMAN, Director of Publications JUDITH KLEIN, Associate Editor Consultant HANS KLEIN

Preface Many transportation professionals believe that highway applications of emerging navigation, communications, and vehicle identification and control technologies can contribute to the solution of congestion, safety, and other highway problems. Worldwide research and developthent in this area have intensified, and in the United States efforts are under way to launch a large-scale, public-private initiative that would demOnstrate the value of advanced technology in highways, produce applications that could provide short-term relief from current congestion and safety problems, and advance the technology so that more sophisticated and effective systems could eventually be built. In the United States, these technologies are collectively known as intelligent vehicle-highway sys- tems (IVHS). Responding to these developments, the Executive Committee of the Transportation Research Board decided that a study was needed of the prospects, objectives, and organizational requirements of a national IVHS initiative. The committee appointed by the National Research Council to conduct the study included experts in vehicle and electronics manufacturing, transportation administration, public policy, and high- way safety. The study was supported with funds from the Federal High- way Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administm- tion, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation; the National Cooperative Highway Research Program; the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc.; DuPont; Motorola Inc.; 3M Company; II Morrow Inc.; and the Transportation Research Board. The study was conducted under the overall supervision of Robert E. Skinner, Jr., TRB Director of Special Projects. Joseph R. Morris served as study director and drafted sections of the report under the direction of the committee. Hans Klein, a consultant to TRB, drafted Chapter 2 and

Vi ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Appendixes A and B and contributed to Chapter 4. Committee members Daniel Roos, Daniel Brand, and Steven E. Shiadover drafted Chapter 3, and committee member John J. Fearnsides, together with James Chad- wick of the MITRE Corporation, drafted Chapter 4. The study commit- tee oversaw the production of the entire report and is responsible for all findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Special appreciation is expressed to Frances E. Holland and Mar- guerite E. Schneider for typing drafts of the manuscript and for other assistance throughout the study.

Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 15 Growth of Interest in IVHS, 15 Study Origin and Scope, 17 2 Background 20 Definition of IVHS, 20 Current U.S. Activities, 24 Summary, 28 3 A Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 29 IVHS in the 1990s, 30 Long-Range Significance of IVHS, 34 Next Steps, 41 4 System Architecture 42 Definition, 42 Examples of the Development Process, 44 Issues in IVHS Architecture Development, 47 Role of Research, Systems Engineering, and Evaluation of Field Tests, 50 International Coordination, 51 Conclusion, 52

5 Public and Private Responsibilities 54 Policy Statements, 55 Roles in Operating IVHS, 56 Potential Benefits from Coordinated Operation, 59 Institutional Obstacles, 61 Overcoming the Obstacles, 63 Roles in Research and Testing, 66 Appendix A European and Japanese IVHS Development Programs 71 Appendix B. History of Development of Advanced Traffic Management, Traveler Information, and Vehicle Control Technologies 78 Study Committee Biographical Information 83

Executive. Summary I ntelligent vehicle/highway system (IVHS) technology has the poten-tial to create a fundamental change in the surface transportation system. It can provide a foundation and framework for the future information infrastructure to complement the existing and future physi- cal infrastructure. The significance of this developing technology has both public and private dimensions: it could allow improved provision of public services, enable a broad range of transportation options to be more easily implemented, and create market opportunities for the pri- vate sector. IVHS utilizes computer and communications technology to provide information to travelers about road and transit travel conditions and to monitor, guide, or control the operation of vehicles. It can enable travelers to make more informed choices about routes, times, and modes of travel; allow authorities to manage transportation systems and control traffic more efficiently; and in the future, through automa- tion of vehicle control, assist drivers and reduce accidents. Technical and institutional problems remain to be solved before the full potential of. IVHS can be realized. However, the technology can be implemented in an evolutionary manner, beginning with simple sys- tems applications, operational testing, and pilot implementations. In the next few years its overall long-term potential. then can be determined. IVHS will not supplant the established tools for improving transpor- tation, such as new construction and existing traffic management methods, nor can it alone solve the problems of congestion and acci- dent losses. Nonetheless, the surface transportation system today faces stresses that cannot be resolved by traditional approaches. The impor- tance of IVHS is that it can be not merely one additional tool for

ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES dealing with transportation problems, but rather a new capability that allows all the other tools to function more effectively. THE VISION While IVHS technologies are evolving, government and industry par- ticipants will need to maintain a vision of the ultimate aims of the development to provide an overall guiding philosophy for the process. IVHS provides an infrastructure for the collection and communica- tion of information to support a coordinated, decentralized approach to provision of transportation services. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the ability of travelers to use that information before and during their trips to make better travel decisions. IVHS can in this way complement the existing physical infrastructure to provide a more complete transportation system. IVHS will enable a range of transportation strategies to be imple- mented more effectively than they are today. These include rapid response to road accidents to restore traffic flow, ridesharing, traffic control at intersections and on street networks, ramp metering on free- ways, reserved lanes for buses and high-occupancy vehicles, toll col- lection, and road pricing. These strategies encompass ways to expand consumer choice and, where appropriate, implement demand manage- ment—techniques for directing traffic away from the most congested routes, times, and modes to other travel options—at the least cost and inconvenience. Some of these measures might be employed only in extreme contingencies, such as major accidents, disasters, environ- mental emergencies, or fuel shortages, which have low probability of occurrence but high costs if they do occur. IVHS provides a framework that may allow policymakers to respond rapidly and flexibly to such contingencies. Indeed, as with past fundamental technical advances, there are likely to be applications and benefits (as well as problems) that cannot be anticipated. Automatic vehicle control is the IVHS technology that perhaps may ultimately yield the largest benefits by increasing road capacity and improving safety. By monitoring and controlling the positions of vehi- cles with respect to the roadway and each other, these systems may prevent collisions and allow vehicles to operate at closer spacings and higher speeds. Realization of automatic vehicle control will require a substantial long-term research effort, but some applications may be available soon.

Executive Summary Thus, the spectrum of responses made possible by IVHS ranges from managing demand to providing information that helps drivers make better choices to actually expanding capacity. Opportunity for Strategic Response to a Challenge IVHS can be a prototype for change in public- and private-sector organization. Within the public sector, for example, it could be a catalyst for metropolitan cooperation on a range of problems. A suc- cessful public-private partnership in IVHS research would be a model for public-private arrangements in other fields of emerging technology. Within the private sector, experience in forming consortia linking the communications, transportation, and computer industries could guide successful responses to other opportunities involving cross-cutting technologies. IVHS development offers the United States an oppor- tunity to demonstrate its capability to respond strategically to an eco- nomic challenge. IVHS in the 1990s Mobility 2000, an informal government, industry, and academic forum that favors IVHS development initiatives, predicts that the fol- lowing milestones can be attained in the next decade: Traffic management systems in most major urban areas that would continuously monitor traffic, trigger rapid clearance of accidents, and regulate freeway traffic and adjust signal timing to minimize delay; Information systems in the most congested areas that would pro- vide current and continuous congestion and route guidance information to drivers and other travelers; Outside metropolitan areas, systems to speed emergency response and improve rural public transit; For trucks, automatic vehicle identification systems on most major intercity routes that would reduce paperwork costs for truckers and ease enforcement and tax collection for highway authorities; and For trucks and automobiles, driver safety aids such as commer- cially available collision warning systems. Mobility 2000's projected benefits of meeting its timetable are travel delay reductions of 10 to 25 percent from advanced traffic manage-

ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES ment systems, an additional 10 to 50 percent delay reduction from traveler information systems, lower freight costs from more efficient use of trucks, reduced pollutant emissions from reduced congestion, reduced fuel consumption, and several hundred lives saved annually. These benefits would be achieved in the projections even while only a minority of drivers had in-vehicle communication or navigation devices, and would accrue to travelers without such devices as well as those with them. Experience with IVHS is still too limited to answer many fundamen- tal questions about technological feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and market acceptability that relate to the likelihood that these benefits will be achieved on the Mobility 2000 timetable. However, existing instal- lations incorporating some of the features of the advanced systems have demonstrated benefits, and rapid expansion of several elements of these technologies is already under way. To keep the IVHS program on course in the 1990s, it will be neces- sary to ensure that funds intended to develop genuinely new approaches not be diverted to projects that are primarily to expand and refine application of existing technologies such as computer signal control. Public agencies may have a natural bias toward continuing with familiar technologies and approaches that preserve centralized control over traffic, whereas the great promise of IVHS is in applica- tions that disperse control and rely on individual decision making to improve system functioning. Governments and the private sector have for many years conducted research to enhance and extend application of traffic control tech- niques. Continuation of these activities would not be precluded by a national IVHS program. Moreover, IVHS can develop incrementally, building on existing technology and producing benefits from early implementations while more advanced applications are still under development. However, the greatest potential for benefits from IVHS lies in those applications that are the most different from conventional approaches to traffic control. These more innovative approaches should not be regarded as impractical or too far in the future to be of immediate importance. The IVHS development program should not overemphasize short-run improvements at the expense of development of fundamentally new technology. IVHS may begin to have important market effects in the 1990s. The direct effects will be new markets for IVHS hardware and services. More important, IVHS may begin to change how automobiles and transit are used and to affect travel habits, and therefore may influence

Executive Summary markets for cars, for other travel-related products and services, and also for real estate, because changing the cost of transportation to a location will change the value of land at that location. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITIES The new transportation technology demands new institutional arrange- ments. Public-private division of responsibilities must be determined for operation of IVHS as well as for development of IVHS technologies. Some IVHS applications might develop as entirely private systems, with firms providing services to their subscribers. For example, a private traveler information system might be organized analogous to a private cable television or cellular telephone service today. Alter- natively, IVHS could be publicly operated systems, as nearly all traffic management services are today. However, partnerships between the public and private sectors to build and operate IVHS may be critical, because systems that would not be built by either sector independently might become feasible when produced by a partnership. In a partner- ship, the government would provide some components, for example, infrastructure to monitor traffic, and the private sector would provide others, for example, communications links. Partnership may be bene- ficial wherever an integrated system jointly produces public benefits and private market opportunities and functions more effectively or at lower cost than could purely public or private systems operating alone. In IVHS development, cooperation will be essential regardless of the degree of partnership that ultimately is adopted, because it is not yet known what division of responsibilities will be optimum. Research and field tests should be designed to evaluate market potential as well as public benefits and should test alternative assignments of public and private responsibilities. There is sufficient promise of public benefits to justify government leadership and commitment of resources to the tests and sufficient promise that a market will develop to attract private participation. Private-sector expertise in marketing, organization, engineering, and manufacturing will be vital. Within the public sector, new assignment of roles among levels of government may be necessary. Governmental organizations should develop new capabilities to manage technically advanced systems. They should be prepared to overcome the organizational problems created by the division of traffic responsibilities among multiple juris-

ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES dictions in urban areas. They need to commit adequate resources for traffic system operation and maintenance and acquire the necessary technical personnel to implement IVHS. Within the private sector, a balance of cooperation and competition will be required. Individual private-sector firms should be willing to take the risk of leadership in fostering a new technology and determine how the requisite cooperative links across traditional industry bound- aries can be formed. Effective implementation of IVHS requires a spirit of openness and innovation. In the public-private organizational structure, universities can play a special role. They are a major technical resource available to both the public and private sectors and are, to an extent, insulated from biases inherent in either sector's perspective. The university research commu- nity has already played a central role in bringing the U.S. IVHS initiative as far as it has come today—by organizing many of the research programs in existence and by the creation of Mobility 2000— and should continue to have a place in the planning and governing bodies. SYSTEM DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE It will be desirable to have an evolving definition of the system archi- tecture that guides development at each stage. The system architecture is the specification of the overall structure and organization of a system that allows it to accomplish its objectives. The architecture defines the major components of the system, the functions of these components, the interactions among the components, and the interactions between the system and the outside world. The architecture specifies the func- tional requirements of individual components, but not their internal operation. Defining the architecture ensures that components are com- patible, function optimally, and develop toward the desired objective. Key elements that the IVHS architecture must specify are human fac- tors constraints at the system level and the distribution of information and control among vehicles, travelers, and infrastructure. The optimum architecture depends on user requirements, technolog- ical capabilities, and trade-offs between costs and benefits. These have not yet been determined; therefore, defining the architecture is a research problem, and the process of developing the system architec- ture should guide the research and test program. Research and field tests should be designed to systematically evaluate alternatives in a

Executive Summary program governed by the system architecture specification process. Without rigorous experimental design, development funds may be dis- sipated by diversion to projects that are not primarily IVHS tests, by efforts to spread funds evenly to all interested parties, or by haphazard conduct of demonstrations. The process for defining, in an evolutionary fashion, the system architecture for IVHS in the United States will require broad participa- tion, support by systems engineering staffs, a procedure conducive to presentation of diverse points of view, and employment of credible analysis tools. The process should take a long-range transportation systems point of view, be sensitive to the ultimate use of the system, and not foreclose competition among alternatives. It will need to include the following component activities: Specifying the major options for system design and architecture. This should include options for basic system design features such as alternative specifications of the information supplied to travelers, tech- nical options such as alternative techniques for collecting traffic data, organizational options such as private or franchise systems versus gov- ernment-owned and -operated systems, and alternative marketing and fee collection methods. Developing a research design matrix, which identifies the options for IVHS design and architecture that must be evaluated and the research and field operational tests that must be conducted to perform these evaluations. Establishing standards for evaluation methodologies. Coordinating, advising, and observing research and tests con- ducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), state and local governments, and industry to ensure that the necessary experi- ments are performed and evaluations conducted to compare the options and discover the best system designs. This activity could include arranging agreements among parties to match planned trials to the needs of the research matrix or financial contributions by the co- ordinating body to projects to cover costs of performing evaluations according to the standard methodology. Overseeing development of minimum operational performance and interface standards for IVHS and its components, including man- machine interfaces. The standards would embody the results of the system architecture development process. They would be consensus standards voluntarily accepted by industry and government as benefi- cial to all parties.

ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES RECOMMENDATIONS National Program A national program should be maintained for research, testing, and initial implementation of IVHS. The functions of the national program should be to provide coordination and maintain system perspective for a program of research, standards development, and operational testing and to provide leadership to stimulate action by the many government and private entities that must be involved. To carry out these functions, the national program will need an organizational structure that entails strong public-private cooperation and provides for broad participation in program and funding decisions'The national program should allow evolution in a flexible manner and in the decentralized framework essential for creativity. To be effective, the national program should carry on coordinating functions in these major areas: Developing a strategic plan for IVHS within the context of an overall plan addressing surface transportation. Brokenng formation of public-private, multijurisdictional, or private-private jointly funded efforts in research, testing, or product development. The ability of a coordinating body that did not directly control program funds to influence the national IVHS program would depend largely on its ability to recruit participation from the private and public sectors. Providing a setting for constituency groups, including the states, local governments, and industry, to review the conduct of federally sponsored research and tests and to participate in directing the national program. Providing oversight to safeguard against allocation of federal funds intended for IVHS development and testing to projects not ade- quately justified by the benefits they would produce for the develop- ment effort. Technical direction of IVHS development, including establishing the system architecture development process, coordinating research, and overseeing development of standards. A technical committee structure and international liaison will be necessary in support of this function.

Executive Summary Leadership DOT and IVHS America should lead in creation of the national pro- gram. DOT already has received funding from Congress and is com- mitted to conducting a major research and field test program. Some organization is needed that serves the function of coordinating activ- ities among the various levels and agencies of government and the private sector and exercises independent oversight of federal govern- ment IVHS activities. IVHS America, a new private, nonprofit mem- bership organization, has been created for these purposes and has already gained widespread private and public support. In these circum- stances the reasonable course of action is to build on the existing organizations. It will first be necessary for the two organizations to agree on the scope of the coordination task and make specific commitments to conducting the coordinating functions listed above. They should spec- ify how each function is to be conducted, fit it into an overall IVHS development plan, and arrange to coordinate the function with the interested parties. DOT has stated its willingness to work on a new, more cooperative basis with industry and with state and local govern- ments. However, it has had little experience with such arrangements, and the other parties need strong assurance that DOT decision making will be open to their participation. As its first order of business, IVHS America has taken on advisory and information functions. As the organization evolves, IVHS America will need to extend its scope if all the necessary coordinating functions are to take place. It has already succeeded in expanding its constituency beyond its origins in the high- way industry and needs to continue to broaden its membership, partici- pation, and support to ensure its independence. The state departments of transportation, which have major responsibilities for traffic manage- ment, were among the organizers of IVHS America and are strongly represented in its governing body. Therefore a leadership role for IVHS America would involve the states. All of the essential coordinating functions listed above could appro- priately be performed by DOT and IVHS America. These organiza- tions should clearly define their responsibilities for the elements of the national program and strengthen formal linkages with other key partic- ipants in IVHS development. To provide effective leadership, DOT should recognize how the scope of IVHS extends beyond traditional roles and activities of its

10 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES agencies. Within the department, not only the Federal Highway Administration, but also the Urban Mass Transportation Administra- tion, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Research and Special Programs Administration will have respon- sibilities, because IVHS involves not only highway operations but also transit and safety, and will entail research. DOT will need to develop an effective means of ensuring coordination and cooperation among its separate modal administrations and between its research and opera- tional organizations in order to bridge traditional jurisdictional bound- aries. A unified effort within the department will be essential to the success of the national program. DOT will need to coordinate also with other federal agencies that have programs relevant to IVHS, including the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The public agencies involved should keep in mind that IVHS is not exclusively a public-works project. The goal of the national IVHS program is to develop and provide new services. Some of these services may be provided by the private sector and paid for directly by their consumers. Probably no federal agency has had great experi- ence with the kinds of public-private interactions that IVHS will demand. Public-Private Partnerships Formal public-private partnerships should be created to stimulate private-sector participation in long-range IVHS research and devel- opment. There is growing recognition in the United States that main- taining technological leadership is essential to long-term economic well-being. In this context, apparently well-funded and organized European and Japanese IVHS programs have stood in sharp contrast to heretofore diffuse U.S. efforts. Intensified foreign development efforts have raised concern that the United States may be left behind in an international drive to design IVHS and specitS' standards and that this may affect the position of U.S. firms competing in world markets for vehicles, electronics, and communications. In Europe and Japan, governments have been active in fostering new high-technology industries. With IVHS there may be an oppor- tunity to learn whether similar arrangements compatible with U.S. institutions would have benefits here and whether the public and pri- vate sectors can cooperate to meet strategic aims.

Executive Summary 11 A full partnership would involve joint commitment of resources toward mutually beneficial goals and shared governance. For the com- ponent of the national IVHS program that is devoted to conducting research with the longest-range goals (for example, development of automated highways), entirely new organizations structured as formal public-private partnerships may be valuable for stimulating private- sector participation. Partnerships could be structured as for-profit enti- ties to conduct precompetitive research and derive revenues from sale or licensing of their developments. The scope of a for-profit partner- ship would be limited to developing products with private market potential. The federal government could lead in forming such organi- zations by committing its share of financing and calling on firms to join. IVHS America could have a role in facilitating formation of such partnerships. This structure could increase industry willingness to par- ticipate in development of long-range, high-risk, high-payoff elements of IVHS because it would provide a concurrent government commitment. Institutional Reforms Governments should devise new institutional arrangements that improve their ability to manage advanced systems. Government- operated advanced systems probably would not be successful in most U.S. metropolitan areas without institutional reforms. New arrange- ments are needed to ensure broad and efficient IVHS deployment, and high priority should be given to testing of alternatives, including oper- ation of traffic management facilities by contractors and new inter- governmental arrangements for metropolitan traffic management. Interjunsdictional coordination—among localities in a region and between the state and local agencies—would greatly enhance the effec- tiveness of IVHS. Field tests should include projects that test pooling of traffic control responsibility in regions where there are interactions among facilities now controlled by separate jurisdictions. If IVHS is to be adopted to facilitate congestion relief on metropolitan networks of freeways and arterials, stimulation of interjurisdictional coordination may be needed. The opportunity to provide such stimulus is imme- diately at hand as Congress redefines federal-aid highway programs as part of its reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. To help ensure that the many builders and operators of the parts of a metropolitan transportation network function in the context of the

12 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES overall system, federal-aid highway program funding and planning provisions could be structured to promote and support definition of an integrated metropolitan system that could become the focus of capital investment and operational management decisions. Tort Liability Tort liability concerns, now a stumbling block, should be overcome. IVHS should be capable of contributing to improved transportation safety overall, but the possibility of claims for damages arising from system failures adds significantly to the risk of developing systems for both the public and private sectors, because such claims could arise from entirely new circumstances and no precedent exists for predicting how liability would be assigned. Government and the private sector should confer to find an acceptable strategy for containing exposure of firms and government agencies. Legislative remedies at the federal level, including indemnification and liability limits, should be considered. Challenge to the Private Sector The private sector's responsibility will be organizing to respond to a strategic challenge. The common perception in the United States has been that (with a few notable exceptions) industry has been a reluctant partner to government in initial efforts to advance an IVHS program. Voluntary private participation depends on whether developing IVHS products and services appears to be a profitable investment. However, the investment potential is difficult to evaluate because it depends on government actions and because IVHS will affect markets in complex ways. Market feasibility may depend on public commitment to provide components of an infrastructure on a wide-enough scale to make a large market for private products and services possible or on other operating economies attained through joint public-private systems. Implementation of IVHS may indirectly affect markets for motor vehi- cles, communications, and travel. As with any major technological advance, IVHS can contribute to overall economic development and growth. To avoid missing the opportunities represented by such market developments, industry needs to work with the public sector to deter- mine the most efficient way to implement IVHS, because it could be

&ecurive Summary 13 harmful to market prospects to allow the government to attempt to define the system without substantial industry input. IVHS America has begun this task. Clear indication from government that a cohesive direction is being established in the public sector would contribute greatly to industry's willingness to make commitments. The public sector in the United States today appears to be on the verge of making a substantial long-term commitment to IVHS devel- opment. The outlook for private-sector involvement appears more uncertain. It may be that a real market opportunity exists but that because of fragmentation of interests, lack of mechanisms to form broad consortia, and lack of a cooperative relationship with govern- ment, U.S. industry is structurally unready to respond. Leadership from within the private sector and innovation in private-sector organi- zation are essential to overcoming this barrier. International Perspective Maintenance of an international perspective will be necessary throughout U.S. IVHS development efforts. Critical research and field testing and important implementations are taking place in Europe and Japan, and the U.S. program must derive as much benefit as possible from this body of experience. IVHS services, hardware devices, sys- tems, and software probably will be produced and sold in a worldwide market, often by internationally active firms. The organization of IVHS research, testing, and standards develop- ment in the United States should seek to maximize the extent of international communication and cooperation. Maintenance of an international perspective should speed the rate of development and implementation in the United States and help ensure that implementa- tions reflect the international state of the art. These outcomes should yield great benefit to U.S. consumers and great long-term commercial opportunities for U.S. business. Innovation the Theme Innovation should remain the dominant theme and objective of the national IVHS program. There is a danger that development efforts, especially those with substantial federal support, may lapse into pro- grams for implementing and refining existing technology, such as traf- fic control facilities. The benefits of IVHS may be greatly delayed if

14 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES major resources are not devoted to the most forward-looking elements, including advanced applications of traveler information systems and automatic vehicle control. Research and evaluation should be central to the national program, rather than adjunct activities. Tests should be rigorous and test sites carefully chosen to match evaluation require- ments rather than on political grounds. Universities, which have had a central role in conducting and coordinating IVHS research up until now, should continue in these functions. Consideration should be given to setting aside a specified fraction of public IVHS development funds for basic research.

1 Introduction The application of electronics and communications technology to guide or control the operation of vehicles holds great promise for increasing the capacity of existing roads, reducing congestion and accident losses, and contributing to the ease and convenience of travel. These applications may provide current, individualized information to travelers that enables them to make better decisions about routes, times, and means of travel. Such applications may also allow authori- ties to manage transportation facilities and control traffic more effi- ciently. In the future, they may assist drivers through automation of vehicle control. Momentum has been building in the United States for a large-scale initiative that would demonstrate the value of these tech- nologies in highways and transit and .that would produce advances upon which more sophisticated and effective systems could be constructed. GROWTH OF INTEREST IN IVHS Interest in intelligent vehicle/highway system (IVHS) technology is not new. Computer control of traffic signals has been in use for more than 30 years, and proposals have been made and research has been conducted on traveler information systems and automated highways during nearly the same period. Operational tests of advanced systems are under way in the United States, including traffic management systems that integrate freeway controls, surface street traffic signal operation, and motorist information; automatic identification and weighing of trucks; and systems providing in-vehicle, real-time traffic congestion information to drivers. Some applications (e.g., vehicle 15

16 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES location and communications systems for trucks) have been commer- cially developed. Several factors have intensified interest recently in this technology: Throughout the public-service sector, governments are recogniz- ing a need to reorganize their efforts toward more efficient mainte- nance and operation of public facilities, with reduced emphasis on construction of new facilities. In highways, the substantial completion of the Interstate system, the centerpiece of the nation's highway pro- gram for the past 30 years, has highlighted the timeliness of such a shift in priorities, public officials having begun to seek new long-term goals for surface transportation programs. Planners expect that traffic growth over the next 30 years will outrace all efforts to provide addi- tional capacity and enhance safety by conventional means, so it is essential to increase the use of existing road and transit capacity. Advances in computers, electronics, and communications mean that applications that may have been conceivable only in principle 20 years ago are today far less expensive, more effective, and more acceptable to the public. There is growing recognition in the United States that maintaining technological leadership is essential to long-term economic well- being. In this context, well-funded and -organized public-private Euro- pean and Japanese IVHS programs compared with heretofore diffuse U.S. efforts have inevitably attracted the attention of policymakers to IVHS. Active foreign research and development programs have raised concern that the United States may be left behind in an international race to devise standards and technical guidelines, which could affect the competitive position of U.S. firms. A number of organizations, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), now support the concept of a greatly expanded U.S. program of research, field testing, and deployment for advanced vehicle and highway technologies. Proposals have called for a program with the following characteristics: It would have a national orientation and entail partnership between the private sector and the state, local, and federal govern- ments. A private, nonprofit organization, IVHS America, has already been formed, with support and .participation of industry and govern- ment, to coordinate among these constituencies.

Introduction 17 It would encompass a broad range of technologies, including advanced traffic management, traveler information, fleet applications, and automatic vehicle control. Technologies evaluated would range from those available off the shelf to those.now purely conceptual. Emphasis would be placed on early deployment of developed technologies, and a balance would be struck between the need to provide immediate relief to escalating transportation problems and the need to produce advances with potentially greater longLterm payoff. The concept of IVHS that is guiding these activities is a means to preserve and make more efficient use of the entire transportation infra- structure in the face of mounting congestion and an unacceptable level of highway accident losses. IVHS has applications on facilities from rural two-lane roads to urban Interstates and for the private user as well as for public transit. Although early work in these technologies con- centrated on driver route guidance and traffic signal systems, the scope envisioned is not limited to the private automobile. IVHS is broadly defined to include all private and public vehicles operating on all streets, roads, and highways and also includes information interfaces with other modes—especially mass transit. Its developers see IVHS as holding promise for improving transit efficiency and providing the means to limit the costs of automobile travel, including air pollution and fuel consumption. On this point, the name "intelligent vehicle/ highway system" has on occasion led to misunderstanding because it can suggest a narrower focus on the use of the private automobile. This name seems likely to persist in the near term, but a more general name with broader appeal may be adopted as a matter of course once the multimodal character of the program begins to be achieved. A more inclusive name might expand support for efforts to achieve the full potential of the technologies. STUDY ORIGIN AND SCOPE The Executive Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) decided to undertake a study of advanced vehicle and highway technologies in 1988, at the time when the IVHS concept was first gaining wide recognition. This action followed suggestions by auto- mobile industiy officials and others that the subject would be appropri- ate for the attention of the National Research Council. The topic was originally envisioned as one in which a study committee could make a

18 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES contribution by laying out technological and policy options and identi- fying the research needed to evaluate them. Since the study was proposed, planning for IVHS has proceeded rapidly. Unusual interest at all levels of government, in universities, and in the private sector led to the creation of Mobility 2000, a group of public- and private-sector administrators and experts that accom- plished, in a series of workshops, the initial stages of many of the most important conceptual tasks. The work of this group led to formation of IVHS America, a private, nonprofit membership organization with support from government and industry, to serve as a crucial contact point between public- and private-sector activities in IVHS. DOT, which had supported IVHS research at a modest level for many years, received from Congress the authority to begin expanded research and testing activities. Joint public-private IVHS demonstrations were launched in California and Florida, and altogether more than 20 states are now pursuing programs. These activities have not yet succeeded in answering many of the fundamental questions about IVHS concerning technological fea- sibility, cost-effectiveness, and market acceptance. Nonetheless, com- mitments have been strengthened to pursue the topic until its promise is fully understood. Under these circumstances, new sets of issues concerning long-range planning and organizational and institutional aspects of IVHS development and implementation have become prom- inent. In response to the events in IVHS development, the TRB com- mittee redefined the scope of the study to address this category of issues—overall objectives for a national IVHS initiative and methods by which the program could be managed effectively. To address these issues, the committee reviewed experience in the United States with existing systems that incorporate some IVHS tech- nology; programs under way to develop and demonstrate advanced systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan; and proposals for new U.S. programs from Mobility 2000 and from others. It also con- sidered alternative models for managing and implementing research and for organizing public-private cooperative efforts. Specifically, the committee defined its scope to comprise three topics. First, it proposed a vision for the potential development of IVHS. This statement describes the promise of IVHS as a fundamental change that can make the surface transportation system significantly more usable and valuable to travelers, provided that it proves possible to implement the technologies successfully.

Introduction 19 Second, the committee considered the process necessary to define a system architecture, the specification of how the elements of the sys- tem fit together and relate to each other. Definition of the system architecture would allow developments by the multiple participants in IVHS to contribute compatibly to overall systems and would structure the research and test program to allow it to evaluate design options systematically. The system architecture definition process would also focus attention on man-machine interfaces and on information process- ing demands on human users and operators that could influence system safety and performance. Finally, the committee examined issues concerning appropriate public- and private-sector roles in research and operation of IVHS and appropriate assignment of responsibilities within the public sector with reference to the system design and management issues that are likely to arise during IVHS development during the coming decade. The issues include public and private roles in the organization and governance of a national research and test program; choosing among public, private, and mixed provision of IVHS services; and, within government, needs for new resources and organizational reforms to allow public agencies to manage high-technology systems. The committee offers guidelines for public and private administrators making decisions about their participation in IVHS. Its conclusions and recommendations are addressed to those organizations that would be able to act on the committee's recommendations: DOT, Congress, IVHS America, the individual state departments of transportation, and private firms in the automotive, electronics, engineering, and communications industries.

Background After a definition of intelligent vehicle/highway system (IVHS) technology, the current IVHS-related initiatives in the United States are described. European and Japanese conceptions of IVHS and current development programs are described in Appendix A. A history of the development of technologies leading up to IVHS during the past 30 years is given in Appendix B. DEFINITION OF IVHS IVHS takes an integrated approach to transportation. It links the ele- ments of the road transportation network—the vehicle, the infrastruc- ture, and the traveler—and joins them, through various information, communications, and control functions, into a single system in which they can interact as parts of a larger whole. IVHS technology could be capable of a wide variety of functions. Roadways and vehicle systems could sense traffic volume and speed and communicate that information to a traffic control center, which in turn could adapt traffic signals for optimal traffic flows. Travelers could receive en route or pretrip information on estimated trip duration under current traffic conditions, alternative routes or modes for fastest travel, or information on the availability of parking locations. Fleets of commercial or emergency vehicles could be dispatched efficiently and monitored by their home offices. Vehicles could electronically sense obstacles and hazards and warn drivers or initiate safety control. These are just some of the functions that form the vision of IVHS. To what extent such systems are feasible, both technically and economically, is the key issue in IVHS research today. zi]

Background21 U.S. Definition Traffic Management In the United States, the definition of IVHS elaborated by the Mobility 2000 group is widely recognized (1). The first of Mobility 2000's defining categories of IVHS technology is advanced traffic manage- ment systems, a group of techniques for controlling and optimizing traffic flows on road networks. These techniques use sensing devices in the road or on the vehicle for measuring traffic flows, computer models for simulating that flow and for anticipating changes in it, and control strategies for managing traffic through the centralized control of traffic signals and freeway access control. Two well-known examples of this technology are freeway manage- ment systems and urban signal control systems. A freeway manage- ment system is an integrated system for maintaining free flow on a limited-access highway (2,3). It can include the following functions: ramp metering, for controlling entrance to the freeway with signals at entrance ramps; incident detection, for quickly spotting an accident or other event blocking traffic together with means of responding to clear the road promptly; variable-message signs, for alerting drivers of traf- fic conditions ahead to allow them to choose the best route; and driver information broadcasts, for giving drivers traffic information over their car radios. A second example of advanced traffic management is the urban signal control system. These systems are intended to reduce travel times on streets with signalized intersections by controlling the timing of the signal cycle. A familiar example is an arrangement to synchro- nize lights on an arterial street so that inbound cars in the morning rush hour can avoid red lights. At the heart of many such systems is a traffic control center, which collects traffic flow data, calculates a network- wide control strategy, and switches traffic signals in order to realize optimal traffic flows. Of all the technologies making up Mobility 2000's definition of IVHS, advanced traffic management systems are currently the most developed, many of the elements having already been applied in a number of cities. The other three categories that follow are more developmental in nature and have not been applied widely.

22 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Traveler Information The second Mobility 2000 category is advanced traveler information systems, navigation and telecommunications systems to provide the traveler with information such as location, traffic conditions, route guidance, and parking location. This information could be available to drivers via on-board units incorporating communications and naviga- tion capabilities and an audiovisual user interface. Potential travelers at home or in the office could have access to similar information for automobile and transit trips by consulting an information console, personal computer, or television to evaluate when to make a trip and whether by automobile or transit. The central source of real-time traf- fic condition information could be an area traffic control center or a network service center; maps and other information on the characteris- tics of the road system could be stored in the on-board unit. Cornrnuni- cation between the vehicle and the traffic control center could be via roadside beacon or wide-area broadcast. Familiar examples of a simple traveler information system are the car radio and the mobile cellular telephone. Radio traffic broadcasts inform drivers of traffic jams warn of unfavorable road conditions, provide weather forecasts, and so forth. The cellular car telephone allows for bidirectional, user-specific information access. It can be used to access prerecorded traffic reports, to call for emergency assis- tance, or to request directions. A complete traveler information system would improve on these simpler systems by allowing for much more data to be provided to the traveler, by giving the traveler control over what information to access and when, and by integrating current traffic data directly into a vehicle's on-board navigation system. Traveler information systems would have valuable applications for making public transit more convenient. It could inform travelers of transit schedules and routes, including current information on delays, and of ride-sharing opportunities. It could also provide information at bus stops on when the next bus would arrive. In addition, it could inform travelers before they started their trips of automobile travel conditions and congestion locations. Traveler information systems would also have applications outside metropolitan areas. They could be the means for providing a great variety of current, location-specific information tailored to individual travelers' needs, for example, tourist information or transportation schedules. Rural information services for private travelers and com- mercial vehicles would be possible, for example, a service to send

Background 23 distress calls. In addition to information systems, the vehicle control systems for crash avoidance and high-speed travel described in the following sections would have intercity and rural applications. Vehicle Control The third category of IVHS is the advanced vehicle control systems, the application of computer technology to driver assistance, warning, and control functions. This technology would include collision warn- ing, vision enhancement, automatic headway keeping and lateral con- trol, and collision avoidance braking. It would also make possible vehicle platooning, in which electronically coupled trains of vehicles would drive under automatic control on specially constructed freeways equipped with electronic control instrumentation. Some existing exam- ples are antilock brakes, which assist driver control to avoid skids, and cruise control, for maintaining constant speed on highways. Commercial Vehicle Operations The fourth category is commercial vehicle operations, technologies for freight and fleet control by private fleet operators and by transit, police, fire, and ambulance fleets. Commercial vehicle applications would consist largely of telecommunications services for vehicle fleets, allowing for more efficient operations with functions such as vehicle location, identification, paging, and message passing. The technology would also facilitate regulation of commercial traffic through vehicle weigh-in-motion and electronic toll payment systems. Existing technologies include nationwide two-way communications and monitoring of vehicle position by intercity truck fleet dispatchers. Electronic license plates that allow trucks to avoid stopping for certain inspections by enforcement officials are being tested. Similarities Among U.S., European, and Japanese Definitions The foregoing four-part definition of IVHS has served as the basis for discussion and planning in the United States. Programs in Europe and Japan have been based on somewhat different conceptions. Major

24 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES programs abroad are described in Appendix A in order to illustrate the complementaiy visions of IVHS being explored overseas. The definitions of IVHS in the United States, Europe, and Japan illustrate that IVHS technology falls into two general categories: infor- mation technology and automatic control technology. With respect to the first, much IVHS technology can be seen as composing an infor- mation infrastructure that allows vehicles and travelers to communi- cate with and receive information from service centers. Seen this way, many IVHS functions can be understood simply as telecommunica- tions services provided by an information infrastructure. No compre- hensive definition of services can be given, because firms could continuously market new services from this infrastructure. With respect to the second category, much of IVHS consists of automatic control functions in which operations are directed by com- puters, using automation technology similar to that used in robots. This division between information functions and control functions is a fundamental distinction for cataloging different IVHS technologies. One important difference between these two categories is that the information infrastructure could be realized largely through the appli- cation of existing component technologies, whereas many automatic control functions require significant enhancement of existing compo- nent technologies. However, both the information and the control functions would require the investment of substantial research and development resources in system design and system architecture definition. CURRENT U.S. ACTIVITIES The ideas behind IVHS are not new, and elements of these technolo- gies have been in use for many years (Appendix B). However, the last few years have seen a worldwide resurgence of interest in IVHS tech- nologies. Research and development programs in Europe and Japan were launched in the middle and late 1980s, and activities in the United States have also increased significantly in the past 4 years. There are two reasons for this renewed interest. First, with the passage of time, many IVHS concepts first proposed in earlier decades have become technologically feasible as the capabilities of computers and telecommunications have evolved dramatically during the last 20 years and their costs have steadily fallen. Second, some traditional means for addressing transportation problems are less available today than previ-

Background 25 ously, and this has made the IVHS alternative more attractive. In particular, the construction of new roads in order to relieve traffic congestion is increasingly encountering land use limits. The IVHS alternative would complement the more traditional approaches by increasing the capacity of existing roads through more efficient use. In the United States, IVHS research is today being conducted in numerous independent projects (4). Federal, state, and local govern- ments, as well as universities and industry, all have organized pro- grams. A private, nonprofit national coordinating organization, IVHS America, has recently been incorporated, but a national IVHS program is still taking form. At the federal level, within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) have provided some funding to nearly every U.S. IVHS research project undertaken to date. FHWA has played a leading role in coordinating and funding public-sector research: in fiscal year 1991, $20 million in funding for research and field operational tests was provided in all four areas of IVHS technology. NHTSA provided an additional $2.5 million for public-sector research on intelligent vehicle systems for improving the safety performance of motor vehicles and for human factors research to ensure that the introduction of IVHS technology does not degrade safety by distracting drivers. NHTSA will also develop a driving sim- ulator for use in evaluating IVHS safety. Much IVHS research has been funded and conducted by state departments of transportation, most notably the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which has been the biggest state sponsor of IVHS research in the United States. Most of its research is con- ducted in the Program on Advanced Technology for the Highway (PATH), which is under the direction of Caltrans and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Begun in 1986, PATH's goals are to develop technologies in the areas of roadway electrification, vehicle automation, traffic management, and traveler information services. PATH has conducted tests of an electric-powered municipal bus and of a radar system for vehicle colli- sion warning and eventually for application in vehicle platoons on freeways. In addition to PATH, Caltrans is also cosponsoring with FHWA, General Motors, and a number of local agencies the Los Angeles Pathfinder experiment, a $1.65 million field test employing 25 vehi-

26 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES des equipped with intelligent navigation consoles. This experiment will demonstrate traveler information system technology. Caltrans is also one of a number of state transportation agencies supporting the Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate Program, a demonstration of commercial vehicle applications that is developing technologies for monitoring trucks by such electronic means as weigh- in-motion and automatic vehicle identification to allow, for example, checks of compliance with transport regulations without stopping the truck (5,6). In Orlando, Florida, work on the TRAVTEK field test is under way. TRAVTEK is a test of a traveler information system that will provide traffic and tourist information to a fleet of 100 automobiles equipped with communication and navigation units. The field test is sponsored by the American Automobile Association, the city of Orlando, DOT, the Florida Department of Transportation, and General Motors. A large-scale field test of a traveler information system planned for Chicago is expected to employ a fleet of several thousand vehicles equipped with navigation units that will communicate with an areawide radio-frequency infrastructure. The field test will include such traveler information functions as bidirectional communications with the vehicle, dynamic route guidance, and a global positioning satellite system for vehicle navigation. Participants in the planning for this test have included Motorola, the Illinois Department of Transpor- tation, a consortium of Illinois universities, and FHWA. A number of other projects are being conducted throughout the United States. An intergovernmental agency in the New York City area, the Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee, is test- ing traveler information systems. INFORM, a joint federal-state pro- ject in New York, is testing an advanced traffic management system integrating freeway management with signal controls on adjacent sur- face streets. The Minnesota Department of Transportation's GUIDE- STAR system is another field test of advanced traffic management technology. Michigan plans to launch a field test of a traveler informa- tion system using four radio systems technologies. Another test of heavy vehicle applications, the multistate Advantage 1-75 field test plans to apply technology similar to that developed in the Heavy Vehi- cle Electronic License Plate Program to Interstate 75 between Michi- gan and Florida. In addition, in-house research projects at companies such as Motorola, General Motors, and many smaller firms are developing systems for navigation, communications, and vehicle automation.

Background 27 Universities have also been active in IVHS research. The Univer- sity of California, Berkeley; Texas A&M University; the University of Michigan; and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have long- standing IVHS research programs, and several other institutions have begun active programs. Aside from DOT activities, U.S. efforts to coordinate IVHS development at the national level began with Mobility 2000. Its participants came from a variety of institutions in government, indus- tiy, consulting, and academia. Although Mobility 2000 was predomi- nantly a volunteer activity and had no formal authority and no budget, it played an important role in bringing together advocates of IVHS and in creating the conceptual definition of IVHS described previously. Mobility 2000's functions were subsumed in a more formally chartered and ambitious organization when, in August 1990, IVHS America was incorporated. IVHS America is a nonprofit public- private scientific and educational corporation based in Washington, D.C., whose goal is to "advance a national program for safer, more economical, energy efficient and environmentally sound highways in the U.S. through research, development, testing and implementation of advanced technology" (7). The Highway Users Federation, an industry group, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials were instrumental in its organization. It has begun to function as a central information exchange and coordinator for research and standards-setting activities and will serve as an official advisory committee to DOT. IVHS America has set up committees in the technology areas of commercial vehicle opera- tions, traveler information, traffic management, vehicle control, and public transportation, as well as committees on system architecture, standards and protocols, evaluation and benefits, and safety and human factors and subcommittees on program priorities, international liaison, and legal and institutional issues. It is expected to play a major role as the source of broad-based direction for U.S. national development and implementation efforts. IVHS America received start-up funding by act of Congress; how- ever, most of its support is from private-sector members' dues. The federal share is less than 50 percent in 1991 and is projected to decline to less than 20 percent in three years. Federal participation was crucial to its formation, but all parties agree that IVHS America must establish its independence as a meeting ground for public and private interests if it is to be successful.

28 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SUM1VIARY Although the United States has lagged behind Europe and Japan in organizing large-scale research programs in IVHS, it is now showing some beginnings. DOT and now IVHS America are playing increas- ingly active roles in coordinating activities at the national level, and federal funding for IVHS research and field testing in fiscal year 1991 has been increased sharply. Should federal research funding increase to $100 million per year, as many have suggested, U.S. efforts would probably at least equal, if not exceed, programs elsewhere. As for the technology itself, many systems are not far from realiza- tion. In many cases, field testing and evaluation of benefits are needed more than laboratory research and development. Thus, if IVHS yields public benefits or marketable products, then many systems—partic- ularly those providing communications capabilities—could become a reality in a short time. Indeed, commercial availability and acceptance of on-board navigation systems in Japan, together with the apparent government commitment there to large-scale installation of infrastruc- ture for real-time collection and transmission of traffic infonnation, suggest that fully operational systems are close to realization in that nation. REFERENCES Mobility 2000 Presents Intelligent Vehicles and Highway Systems, 1990 Sum- mary. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, July 1990. R. Remak and S. Rosenbloom. NCHRP Report 169: Peak-Period Traffic Con- gestion: Options for Current Programs. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976. R. Remak and S. Rosenbloom. NCHRP Report 205: Implementing Packages of Congestion-Reducing Tçchniques: Strategies for Dealing with Institutional Problems of Cooperative Programs. TRB, National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C., June 1979. H. Klein. Towards a National Program in Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Sys- tems. Presented at the MIT International Motor Vehicle Program Policy Forum, Mexico, May 1989. Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate (HELP) Program Executive Summary. Castle Rock Consultants, Inc., Leesburg, Va., April 1989. C. M. Walton. The Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate Program and Crescent Demonstration Project. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, Feb. 1991, pp. 147-151. Newsletter of the Task Force on Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies, No. 2, Oct. 1990.

A Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System As government and the private sector work toward launching a national program to develop and apply intelligent vehicle/high- way system (IVHS) technology, participants will need to maintain a vision of the ultimate aims of the development to provide an overall guiding perspective and to define for policy makers and the public what is at stake. The evolution of IVHS is likely to proceed in three stages. The first will take the form of a collection of applications functioning more or less independently. For example, computer-con- trolled traffic management systems, vehicle navigation devices, and commercial vehicle position tracking services are operating today in isolation. In the second stage, independent elements will begin to be integrated in systems. From a technical point of view, this can begin very soon. For example, traffic management and traveler information systems can be integrated so that they share data and coordinate func- tions to reinforce the common objective of faster and more convenient travel. In these first two stages, installations can be components of a comprehensive plan to reduce urban congestion and improve traffic safety. IVHS technology will have both public and private signifi- cance: it will allow improved provision of public services and at the same time meet private needs of consumers and create market oppor- tunities for producers. The final development stage would come after the independent applications have been integrated as fully as is practicable into systems and systems have been installed in most locales where they would be beneficial. Facilities would be planned so that their efficient perfor- mance depended on IVHS capabilities. 4J

30 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES The vision presented in this chapter is a statement of reasonable possibilities. It is a projection based largely on judgment, because testing of most IVHS components has been very limited and therefore concrete evidence of performance is, for the most part, lacking. IVHS must overcome technical and institutional hurdles before its potential can be realized. Indeed, the ultimate magnitude of benefits and the value that consumers will place on IVHS services cannot be known at this time and must be determined through research and testing in the course of IVHS development. IVHS IN THE 1990s Deteriorating performance in parts of the transportation system together with the growing recognition on the part of transportation agencies of the need to redefine their programs toward emphasis on operations and the rapid advances in computers and communications make today the right time for developing national and local plans for reducing congestion and environmental costs and improving safety. An array of both conventional actions and new approaches made possible by IVHS is needed. IVHS will not supplant conventional means of increasing capacity, nor can it alone solve the problems of time wasted in congestion and costly losses in accidents. Nonetheless, IVHS is an important compo- nent of a comprehensive plan for attacking current surface transporta- tion problems. It can help reverse the perception that urban congestion and other costs of travel are out of control. IVHS can be more than merely an additional tool in the kit for dealing with transportation problems—it will be evolving toward a fundamental strategy to attack the base causes of congestion and other inefficiencies and allow all the other tactics to function more effectively. Prospects for hnplementation In the next decade, significant improvements in the operation of the road system should be achievable through IVHS. Installation of stand- alone applications is already under way, and substantial progress can be made toward integrating these into systems. The real possibilities include

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System31 "Smart" traffic signals that genuinely maximize the efficient use of roads, reducing stops and delays; Aids to tell drivers where they are when traveling in unfamiliar areas and to show where their destinations are; Driver information systems that display congestion information and assist the driver in selecting the best route; Systems to provide travelers with reliable transit and ridesharing information about vehicle locations and arrival times and ridesharing opportunities; A general facility for providing a variety of information to trav- elers that is tailored to their locations and needs, as IVHS comes to constitute an information utility; Systems to warn each driver of potential rear-end, sideswipe, or head-on collisions before they occur, so that the driver can take correc- tive action; Devices to sense lapses in driver performance and aid in driving tasks (e.g., cruise control that responds to changes in speed and dis- tance of the vehicle ahead); Systems to help police, fire; ambulance, and transit services dis- patch their vehicles as quickly as possible to where they are most needed; and Systems to improve the efficiency of truck operations, reducing paperwork and delays and thereby helping to reduce the cost of all goods shipped by truck. Some of these possibilities may at first glance seem futuristic or impractical, but nearly all are in at least limited use today. All of them could see widespread deployment in the next decade if resources are committed to resolving remaining technical problems and to building the systems and if public and private institutions make the necessary accommodations. The Mobility 2000 group has proposed one schedule for these devel- opments, beginning with independent installations and proceeding to integrated systems. The timetable calls for the following milestones to be attained by the year 2001 (1): Advanced traffic management systems operating in most major urban areas. These systems would continuously monitor traffic on freeways and surface streets to allow rapid detection and correction of blockages from accidents and regulate freeway traffic and adjust signal timing to minimize delay.

32 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Advanced driver information systems in use in the most congested areas. These would provide current, continuous congestion and route guidance information to drivers and also provide other information services. For trucks, automatic vehicle identification systems and auto- matic weighing devices in operation on most major interstate truck routes and toll roads. These systems would reduce regulatory costs for truckers, and ease enforcement and tax collection for highway authorities. For trucks and automobiles, driver safety aids such as commer- cially available collision warning systems. The realization of this timetable would, of course, depend on sub- stantial public and private investment in development and implementa- tion, which has not yet been committed, and on the solution of many technical and organizational problems. Mobility 2000 has pEojected benefits of its implementation timetable. It expects advanced traffic management systems to reduce delays by 10 to 25 percent and driver information systems to do so by an additional 10 to 50 percent. It also predicts more efficient use of trucks from commercial applications, reduced congestion and freight costs, and reduced automotive pollu- tant emissions from reduced congestion. It predicts a 3 billion gallon/ year decline in motor fuel consumption (about a 2 percent savings) in 10 years, under the same assumptions concerning extent of adoption of IVHS. The fuel use projection apparently includes only savings for those automobile trips that would have been made if IVHS had not been implemented; that is, it does not include estimates of the effects of changes in the quantity of travel or in mode choice induced by IVHS. It is important to note that, according to the projections, these levels of benefits would be attained while only a minority of drivers were equipped with in-vehicle communications or navigation devices. Trav- elers without such equipment would benefit as well, through the effects of advanced traffic management facilities that do not depend on special in-vehicle equipment and because changes in behavior by the minority of drivers with special equipment would reduce congestion delays for all travelers. Potential safety benefits from initial implementation of collision warning systems on vehicles are predicted to be several hundred lives saved, several hundred injuries avoided, and several hundred million dollars saved annually by 2001, if adoption is widespread.

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 33 Research and testing have not yet succeeded in answering many fundamental questions concerning appropriate applications, technolog- ical feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and market acceptability of these systems. The timetable proposed by Mobility 2000 must therefore prove its worth as it is carried out. However, existing installations incorporating at least some of the features of the advanced systems have demonstrated benefits, and rapid expansion of some elements of these technologies is already under way. Commercial vehicle applica- tions may be showing the most dramatic growth currently and can be expected to continue to be a leader in applications as installation of tracking, communications, and monitoring devices on heavy trucks grows in popularity (2). State agencies in many parts of the country are interested in installation of truck identification systems like those now under demonstration. In public transit, operators are using these tech- nologies to improve fleet control and obtain data for route planning. Traffic control systems are also experiencing rapid development. More new starts or expansions of freeway management systems are in planning or under construction today in the United States than at any time in the past (3). Autonomous driver information and navigation systems are already or will soon be available as manufacturers' options on many new cars in Japan (4). The first automatic vehicle control systems (e.g., adaptive cruise control and collision warning devices) conceivably could be commercialized within the decade. Private-Sector Participation IVHS will by no means be confined to public-sector applications in the next decade. The technology presents important private business opportunities for production of hardware devices and a variety of trav- eler services independent of government operations. In some applica- tions, the private sector is already leading (e.g., in communications and vehicle tracking for commercial trucking). It is not yet possible to predict whether, looking back 10 years from today, the most prominent and successful installations of the decade will have been those serving public purposes, private services purchased by individual consumers, or hybrid systems serving both public and private ends. Indirect effects on private markets will also start to be felt. IVHS will begin to change how automobiles and transit are used and to affect travel habits, and therefore will influence markets for cars, for travel- related goods and services, and for real estate.

34 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Thus, IVHS development and use are already realities, and the questions to be decided are the scale of the development, whether the most cost-effective system designs will be discovered and adopted, and whether short-range implementations will create a foundation for further development. Integration and planning are necessary to avoid piecemeal, suboptimal results. LONG-RANGE SIGNIFICANCE OF IVHS As application of IVHS matures, its effects may become more pro- found. The exact forms and benefits of these later systems are impos- sible to predict today, but the possibilities can be identified. Technical advances may allow the systems to work better to achieve the short- range aims described previously. Functions related to supplying infor- mation, which will see initial use in the 1990s, may find much broader application as travelers learn of the systems' capabilities and adapt to take advantage of them and as transportation providers employ the systems to implement new management strategies. An Information Infrastructure A picture of IVHS as an assortment of specialized technologies misses the essence of how it will affect travel. One major group of technolo- gies within IVHS shares a critical element—the use of information to improve travelers' decisions and the management of transportation systems. For example, traffic management systems use traffic volume information for optimizing signal timing, information services show travelers automobile route and transit options, and commercial vehicle positioning provides information to dispatchers to allow efficient use of a truck fleet. Efficiency dictates linking elements through shared hardware facilities and data bases to achieve operating economies and improved effectiveness; for example, the traffic data generated in a city traffic management system could be shared with the city's driver information system. These IVHS elements are thus steps toward elec- tronically integrating the functions of the road, vehicle, and driver into an interactive system. This unified system would be an information infrastructure, an extensive facility necessary to support many of the functions of urban areas and regions parallel to the established transportation and commu- nication utilities. It could support the collection, processing, and corn-

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 35 munication of travel-related information and allow a new, coordinated but decentralized approach to provision of transportation services, relying on the ability of travelers to use information rationally before and during their trips. As yet, road transportation and transit remain relatively unpene- trated by the information revolution that has altered many other aspects of work and leisure. Thus, a new transportation information infrastruc- ture has the potential to increase dramatically the efficiency with which resources are spent by individuals and society. Improved information will benefit both individuals and the system. Surface transportation is one of the important markets in which indi- viduals have poor information about what they are buying. Travelers increasingly do not know the price of getting to their destinations in congested metropolitan areas and crowded intercity travel corridors. In almost everything consumed, price is the signal: if consumers decide they want more or better goods and services—shoes, televi- sions, clothes—the increased demand tends to push the price up, and producers respond to this profit opportunity by supplying more. Con- sumers know in advance what they have to pay and what they will get for their money. But travel time, not price, is most important in travel decision making. Travel comes at a very high price in terms of lost time, accidents, air and noise pollution, inconvenience, and missed work. Travel time and conditions of travel are increasingly unpredict- able. Because travelers do not know in advance what they are going to pay for travel and are not confronted with the external costs their travel imposes on others, they make poor choices about how much transpor- tation to consume and when to consume it. A better information environment would change perceptions and awareness of travel choices. Travel decisions involve a series of trade- offs that people make between the times and costs of travel on all available alternatives and the benefits of travel at the trip ends. Intel- ligent transportation systems could increase the informed nature of these trade-offs and all the adjustments people make to avoid conges- tion. These adjustments involve changing travel routes, modes, and destinations; making trips at different times; or not making trips at all. Individuals will be able to know in advance and manage the levels of congestion and other conditions of travel. Society needs to manage transportation systems in the public interest to minimize system delays and congestion. Individual travelers now perceive only a fraction of the total congestion their actions cause; individual choice puts private interests over the public interest. Every

36 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES time a person drives a car onto a congested roadway, far more aggre- gate delay is imposed on others—on the system—than on the driver. In the language of the economist, the marginal private cost of highway travel is much less than the marginal social cost of travel on the already congested highway system. The transportation system today lacks the ability to confront con- sumers with the real costs of their decisions, not only in the short run for individual trip decisions, but also in the long run for land use decisions that generate congestion. Thus, IVHS has important implications for land use. Controlling congestion means preserving the operational integ- rity of the publicly financed transportation system in order to preserve the value of private investment in metropolitan housing and commercial development, which depend on a functioning transportation system. The new intelligent information environment could help remedy this by strengthening the management powers of public and private trans- portation providers and institutions. Advanced traffic control systems would be able to respond more intelligently and make more efficient use of available transportation network capacity. One way they could do this is by setting up high-occupancy-vehicle and transit options as conditions (such as major accidents and other incidents that cause the majority of traffic delays) warrant. New construction decisions could be made with much more infor- mation concerning their effectiveness. Recurrent bottlenecks causing congestion and accidents could be pinpointed, allowing the most cost- effective improvements to be made, regardless of mode. The new transportation information environment may benefit trav- elers as much from the information given to travelers on expected trip times as from the shortened trip times. These systems could reduce or modify demand in response to the information they give on congestion at the same time as they provide benefits from increases in effective network capacity. This means that their contribution to congestion reduction and increased safety would arise from their influence on trip generation as well as on route and mode choice, allowing more effec- tive use of the existing capacity of the network. By reducing the costs—in aggravation, time, and dollars—of traveling, IVHS could induce some increases in travel. The new travel could be a further benefit. In other words, the benefits from such systems could come from user interactions with the system as well as from increases in effective network capacity supplied by these systems. There are likely to be real benefits from the new technology in ways that cannot be anticipated, just as paving roads in the 1920s changed

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 37 the nation. Predicting the effects of IVHS is not just a technology problem. Simple technological calculations of increases in capacity or decreases in collisions will not provide a good description of the bene- fits. Travel demand, land use patterns, and the geographic distribution of activity are not fixed. It is the interaction between the user and the system that will shape the system and provide benefits. Enabling Technology The IVHS information utility would enable an army of transportation strategies to be implemented more easily and effectively than they are today. In the near future it could facilitate ridesharing, toll collection, and ramp metering. Eventually, it could provide options for effecting more far-reaching changes. These strategies would on the whole encompass ways of expanding consumer choice but, where capacity constraints necessitate limits, may include such measures as road pric- ing, other new road financing mechanisms, or other means of demand management. Some of these measures may be employed only in extreme contingencies, such as environmental emergencies or fuel shortages, which may have a low probability of occurrence but high costs if they do occur. IVHS is putting in place tools that may allow policy makers to respond flexibly to such circumstances and that in general increase the spectrum of possibilities to either expand or con- trol capacity. There would be greater choice over how, when, and where to affect transportation use. The concept of an enabling technology, a device or technique so versatile that it generates applications and lays the foundation for new industries, has been applied most commonly to electronics. Here, for example, microprocessors originally developed for pocket calculators have found application in hundreds of devices, from cars and home appliances to industrial machinery, and have led to creation of the personal computer. Examples that IVHS functions analogously as an enabling technology can already be seen. In commercial vehicle appli- cations, for example, truck and transit fleet operators report a growing list of applications and values unforeseen when systems were origi- nally installed, such as using vehicle communications for real-time monitoring of shipment temperatures and using data from on-board computers to relate accidents to driving habits (2). Similarly, novel proposals frequently come forward for applications of other compo- nents of IVHS. One example is the use of sensors and automatic

38 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES vehicle identification to enforce emissions standards (5). Traffic engi- neers are also perceiving new and more sophisticated ways to use the information [VHS supplies to improve traffic management (e.g., use of information on destination that drivers enter in route guidance sys- tems to foresee congestion and thus speed response to incipient conditions). Ultimate Goals: Automatic Vehicle Control Systems Systems that reinforce driver capabilities and automate the driving function are the [VHS applications that presently appear to have the potential for producing the greatest increase in transportation effi- ciency. Benefit estimates are speculative, but the possibility may exist for tripling the capacity of existing facilities and avoiding thousands of deaths annually if such systems prove feasible. Enhancing Driver Capabilities IVHS technology offers the potential to enhance the capabilities of drivers in order to reduce some of the problems in the current road transportation system. New sensor and computer technologies may permit the detection of unsafe conditions before the driver is aware of them, so that the driver can be warned in time to avoid danger or so that the vehicle itself can take corrective action in extreme conditions. These technologies may enhance the driver's vision (especially that of elderly drivers) under adverse conditions (night, fog, rain, or snow), enabling a safer response, and may also be extended to detect deterio- ration of driver performance (fatigue or impairment), so that the driver can be given a warning to be more alert, if necessary. This function, too, may be especially valuable to elderly drivers. With the addition of some further sensing and control technology, it may be possible to enhance the driver's ability to respond to severe external force loadings (from crosswind gusts or very rough pave- ment), so that driving under these adverse conditions can be made much less stressful than it is now. It may prove possible to extend collision warning capabilities to collision avoidance, in which the vehicle could even apply its brakes to avoid an imminent collision in the event that the driver did not respond to a dangerous condition in time. Cruise control technology could be made adaptive, meaning that it would enable the vehicle to maintain a constant spacing relative to

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 39 the vehicle ahead of it if that vehicle is traveling slower than the cruise control set point speed. This can help make driving with cruise control easier and safer, avoiding the problem of "creeping up" on slower- moving vehicles. All of these potential technologies are likely to reduce the occur- rence and severity of accidents, providing direct benefits in alleviating the deaths, injuries, and property damage that would otherwise occur and also providing indirect benefits by eliminating the congestion that would otherwise be caused by these accidents. Increasing Highway Capacity Through Automatic Control It may be possible to obtain significant increases in the capacity of limited-access road facilities such as high-occupancy-vehicle lanes or freeways through automatic vehicle control. Automatic control may allow operation of vehicles safely at very close spacings and on nar- rower lanes than at present. Such an electronically controlled roadway would be analogous in some ways to a railroad (accurate positioning of vehicles within a lane and vehicles electronically coupled close together in trains or platoons). These automatic vehicle control sys- tems are intended to overcome some of the performance limitations of human drivers (speed of response to stimuli, sensory-motor accuracy, lapses of judgment or attention) to produce a higher-performance vehi- cle-roadway system. Significant increases in the capacity of the exist- ing roadway through automatic vehicle control could have profound effects on the ability of the road system to accommodate substantial growth in travel demand. In the long term, the capacity improvement could significantly alter travel and land development patterns. The vehicle control technologies should produce not only significant improvements in roadway capacity, but also significant reductions in congestion, accidents, and driving effort. This could be particularly beneficial to elderly drivers, impaired drivers, or others who are intim- idated by high-speed freeway driving or driving in adverse conditions. It could also offer convenience to the drivers who would prefer to spend much of their traveling time doing something other than concen- trating on the road (reading, writing, or watching the scenery, for example). Development of the full range of capabilities needed to make this type of automated highway system possible will take considerable time and effort, but the potential benefits are significant enough to warrant

40 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES serious investigation. As the ultimate goal toward which IVHS tech- nology is advancing, it merits sufficient effort in defining its attributes now so that the course of IVHS development remains compatible with its realization. Opportunity for Strategic Response to a Challenge IVHS links the public and private transportation, communications, and computer industries. It provides a natural, practical opportunity to demonstrate U.S. capability to make an industrial strategic response to an economic challenge. In the private sector, it will require a new balancing of cooperation and competition, for example, new strategic alliances among firms with complementary capabilities to pooi resources, spread risks, and provide stability for long-term planning. Thus, one of the key issues is strategy: how to manage the organiza- tional transitions needed to respond to IVHS. IVHS may be the catalyst for development of new organizational paradigms, defining public- and private-sector roles in transportation and providing new opportunities for public-private partnerships that might also be fruitful in areas beyond IVHS. The public sector is already in the midst of an institutional shift from a transportation program based on construction to one based on operations, which demands new structures of organization and management. Much closer public- and private-sector cooperation is necessary to develop and operate IVHS. Under the new paradigm, roles of government, indus- try, and consumers in ownership, operation, control, and finance of highway systems would be different from those of today. To function as an enabling technology and catalyst for institutional change, the evolving IVHS design should be compatible with the broadest possible range of systems applications and institutional arrangements. Although most definitions of IVHS have been broad in terms of technologies, they have tended to be too narrow in terms of applications and institutional possibilities. This narrow perspective comes from two sources. First, some applications, in particular demand management, road pricing, and automated highways, are per- ceived to be controversial (although the net effect of the improved information IVHS can provide to individuals should be to greatly enhance consumer choice). Second, there has been insufficient recog- nition of the potential of IVHS as a stimulus to innovative services and

Vision of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System 41 problem solutions that cannot be foreseen today. IVHS design must not foreclose this natural development. Similarly, with regard to institutional arrangements, proposals should not be restricted by assumptions that traditional roles will con- tinue. Administrators should be willing to consider the possibilities for new private-sector roles in operation of road and other transportation systems and reordering of responsibilities within government for trans- portation research and operation. NEXT STEPS The challenge now is to provide a plan for moving forward, that is, guidance for a continuing, cooperative public-private process that allows evolution in an incremental and flexible manner while main- taining long-range system perspective. It is necessary to shape these systems in the public interest to protect the public investment in the transportation system as well as in private housing and other invest- ments whose value is eroded by congestion, to promote uniform stan- dards, and to regulate their development in a reasonable way. To address institutional obstacles, the next steps are to begin to resolve basic questions about public- and private-sector roles. The outstanding technical issues can be resolved through a process for defining system standards and design guidelines. These requirements are addressed in the following chapters. REFERENCES Mobility 2000 Presents Intelligent Vehicles and Highway Systems, 1990 Sum- mary. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, July 1990. J. McNamara. TMC Report: Black Boxes, SatCom. Transport Topics, Oct. 1, 1990, P. 8. Dunn Engineering Associates. Transportation Research Circular 378: Free- way Operations Projects Summary. TRB, National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C., 1991. Japan Makes Inroads with Navigation Gear. Inside/VHS, Jan. 7, 1991, P. 4. S.F Singer. Better Than the Clean Air Bill. Wall Street Journal, May 23, 1990, p. A22.

11 System Architecture The long-term viability of a complicated, evolving technological system is critically dependent on the care with which its architec- ture is defined at the start. If the architecture has been defined too narrowly or without consideration of future needs and technological progress, the system is unlikely to be able to adapt successfully. Unfor- tunately, the architecture of the system is invisible and intangible to most observers, so it rarely receives the attention that it deserves. If the system architecture does not allow for future possibilities for expanding the system, the eventual cost of expansion may be prohib- itive and it may even be more economical to discard the existing system than to try to expand it. However, if the architecture is spe- cified from the start with later expansion in mind, the incremental up- front cost of providing for that expansion is likely to be very small compared with the avoided costs. This is why it is vitally important that the intelligent vehicle/highway system (IVHS) architecture receive careful consideration at the start of system development rather than be deferred until some system elements have already been spe- cified or are even in place. DEFINITION A system architecture is the overall framework for accomplishing a system's objectives. It defines the major components of the system, the functions of these components, the interactions among the compo- nents, and the interactions between the system and the outside world.' The architecture does not specify the internal operation of individual components, only their functional requirements. A system architecture can be open or closed. A closed architecture is one in which components cannot be interchanged or replaced with 42

System Architecture43 another supplier's equipment, or with a different technology, without affecting other parts of the system. An open architecture, by use of well-defined, publicly available interface standards and the treatment of individual components as black boxes, allows for multivendor sys- tems, technological advancement, and evolutionary growth without requiring new systems. A system architecture should be based on a set of functional specifi- cations derived from validated user requirements, an assessment of the technologies that are (or will be) available to implement the system, and a cost-benefit analysis of the available options. The functional specifications are based on user requirements and define the system capabilities in technical terms. An open system architecture also depends heavily on standards to ensure that future components will be interoperable and, where they serve the same function, interchange- able. This enables the architecture to define functional performance requirements and at the same time maintain an open field for competi- tive innovation and enhancement at the component level. The architecture and interface standards need to be defined with future, as well as present, needs in mind. Long-term estimates of possible future uses of the system are necessary to provide for upward compatibility of systems, so that it will not be necessary to discard a substantial investment in equipment and technology in order to gain the benefits of future technological advances. This principle is well understood in the world of modern electronics, but it has not been applied effectively in the transportation world thus far. The standards issue for IVHS is complex because there are two kinds of standards involved: system standards and component stan- dards. Historically, industry has dealt with component standards, which generally involve technologies and expertise in single areas (e.g., a hardness standard for bolts). IVHS system standards, on the other hand, would require the standards-setting body to deal with many different technology issues at once. Part of the system architecture definition process should be to iden- tify human-machine interfaces that involve the traveler and other human operators in the system. Analysis of these interfaces and the information-processing demands that IVHS imposes on its human operators and users must be carried out to ensure optimum human performance and to achieve safety and performance goals. For any large-scale system, but especially for systems that combine public- and private-sector components, such as IVHS, it is desirable to invest time and money early in the program to develop a technically

44 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES sound, flexible, and operationally robust architecture. A major part of this effort is the development or use of interface standards. The docu- mented architecture should be flexible and viewed as a living docu- ment that changes as requirements and technologies change. An overly rigid or closed design would most likely be obsolete before full imple- mentation. At the same time, the design effort should be conducted in a timely manner, so that the architecture definition is not overtaken by events. If this were to occur, the result would be a fragmented collec- tion of noninteroperable components. As an example, without inter- operability, separate display systems might be required for on-board navigation systems and traffic advisory services. The result would be reduced benefits and services at significantly higher cost. The development of a robust and flexible system architecture for IVHS is an issue of public significance. It is perhaps the single most important determinant of whether the United States will be able to enjoy the substantial potential benefits of IVHS technology in the long term, with obviously major implications for the economics and perfor- mance of the surface transportation system. Because of this decisive impact, activities supporting the IVHS architecture development pro- cess probably should command a significant share of the early public investment in IVHS. However, the outcome of the architecture devel- opment process would likely have a positive impact on some commer- cial developers and a negative impact on others. It is therefore essential that the process be open, even-handed, deliberate, and able to with- stand critical scrutiny. EXAMPLES OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Examples of the development of system architecture in the aviation, rail, and highway modes illustrate the elements of the process and also indicate how the characteristics of IVH systems will dictate the special requirements of the approach that is adopted for developing IVHS architecture. Aeronautical Telecommunications Network An example from aviation of a system and the process to develop its architecture that has some parallels with IVHS is the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) (1). ATN allows data communi- cation between aircraft and ground stations over a variety of communi-

System Architecture 45 cations media. Electronic systems in the aircraft and on the ground have the capacity to automatically select the appropriate path and switch the associated systems. ATN will support communication between an agency providing air traffic services and privately owned aircraft, and similarly, IVHS will include a capability for a government or private service provider to collect and disseminate traffic informa- tion to privately owned vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had primary responsi- bility for the architecture research and development, because of its role as both a regulator of air traffic and provider of air traffic control services. The architecture affects many other organizations, so national and international arrangements were required to allow partici- pation of interested parties in the development process. Nationally, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), an advisory committee of the FAA, exists to provide a public forum for the devel- opment of guidelines and minimum operational performance standards for avionics systems (2). Membership includes airlines, airframe man- ufacturers, avionics manufacturers, research organizations, and gov- ernment. Internationally, the International Civil Aviation Organization is a forum for development of standards agreements and recommended procedures among member states. Through these organizations, the air-ground communications system design has evolved to the point of receiving widespread acceptance. The cooperative process has resulted in a widely agreed-upon, flexible design that will accommodate growth. The experience of ATN can be one source of guidance in deciding on an approach to IVHS architecture development. Some of the tech- nology would be similar, the institutional setting has some similar elements (i.e., multiple levels of government, many industrial partici- pants, and global standardization needs), and the two systems have a similar purpose. It is important to note, however, the differences between IVHS and ATN that would affect the architecture develop- ment process. With ATN, it was determined from the outset that the system would be entirely developed, owned, and operated by the gov- ernment, except for the transmitter-receivers on aircraft. Therefore, the ATN architecture development process was highly centralized, with control exercised by the organization responsible for purchasing and operating the system. With IVHS, no such decision about respon- sibility for ownership and operation has been made, and various mixes of public and private authority are possible, as described in Chapter 5. Most IVHS products and services have to pass the test of acceptance in

46 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES the marketplace in order to survive and would have to serve a diversity of user needs. These differences suggest that IVHS needs a standards- generation mechanism with wider participation and greater depen- dence on consensus than the ATN process. Compared with ATN, in which many basic issues and elements of the operating environment were already established when the system was specified, IVHS offers its designers a relatively clean slate. Many basic issues are unresolved, providing both opportunities and chal- lenges. Even the most fundamental questions—such as what data need to be gathered, where, and how often; what information must be supplied from vehicle to roadway and vice versa; and what information processing capacity is needed and where—have not yet been answered. The trade-off processes involved in comparing different candidate architectures must therefore be many-dimensional and hence compli- cated and difficult. Advanced Train Control Systems Another recent activity, the Advanced Train Control Systems Project, also illustrates the elements of a system architecture, the process of architecture development, and the kinds of technical analyses neces- sary to support architecture development. ATCS was a project of the U.S. and Canadian rail industries to establish unified standards for procedures and equipment for North American train movement control systems. ATCS allows dispatchers to locate, identify, and direct trains to improve both productivity and safety. Central to ATCS is a com- munications network linking dispatcher, locomotives, maintenance crews, roadbed transponders, and wayside devices such as switches and grade-crossing controls. Many aspects of the system are func- tionally analogous to the traffic monitoring, traveler information, and commercial vehicle applications of IVHS. The ATCS project has developed a system architecture through a public forum process that embodies specifications of the performance and interface requirements for system hardware and software. ATCS has an open architecture, allowing any equipment supplier to satisfy the specifications by means of techniques that it considers most effective. The institutional setting for ATCS differs from that of both the air traffic control system and IVHS. The participants are a relatively small number of private firms—railway operators and equipment suppliers. However, many of the technical and organizational problems with

System Architecture 47 which the project has dealt are similar to those that IVHS architecture and standards specifications activities must face, and the experience of the ATCS project represents a resource upon which IVHS efforts can draw (3,4). DRIVE Program Some of the special requirements for developing IVHS architecture are illustrated in the European Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehicle Safety (DRIVE) program (described in Appendix A). The goal of DRIVE is to conduct research in IVHS to make possible the specifica- tion of a system architecture. In funding a wide variety of research projects, DRIVE is identifying options from which later to choose. The actual definition of an architecture will take place only after a set of options has been identified. Significantly, one class of DRIVE projects is to develop standard criteria and methodologies for evaluat- ing these technological options. In DRIVE, the standards-setting process explicitly emphasizes con- sensus rather than central control. With participants from many nations and many industries, a top-down approach is infeasible. Instead, the European Commission's directorate for research and development is providing partial funding and an overall framework for cooperation, whereas DRIVE's Systems Engineering and Consensus Formation Office is seeking to build consensus among participants. Thus, DRIVE has recognized both that some IVHS research must precede system architecture definition and that consensus is a key element in a technology with such wide scope. ISSUES IN IVHS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT The IVHS system architecture is the framework within which the individual systems and components would operate and relate to each other. Its development requires a multitude of decisions about the functionality of the overall system and the distribution of responsi- bilities among the system elements. These alternatives need to be evaluated in terms of their ability to satisfy requirements of system performance, considering a wide variety of trade-off issues. These trade-offs are likely to include, for example, vehicle versus infrastruc- ture costs, capital versus operating costs, public versus private costs, near-term versus long-term net present value, and target performance

48 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES levels versus cost and risk. This partial list of issues should provide an indication of how challenging the process is likely to be. Vehicle Versus Infrastructure One of the major architectural issues for IVHS is the balance of infor- mation-processing capacity between the vehicle and the infrastructure. Computational burdens can be shared among individual vehicles, clus- ters of vehicles, and local and centralized infrastructure elements in various fashions, each with its own implications for the amount of information that must be exchanged among all of these elements. A decision on this issue would narrow the choices for many of the system components' functional requirements, because it would lead to a defi- nition of the type and amounts of data that must be exchanged between the vehicle and the infrastructure. The data requirements may, in turn, narrow the technological choices for communications systems. This decision may also dramatically affect the balance between the public and private components of IVHS. A related issue is the method of collecting traffic data for traveler information and traffic management systems. Here, the alternatives are to use vehicles equipped with position-sensing and communica- tions devices as probes of traffic or to use vehicle-counting hardware at fixed sites. Selections made between these two methods could have implications for communications requirements, distribution of infor- mation-processing capacity, and the effectiveness of various traffic management applications of the data. Compatibility Among Systems The degree of standardization or interoperability necessary among independent systems operating in different metropolitan areas (or, con- ceivably, within overlapping areas) is a system architecture issue. Enforced uniformity could hinder innovation, but proliferation of incompatible systems would discourage private investment in vehicles and devices for use with the systems. The architecture would evolve over time. As an example, traffic management centers may initially use independent means of monitoring traffic flow and, when a suffi- cient fraction of vehicles has been suitably equipped, begin to obtain traffic data from the vehicles themselves. Ultimately, IVHS has the potential to evolve into a mobile information utility, bringing to tray-

System Architecture 49 elers the same access to communications that they have at work or at home. User Requirements and Human Factors Developing user requirements is an important and difficult part of system architecture development. For example, in traffic management systems, the decision about the use of centralized, system-optimal routing versus decentralized individual-optimal routing involves social as well as technical issues. Cost-benefit performance of alternatives must be evaluated to ensure that the most significant user needs and requirements receive the larger share of system capabilities. Definition of user requirements must include human factors consid- erations that influence system safety and performance through the demands imposed on the human operators of IVHS technology (including drivers and operators of traffic control systems). As the architecture evolves, human-machine interfaces that require attention should be identified. These would include the layout of displays and controls, the format and content of information presentation, and the rate of information flow imposed on the human operator. If IVHS is to achieve anticipated performance and safety goals, it is essential that the human operators be accounted for as critical elements of the system architecture and be provided interfaces that take into account limita- tions of human behavior. Initial research has indicated that substantial design issues in these areas must be resolved before IVHS can be successfully implemented (5,6). Type of Communications Systems Another major area of architecture issues is the type of communica- tions systems used. These issues include the communications medium, frequencies, modulation techniques, data rates, formats and protocols, reliability, and safety. Although a common nationwide system (at least for the public infrastructure) has obvious advantages, it may be desir- able to support multiple systems (e.g., for urban and rural use). If multiple systems are used, the data contents and formats should be independent of the communications medium to ensure maximum interoperability. The definition of the communications system is criti- cal, because it would be difficult and expensive (perhaps impossible)

50 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES to change, once implemented. Careful analysis is necessary to ensure an optimal decision. It is equally important to decide on what does not need to be stan- dardized. A decision on the public communications system would not prohibit the commercial use of other systems, where appropriate. Sim- ilarly, there is no overriding requirement for a single traffic manage- ment and control algorithm for use across the United States. It is quite likely that various methods would work better for various localities. ROLE OF RESEARCH, SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, AND EVALUATION OF FIELD TESTS The development of a system architecture is, by nature, iterative. Competing architectures must be analyzed, modeled, produced as pro- totypes, and tested in a variety of environments. The results of these tests must be evaluated and compared in a scientific and unbiased manner. For testing to be effective, an appropriate test plan must be developed to ensure that the appropriate data are collected and mean- ingful results are obtained. For example, the Pathfinder and TRAY- TEK field operational tests being conducted in Los Angeles and Orlando, respectively, may, if evaluations are conducted properly, provide an opportunity to assess several important IVHS design issues. Needed comparative assessments include alternative communica- tions modes (e.g., VHF radio versus satellite communications) and the relative benefits of various kinds of information services targeted to different classes of travelers. These types of analysis will be possible only if the appropriate experimental design is developed while the field test project is being conceived and the necessary data are collected during the demonstration periods. The critical systems engineering issues, including efficiency, life- cycle costs, benefits, compatibility with other systems, safety, and reliability, must be considered in order to obtain the maximum benefit from experiments or field trials. These issues cannot be analyzed if they are not considered from the start in the experimental design. The analyses must be conducted through a mechanism that safeguards the independence of the evaluations and avoids conflict of interest. The system requirements should be developed by a broadly based group representing all levels of government; the automotive, elec- tronics, and communications industries; research organizations; and users (both private and commercial). Ideally, this group should be

System Architecture 51 open to all interested participants. In this way, the group's authority for developing standards is derived from its constituency. Most of the effort in developing the system architecture for IVHS is likely to be absorbed in technical evaluations of the ability of the alternatives to satisfy the system requirements. These evaluations require extensive modeling and simulation work, together with tests of component performance and validation of some of the initial concepts via field tests. Because it would be prohibitively expensive to test all of the candidate concepts at full scale, it will be necessary to rely on modeling and simulation studies to evaluate many of the important trade-off issues. This places a very heavy burden on such studies, requiring that they be subject to intensive peer review to ensure their credibility to the large majority of the affected organizations. The technical results need to be supplied to a broadly representative group that would evaluate and eventually make some basic decisions about architecture. Different constituencies would choose to assign their own weights to the different factors being traded off against each other, and there is no single right answer. Therefore, the architecture selection process ultimately would be political. The professionals per- forming the technical evaluations will have to work hard to maintain the integrity of their work so that decisions are based on solid technical foundations. Definitions of interface requirements and standards work must pro- ceed in parallel with system architecture development. These can fol- low established consensus standards-setting practices. Speed, or its lack, is sometimes cited as a drawback to the approach outlined above. Architectures and standards developed in private and then mandated can be specified more quickly. However, if peer review and debate are avoided, the opportunity is lost for the early detection of errors and other unwise decisions that may result in unimplemented paper standards or that lock systems in to poor design choices. Con- sensus is required for a successful IVHS implementation. The architec- ture and standards work can progress rapidly if the various organiza- tions devote sufficient resources to this definition and standardization process. INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION Because the objective of the architecture development process would be to define an open architecture and because IVHS will exist in an

52 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES international marketplace with important developments arising from Europe and Japan, the process should encourage international partici- pation. The organization of IVHS research and testing as well as standards development in the United States should seek to maximize the extent of international communication and cooperation. Mainte- nance of an international perspective will speed the rate of develop- ment and implementation in the United States and help ensure that implementations reflect the international state of the art. These out- comes will yield the greatest benefit to U.S. consumers and the great- est long-term commercial opportunities for U.S. business. It is unlikely, however, that the United States would be able to follow a course of merely adopting a foreign-developed system as a whole. Neither the Japanese nor the Europeans today have fully func- tioning systems that meet the current objectives of IVHS development, and in some areas (for example, commercial vehicle tracking and communications) the United States is leading international develop- ment. It is highly likely that the parts of traffic control, traveler infor- mation, and vehicle control systems that are readily transferable inter- nationally will be developed in a worldwide context; that is, that international standards will emerge, that the best technologies will gain a worldwide market, and that many such components that come into use in the United States will be of Japanese or European origin. These readily transferable components will include hardware devices and some of the software that defines the technique of operation. However, as the following chapter will describe, implementation of IVHS requires overcoming institutional and economic problems as well as technological ones. The solutions to these problems will be highly site- dependent—they may very well be different in one metropolitan area in the United States from the solutions reached in other U.S. areas, let alone from solutions in European or Japanese cities. U.S. systems probably will differ greatly from those elsewhere with respect to who owns and operates them, the objectives of their operations, methods of finance, the nature of travel and mobility problems to be overcome, the degree of market acceptance of various products and services, and the degree of political and economic feasibility of certain traffic control options such as road pricing. CONCLUSION The ultimate success of IVHS is critically dependent on the selection of an appropriate system architecture, with sufficient flexibility and

System Architecture 53 growth potential to accommodate long-term needs. The system-level design and evaluation work that must be performed in support of the development of this architecture is likely to be the most technically challenging assignment of all. Although it is inherently time-consum- ing, it is essential that this work begin as soon as possible, because it must be accomplished befOre sensible IVHS deployments can begin. It is one of the primary long-lead-time items on the critical path to IVHS development. NOTE As a familiar example, the system architecture for a stereo defines the compo- nents of the system (amplifier, speakers, compact disc player, and so forth) and their functions. The architecture also defines the interfaces between compo- nents (the characteristics of the signals transmitted and the design of con- nectors). The internal operation of the components is not defined by the system architecture, so individual manufacturers can design these to attempt to pro- duce the most attractive products consistent with the architecture. Consumers can mix products of different manufacturers in their systems and even add components that did not exist when the architecture was defined. REFERENCES M. S. Nolan. Fundamentals of Air Traffic Control. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, Calif., 1990. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. Constitution and Bylaws. Washington, D.C., Sept. 1985. D. C. Coll, A. U. H. Sheikh, R. G. Ayers, and J. B. Bailey. The Communica- tions System Architecture of the North American Advanced Train Control System. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 39, No. 3, Aug. 1990. A. U. H. Sheikh, D.C. Coll, R. G. Ayers, andJ. H. Bailey. ATCS: Advanced Train Control System Radio Data Link Design Considerations. IEEE Transac- tions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 39, No. 3, Aug. 1990. A. Hitchcock. Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System Safety: Problems of Requirement Specification and Hazard Analysis. In Transportation Research Record 1318, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991. T. B. Sheridan. Human Factors of Driver-Vehicle Interaction in the IVHS Environment. Report HS 807-837. National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- tration, U.S. Department of Transportation, June 1991.

5 Public and Private Responsibilities Nearly every U.S. organization participating in intelligent vehicle/ highway system (IVHS) planning has concluded that resolving institutional issues is critical to successful development and deploy- ment of the technology and that new forms of cooperation between government and industry are needed. These issues involve the appro- pnate roles of the public and private sectors and inadequacies of exist- ing organizations for participating in IVHS. A private, nonprofit organization, IVHS America, has been founded to provide a mecha- nism for coordinating government and industry efforts. Several dem- onstrations under way are cooperative programs between government and industry. Support for cooperative efforts has been strong because IVHS links the operation of the road system, a publicly provided facility, with applications of automobiles, communications, and con- sumer electronics, sectors in which commerce provides most products and services. There is general interest today in developing new forms of govern- ment-industry relationships in a wide range of activities. In Europe and Japan, government has been active in fostering new high-technology industries. Development of IVHS may be an opportunity to learn whether similar arrangements compatible with U.S. institutions would have benefits here. Also in the United States today, governments have been exploring privatization schemes that seek to improve efficiency by giving a larger role to the private sector in providing services traditionally performed by government. However, declarations of the need for public-private cooperation in IVHS have often lacked definitions of the forms of partnership envi- sioned. They have not acknowledged the range of alternatives for public and private responsibilities in IVHS or described how govern- 54

Public and Private Responsibilities55 ment and industry should evaluate their options to decide what arrangements best match their interests. Efforts at public-private part- nership will be successful only if they are based firmly on the interests and capabilities of each sector. POLICY STATEMENTS Statements on public and private responsibilities by the groups associ- ated with the initiative for IVHS are a useful starting point for examin- ing institutional issues. The Secretary of Transportation's 1990 statement of the National Transportation Policy established principles for determining the fed- eral role in transportation: Federal transportation policy is grounded on a set of fundamental princi- ples for achieving national goals within the basic framework for Federal involvement, relying on the free market to the maximum extent possi- ble. Where the market fails to take into account all public costs of a particular transportation activity or service, such as safety or environ- mental impacts, then Federal policy can be used to correct those imbal- ances, to improve the general public welfare. (1) The 1990 Report to Congress on IVHS by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) applied these principles to IVHS: The DOT recommends a national cooperative effort to foster the devel- opment, demonstration, and use of IVHS technologies. . . . A national cooperative IVHS effort must have the cooperation and financial com- mitment of private firms and state and local governments. . . . The principal federal role will be to coordinate and facilitate research and development, assist in the planning and conduct of demonstrations and other evaluative programs, coordinate the standards and protocols, and to participate in research directly related to our operating and regulatory responsibilities. Federal research will not be for hardware development; that is a private sector responsibility. . . . The federal contribution will depend upon a significant commitment to this effort by the private sector and state and local governments. (2) The 1989 Policy Resolution on IVHS (3) by the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) called on Congress and the administration to establish and support an adequately funded national program to develop and implement IVHS and urged the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to take lead-

56 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES ership with AASHTO in arranging IVHS demonstrations. A 1990 AASHTO resolution (4) endorsed public-private participation in a national IVHS organization to "provide oversight, encourage stan- dardization, advise on request, seek international cooperation, dissem- inate information, and foster professional interaction," governed by a board representing transportation associations, corporations, univer- sities, and government. Mobility 2000, in the proceedings of its March 1990 meeting (5), found that "the federal government, state and local agencies, univer- sities, and private industiy, need to organize a cooperative IVHS national effort." The organizational structure proposed to coordinate the national effort would be a body with advisory and clearinghouse functions, governed by a board with private, state, and federal govern- ment and university representation. The Highway Users Federation and AASHTO have led the forma- tion of IVHS America (6), a membership organization that is to be a focal point for coordination but will not have budget or program authority. ' The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, in 1989 com- ments to DOT, said: Federal leadership in a national IVHS program is essential, not only to bring appropriate groups together and assure sustained federal funding of the effort, but also to: lower technical, administrative or legal bar- riers [and] initiate standards setting when necessary. . . . The federal government's role should be to create cooperative or coordinated proj- ects that may be jointly funded with affected industries and others. (7) Common themes in nearly all statements are calls for the federal government to exercise leadership in order to encourage initial industry commitment; federal funding of some research and development; and joint, coordinated public-private involvement. The statements tend to be general in tone; that is, they do not propose specific assignments of responsibilities for specific IVHS development projects or implemen- tations. They also for the most part refer to roles in the development of IVHS more than in the operation of these systems. ROLES IN OPERATING IVHS Government agencies and private firms with IVHS activities planned or under way face immediate, practical questions about the roles that they

Public and Private Responsibilities 57 choose to assume in the operation of IVHS. The issues that must be confronted are illustrated by the example of traveler information sys- tems. In designing these systems it is necessary to specify whether the infrastructure for collecting traffic information would be provided by government or the private sector and which sector would provide com- munications and analysis of the data. Government could also choose to influence operation of private facilities indirectly, through regulation. Such systems could be operated with any of various divisions of responsibility between government and the private sector. Three options span the range of possibilities: A true partnership: Government and the private sector could share revenue and costs and jointly manage operations to provide an attractive consumer service that could be offered commercially and at the same time satisfy public needs that are not met through the private market. For example, government could build and operate an infra- structure to monitor traffic, possibly initially for a traffic management system that did not depend on providing drivers with in-vehicle infor- mation, and provide these data to a private service that would package them in a usable format and transmit the product as a traveler informa- tion service. A purely private service: The information system could be entirely private, including collection of traffic data by means of probe vehicles or installation of roadside hardware, or could purchase traf- fic data from the government at cost in an arm's-length transaction. Some degree of public control could be exerted over a private IVHS service to protect the public interest; for example, the service could be a franchise, analogous to cable television, granted by the govern- ment in return for consideration of the public welfare in operation. The franchise would be essentially private, because it would be funded by user fees and operated for profit. Other kinds of regulation would also be possible (e.g., safety regulations, antitrust laws, and laws defining liability). Government participation in setting standards might aid efficient private-sector development and at the same time protect public interests, although privately developed industry con- sensus standards are employed in many industries and are an option for IVHS also. A purely government-provided service: The government could provide a traveler information service directly, with no private partici- pation, and even subsidize or require use of in-vehicle reception devices. Operation of a purely public service could be by a public

58 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES agency directly or by a private contractor paid by the government, with the government retaining ultimate control. The examples illustrate that many forms of cooperation are possible. The most complete kind of partnership is an enterprise involving pool- ing of funds, shared governance, and products that both serve the public interest and are profitable to private partners. Other possible arrangements lack some of the elements of a complete partnership: the government can subsidize an enterprise whose benefits are primarily private for the sake of some indirect public benefit such as economic development or technological competitiveness; it can contract with a private firm to deliver a service, with control remaining in government hands; it can exert partial control over a privately provided service through franchise agreements, setting standards, or other regulation; or it can enter into voluntary agreements with private entities to coordi- nate activities toward a common goal, without any formal pooling of resources or governance. Responsibilities adopted by the public and private sectors probably will be different for different IVHS components. Of the IVHS applica- tions likely to be implemented soon, those involving the supply of current infonnation to individual travelers seem to involve the most complex choices of public and private roles. Questions of public and private roles in operating traffic management systems that do not require communicating information to the vehicle are less compli- cated; providing these facilities and services has historically been a government function and probably will continue to be so. Near-term applications of automatic vehicle control (e.g., collision avoidance systems) will be offered commercially by manufacturers as standard or optional equipment on cars and trucks, and therefore deci- sions will have to do mainly with the extent of the government's regulatory role. Government could leave such devices unregulated, require use of certain devices, or set performance standards for optional devices. Government could also take action to define liability for failures of control devices. The more advanced vehicle control functions, leading to highway automation, will almost certainly require close public-private coordination because essential elements must be provided both on vehicles and on the roadway. Although these systems are not likely to advance beyond limited field tests during the coming decade, consideration needs to be given now to public and private roles in their development and operation.

Public and Private Responsibilities 59 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM COORDINATED OPERATION Public-private partnership in providing IVHS services will be justified if systems serve the interests of the public and private sectors jointly and also function better or at lower cost when produced in partnership rather than by either sector alone, or if systems that would not be built at all by either sector independently become feasible and beneficial to both when produced by a partnership. From the public-sector point of view, IVHS holds great promise for yielding public benefits from applications that the private market would not produce on its own. Examples are the transit applications of traveler information services; the full potential of integrated traffic management and information services for congestion control; the facil- ity for more flexible response to contingencies such as a fuel supply disruption or pollution emergency; and the applications for assessing fees and taxes and enforcing regulations such as truck weight limits. Attempts by the government to provide all these facilities through its own systems operated independently of private-sector IVHS installa- tions probably would be inefficient, even assuming that the technical and organizational obstacles to independent government systems were overcome. Independent public and private systems could lead to dupli- cation of resources (e.g., traffic-monitoring capabilities). Many poten- tial IVHS services require integration of public and private functions to be fully effective; for example, a traveler information system should provide the traveler with transit route and time information together with congestion and automobile travel information. Most fundamen- tally, purely private systems would be designed to maximize the bene- fits of private subscribers, which in some circumstances could conflict with the public welfare. For example, a system that directed each subscribing motorist to the quickest route to his or her destination during a congested period would in general not be the pattern of traffic regulation that minimized travel times for all motorists. Some facilities that would be valuable for public purposes might turn out to be so popular as consumer products that the private sector would provide them at little or no cost to the government. Driver information systems, for example, are valuable for public management of roads, but it is reasonable to expect that a large private market might develop for this service. In such cases the government should not miss

60 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES the opportunity to participate in a way that would allow the realization of the public benefits of the system provided largely at private expense. Independent development would be no more ideal from the private- sector point of view. Private systems would probably be less valuable, even for serving purely individual, market-driven demands, if not integrated with publicly operated facilities. Initially, in many metro- politan areas, government resources—in particular, traffic-monitoring information—could add value to a private service. Market develop- ment could be speeded by joint government and private commitments to provide systems in metropolitan areas, building the confidence of both sectors and individuals that the future of IVHS justifies invest- ment. Market feasibility might be enhanced by public commitment to provide components of the infrastructure on a scale sufficient to gener- ate a large market for private products and services. Joint public-private action could also have benefits in system archi- tecture definition and standards. Even for systems provided entirely in the private sector, government involvement in standards might aid efficient development or protect public interests, for example, by avoiding proliferation of incompatible systems and cluttering of avail- able communications channels. A national IVHS program might require standardization so that, for example, a traffic-monitoring sys- tem installed by a city produced data compatible with privately pro- duced components of a traveler information system; a car equipped for the IVHS in one city could be operated with the systems in other cities; in-vehicle devices produced by various manufacturers and with differ- ent functions were compatible; and human factors considerations entered into design at the system level. Absence of such standards might inhibit industry commitment to developing IVHS products. In many commercial systems, consensus architecture and standards evolve without any public involvement, but in an activity integrating public and private functions and with a strong public interest at stake, public participation appears vital. In cases where the benefits of partnership proved after examination not to be substantial, one of the other options described above—a purely public or purely private system—might nonetheless be feasible if either sector expected benefits that were great enough to justify operating a complete system independently. The private sector may choose to operate systems for which no justification for public-sector involvement exists because public benefits are small. Conversely, for some systems public benefits might be significant, but private benefits

Public and Private Responsibilities 61 might not be sufficient to sustain a market. In this latter circumstance the public sector must take the lead in developing and promoting the system; the absence of private-sector interest does not mean that the public benefits must be lost. In any case, government and private industry must evaluate the payoffs of IVHS for them before they can select the best arrangement. INSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLES Institutional obstacles have the potential to block either sector from tak- ing on the responsibility for IVHS that would be in its best interests in the long run. Within the public sector, obstacles include the historical orien- tation of transportation agencies toward new construction rather than efficient operation of existing facilities. The makeup of professional staff may reflect this bias—expertise in communications and electronics may be absent, and positions in traffic operations may be low in the organizational hierarchy. For the same reason, maintenance and opera- tions tend to receive low budget priorities. In metropolitan areas, juris- dictional responsibility for traffic control is fragmented. Reducing congestion requires regulation of traffic on a metropolitan-wide network of streets, yet there is little coordination in operation of signals and other control measures across municipal boundaries or between state agencies responsible for freeways and local governments responsible for surface streets. Finally, government has difficulty competing with the private sector in hiring and retaining skilled labor in high-demand technical areas as well as difficulty responding quickly to changing labor needs. These obstacles have contributed to serious difficulties that the public sector has experienced historically in operating signal control and free- way management systems. The institutional obstacles are cause for genuine concern about the feasibility of any proposed design or organizational arrangement that places heavy reliance on government operation of technically advanced systems, including systems performing functions within the traditional public sphere of responsibility, such as traffic control and congestion reduction. Government agencies must succeed in develop- ing new technical capabilities and new intergovernmental and public- private arrangements that circumvent these obstacles before they can hope to fully capitalize on the potential of IVHS. The private sector faces the problem of organizing to respond to a strategic challenge. Lack of means to form cooperative interim-

62 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES dustry or industry-government links may prevent capitalizing on business opportunities that IVHS offers. The common perception in the United States has been that industry has been a reluctant partner to government in initial efforts to advance an IVHS program. Conceivably, the causes of this reluctance may be in the structures of the U.S. automotive and electronics industries. For example, from the point of view of U.S. automobile makers, who at the present time are facing serious financial constraints, IVHS may be seen as no more than an additional item of optional equipment on a new car that adds relatively little to the manufacturer's profit and thus may not appear to be a high-priority product for development. It should be noted, however, that historically U.S. automobile man- ufacturers have responded aggressively with automotive electronics products that satisfied consumer demands. The U.S. industry would undoubtedly respond if it became clear that consumers strongly preferred cars equipped for IVHS over other models. A variety of other practical obstacles could hinder private firms' participation in cooperative government-private efforts. Such firms must protect competitive interests in proprietary devices and tech- niques, so as products come closer to commercialization, private participation in joint projects becomes more reluctant. Private firms also must avoid antitrust conflicts. They may hesitate to share information voluntarily with government agencies that hold regula- tory authority over them. Of course, there is no private participa- tion without a reasonable prospect for return on investment. In the private as well as the public sector, lack of leadership may be a crucial institutional impediment. Systems might never mate- rialize, not because they were bad public or private investments, but because no one exerted leadership in the initial stages. Indus- try's decisions are complicated by the possibility that the investment potential of IVHS may depend on government actions and because IVHS may indirectly affect such markets as motor vehicles and communications. Thus, industry might hesitate out of a belief that a system was feasible only with some form of parallel government commitment— perhaps to providing components of the infrastructure on a scale that would support a critical level of demand—and government might fail to take initial development steps because of lack of confidence in the private sector's long-term commitment. Industry might also hesitate out of fear that subsequent government actions would preempt the design of a system to which it had committed itself.

Public and Private Responsibilities 63 OVERCOMING THE OBSTACLES Necessary reforms to improve government's ability to manage com- plex traffic management systems might include reassignment of tradi- tional traffic management roles among governmental agencies and creation of new interjurisdictional authorities. A practical program to foster metropolitan coordination would be voluntary and based on incentives (e.g., earmarked funding assistance for projects that involved unified traffic control across jurisdictional boundaries). Arrangements could be modeled after successful existing authorities such as water and sewer districts. Provision for financing any public-sector commitment to IVHS will be an institutional arrangement critical to success. Many such systems are well suited to user financing on a fee-for-service basis. User financing might be essential for stable funding of operation and main- tenance. Lack of financial commitment has been a major difficulty for existing traffic control systems. User financing might also be neces- sary for systems to be accepted as fair, because in some services a restricted class of travelers would receive a large share of the direct benefits. User financing could also guide investment to services the public values most highly. There is no reason why IVHS would need to be operated on a subsidy, although a subsidy could be justified if there were direct public benefits beyond those to users of the services (e.g., from congestion reduction or reduced accident risk for nonusers as well as users). Operation of public traffic control systems by private contractors is an approach that might allow the public-sector to manage these sys- tems more efficiently. In such an arrangement, the contract would specify performance standards for the efficiency of operation of the system and the contractor would operate the system and determine the hardware and software systems, maintenance, and evaluation pro- cedures needed to meet the standards. The public sector has experi- mented widely with privatization in schools, roads, public housing, trash collection, and other services in the past decade, with some success. Components of IVHS, especially operation of traffic manage- ment systems, might seem natural kinds of enterprises for such arrangements. In a typical privatization arrangement, the government seeks to gain some of the benefits of market provision of services by delegating a function to a private, profit-making entity. The function remains under government control. Such arrangements can be ways to obtain access to expertise in marketing and technology that the private

64 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES sector possesses by providing a public service for which a market is not feasible. Issues concerning liability for such contracted services may have to be resolved before this approach can be an important option for IVHS. Finally, legislators and public administrators will need to resist insti- tutional forces that would tend to dilute a national IVHS program. Otherwise, government funds earmarked for IVHS will be vulnerable to diversion to special-interest projects or to conventional highway and traffic projects masquerading as IVHS demonstrations. In considering the potential obstacles to public-sector participation in IVHS, it is important to recognize that IVHS technology itself helps reduce the significance of the organizational difficulties that histori- cally have hindered centrally controlled traffic management strategies, because IVHS information technologies depend on individual decision making to improve system function in preference to the traditional pattern of central control. Traffic management on city streets has relied principally on central control to improve flow. The traffic authority manipulates flow through coordinated timing of signals, one-way street designations, and other tactics. To properly operate a signal system, for example, the government must determine the optimum signal timing pattern, conduct periodic traffic surveys to evaluate the timing pattern and revise it as conditions change, arbitrate among groups who would be affected differently by changes in signals, co- ordinate timing with adjacent jurisdictions, and so forth. Traveler information systems will not do away with the need for centralized controls (in fact, refining these systems is the intent of the advanced traffic management component of IVHS), but they will add a funda- mentally different method for improving traffic flow. Information gathering would remain centralized, but improvements to traffic flow would come through decisions made by individual travelers rather than by the traffic authority. Because the functioning of the system would not depend entirely on government decision making, organizational problems would be ameliorated. Nevertheless, the seriousness of institutional obstacles must not be underestimated. Reforms are needed that provide for integrated metropolitan operation, stable funding for operations and mainte- nance, and means for retaining the required skilled labor. Experi- ence suggests that major public operating responsibility for advanced systems of the types being contemplated today may not be practical in many U.S. metropolitan areas without some degree of implementation of these reforms.

Public and Private Responsibilities 65 Within the private sector, innovation in organization may be essen- tial to capitalize on the business possibilities IVHS presents. Taking advantage of IVHS opportunities may require new organizational arrangements to overcome fragmentation of interests, including mech- anisms for forming broad consortia and new forms of cooperative relationships with government. To avoid missing opportunities, industry will need to work with government to determine the most efficient way to implement IVHS. Substantial industry input beginning in the early stages of planning and development will be essential to maximize the market prospects of IVHS. IVHS America has begun establishing the public-private com- munication needed for this task. The relative importance of public- and private-sector institutional obstacles will depend on the roles each sector ultimately takes on in operating IVHS. As described earlier in this chapter, a range of options is conceivable, from predominantly public to predominantly private operation. Arrangements that entailed a smaller government role and achieved a high level of private-sector participation would avoid some of the public-sector obstacles, and vice versa. Substantial private-sector involvement in IVHS services such as advanced traffic management or traveler information would mean not merely contractor operations of facilities that remained effectively public, but also genuinely private provision of such services, with authority for decisions in private hands and profits derived directly from fees paid by users. For example, in a public-private partnership operating a traveler information system, the government and the pri- vate firm would have to make joint decisions about the design and operation of the system in circumstances where the public and private interests might not always coincide, as when route guidance that mini- mized individual subscribers' travel times did not minimize travel times of all users of the system. Some government involvement even in predominantly private-sec- tor IVHS systems would be inevitable. Governments would need to create mechanisms for agreements with private firms for commercial introduction of IVHS, possibly through franchise or license arrange- ments. Franchises with exclusive provisions might prove essential if industry were to be willing to invest in IVHS infrastructure. To make such private participation feasible and attractive, governments would have to recognize the need to share control over operations in any system that was operated in whole or in part by the private sector as a business.

66 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES If the market for IVHS services develops and government provides the appropriate legal and regulatoiy setting, private provision of IVHS services can be extensive. There would be a risk, however, in an arrangement that placed primary reliance on the private sector without close public-sector involvement in planning and operations—this out- come might fall greatly short of producing the full benefits of inte- grated public-private operation. The public and private sectors both face the "chicken-and-egg" dilemma of starting a new market—numerous potential suppliers of equipment, infrastructure, and services each hesitating to make initial commitments for fear that the other components of the system will not materialize. The leadership necessary to overcome this problem might be provided by a broadly based organization that coordinated simul- taneous public and private commitment of resources and encouraged formation of consortia among the automobile, electronics, and com- munications industries in testing or the early stages of deployment. ROLES IN RESEARCH AND TESTING Decisions by public and private agencies about their roles in IVHS depend on the key factors of public benefits, private market potential, and cost of each IVHS design option. None of these three factors is well established yet, and governments and private firms must know much more about what is at stake for them in IVHS before they can decide what commitments for building and operating systems are in their interests. Measuring these key factors would be among the principal objec- tives of a U.S. national research and development initiative. In addi- tion to measuring technological feasibility, research and tests must be designed to tell the government whether the systems produce public benefits from reduced congestion, improved safety, or other sources, to justify public involvement. Research and testing must also measure market potential to tell the private sector whether its participation is justified. The research and testing must be designed to measure the relative efficiency and costs of alternative specifications of the systems. Beyond providing basic information about costs, benefits, and marketability, operational tests may also help guide organizational decisions in a more direct way: tests should involve comparisons of alternative assignments of public and private responsibilities (e.g.,

Public and Private Responsibilities 67 public versus private provision of particular IVHS services) and alter- native organizational arrangements within government (e.g., multi- jurisdictional traffic management). There is sufficient promise of public benefits from IVHS to justify government commitment of resources to research and tests, and suffi- cient promise of the development of a private market that the private sector should see a need to participate. Because it is not known what division of responsibilities in operations will be optimum, public- private cooperation in IVHS development is essential, regardless of the mix of responsibilities that ultimately is adopted. Private-sector exper- tise—in marketing and organization as much as in technology—is vital in testing the organizational options. Once it has been recognized that it is in the best interests of both sectors to cooperate in IVHS research and development, the critical problem will be designing the organizational structure to coordinate a series of projects in the public and private sectors that are intended to produce a coherent system. To be successful, this organization should have three features. First, its activities must be guided by a long-range vision of the potential of IVHS, such as the one presented in Chapter 2, and by a system architecture development process, as outlined in Chapter 3, ensuring that the program follows an overall experimental design to solve technical problems systematically and evaluate the major technical and organizational options. Second, governance of the organization should be an open process, providing a means for all constituency groups—including the states, local governments, and industry—to review and participate in the direction of national development efforts. The federal role in the pro- gram will be a major one, because the federal government has made a large public commitment of funds. However, the structure cannot con- sist solely of a federally led program with outside groups in purely advisory roles. A danger of this approach would be that the new systems developed would look much like the existing ones, emphasiz- ing public-sector traffic management for reducing congestion through centralized control, and that options involving decentralized control and private-sector involvement would be inadequately investigated. The way to balance the federal role is through commitment of resources by state and local governments and industry to development activities that are closely integrated with those of the national program. Finally, the organizational arrangements should not inhibit innova- tion through an overcentralized development or standards-setting pro- cess. For example, competition among alternative designs for system

68 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES components from different private providers or different regions of the country should not be precluded. These conditions can be met through a national IVHS program to conduct research and field operational testing. Program leadership would be required to provide coordination, to maintain a system perspective, and stimulate action by the govern- ment and private entities that must be involved. DOT and IVHS America can lead in creation of the national pro- gram. Clearly, the organization should build on the existing ones that have taken a leadership role. DOT is committed to conducting a major research and field test program. IVHS America is committed to carry- ing out coordinating activities. The most effective course of action would be for these two organizations to sharply define their responsi- bilities for elements of the national program. Planning for a national program is under way at IVHS America, DOT, and elsewhere. DOT developed plans and requested funding from Congress for a $50 million 1992 program of research and opera- tional tests. Legislation has been proposed that would increase DOT funding for [VHS to even greater levels in later years, and planning for such a larger program is proceeding. In IVHS America, committees are writing a strategic plan for IVHS development in the United States and are organizing an approach to standards development. A project of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, sponsored by the state transportation departments, has proposed a detailed program of research, operational testing, and standards-setting for the period 1991 to 2005. The proposed program would not be federally domi- nated, but rather a cooperative activity of government and the private sector (8). In the public-private organizational structure, universities can play a special role. They are a major technical resource available to both the public and private sectors and are to an extent insulated from biases inherent in either sector's perspective. The university research commu- nity has already played a central role in bringing the U.S. IVHS initiative as far as it has come today—in organizing many of the research programs in existence and in the creation of Mobility 2000— and should continue to have a place in planning and governing bodies. Public-private cooperation that does not entail full partnership in the business sense can be sufficient for development and testing of the short-term components of IVHS technology as it is now envisioned. Partnership in this sense, as planned through such means as IVHS America, will involve agreements to coordinate research and develop- ment, joint public-private sponsorship of individual research and field

Public and Private Responsibilities 69 test projects, and public and private participation in organized proceed- ings to define system architecture and standards. However, to conduct research with long-range goals (e.g., development of automated high- ways), new organizations involving more formal public-private part- nerships might be valuable for stimulating private-sector participation. Such full partnership would involve joint commitment of resources toward mutually beneficial goals and shared governance. The European and Japanese IVHS programs have confronted the question of organizing public-private research and development part- nerships. Their organizational structures (described in Appendix A) may provide some guidance for planning in the United States. The EUREKA program in Europe is a framework for joint public-private funding of precompetitive industrial research and development, structured to promote collaboration within the private sector. The Japa- nese Advanced Mobile Traffic Information and Communication System (AMTICS) program also entails public-private funding for precompetitive research and has features to encourage formation of private-sector consortia, as well as competition among consortia. The organization is an attempt to foster innovation in a decentralized envi- ronment with a degree of overall coordination of system architecture through government sponsorship. Partnerships for long-range projects could be structured as for-profit entities to conduct precompetitive research and derive revenues from sale or licensing of their developments. The scope of a for-profit partnership would be limited to developing products with private mar- ket potential. The federal government could lead in forming such organizations by committing its share of financing and calling on firms to join it. By providing a concurrent government commitment, this structure could increase industry willingness to participate in long- range, high-risk, high-payoff elements of IVHS. REFERENCES Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities. U.S. Department of Transportation, Feb. 1990. Report to Congress on Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems. Report DOT- P-37-90-1. Office of Economics, U.S. Department of Transportation, March 1990. Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS). Policy Resolution PR- 10-89. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1989. Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems Organization (IVHS). Policy Resolution PR-3-90. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., July 23, 1990.

70 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES TI! Communications. Mobility 2000 Presents Intelligent Vehicles and High- way Systems. Proc., IVHS Workshop, 1990 Summary. Dallas, lex., March 19-21, 1990. The intelligent Vehicle Highway System of America: Shaping the Future of Highway Transportation. IVHS America, Washington, D.C., n.d. Comments on Department of Transportation Discussion Paper: intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association of the United States, Detroit, Mich., n.d. Castle Rock Consultants. Outlining a National IVHS Program. National Coop- erative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, May 1991.

Appendix A European and Japanese 1VHS Development Programs This appendix describes current national and international intel-ligent vehicle/highway system (IVHS) development programs in Europe and Japan and the conceptions of IVHS underlying them for comparison with current U.S. activities. Several recent reports and conference proceedings contain additional information about the technologies under development and the organization of the programs (1-8). EUROPE In Europe, IVHS is known as road transport informatics. One European IVHS effort, Program for European Traffic with Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety (PROMETHEUS), has worked out a research agenda that is noteworthy for its emphasis on vehicle on-board functions. Begun in 1986 and running until 1994, PROMETHEUS is managed by automobile manufacturers from five European countries cooperating within the pan-European EUREKA framework, an arrangement among the government research agencies of 19 European nations to promote collaborative multinational indus- trial research. PROMETHEUS combines the efforts of researchers in the automobile and electronics industries, as well as in university and national research laboratories, in a program to develop IVHS technol- ogy and marketable systems as early as 1993. Research is organized 71

72 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES around a group of demonstration projects called Common European Demonstrators that are implemented each year. These are vehicles equipped to demonstrate technical feasibility of such functions as tracking the position of nearby vehicles, controlling headway, and navigating autonomously. Ultimately these technologies are intended to be used by program participants in commercial applications. The PROMETHEUS concept of IVHS consists of an electronic copilot serving as a link between the human driver and four functional systems (9). The electronic copilot is the on-board information and assis- tance system; it receives information on the driving environment from on-board sensors, from other vehicles, and from the roadside infrastruc- ture. The copilot processes data and communicates with the driver by way of a human-machine interface incorporating visual, acoustical, and tactile feedbacks. Thus, although the driver maintains final control of the vehicle, the electronic copilot operates in parallel to monitor and evalu- ate the vehicle status and to assist and inform the driver. The four functional systems serving this electronic copilot are the safety information system, the active support system, the cooperative driving system, and the traffic and fleet management system. The safety information system allows the electronic copilot to monitor the status of the vehicle and the driving environment and to inform the driver of any hazards. It serves as the eyes and ears of the vehicle, sensing and informing the driver about such hazards as obstacles in the driver's blind spot or slippery road surfaces. This system includes functions for obstacle detection, vision enhancement, and monitoring of the road, the driver, and the vehicle. The active support system allows the electronic copilot to intervene actively in emergency situations where the driver risks losing control of the vehicle. Antilock brake systems are a current example of this technology. The active support system would perform safety margin determination, critical course determination, dynamic vehicle control, and supportive driver information. The cooperative driving system is based on vehicle-to-vehicle com- munication that allows vehicles to notify others of their actions or to emit warnings. For example, a vehicle beginning a turning maneuver could communicate its action to the electronic copilots of nearby vehi- cles or a vehicle stopped in a fog bank could emit a warning message to other approaching vehicles. The cooperative driving system would perform five functions: intelligent maneuvering and control, intel- ligent cruise control, intelligent intersection control, medium-range preinformation, and emergency warning.

Appendix A73 Finally, the traffic and fleet management system uses vehicle-to- infrastructure communications to provide capabilities such as naviga- tion and parking location. The vehicle and the roadside infrastructure would be connected by a bidirectional data link that would allow exchange of information with an installed IVHS data network that had traffic control capabilities. This system includes such functions as route guidance, parking management, network and flow control, demand management, interface to public transport, and commercial fleet management. Unlike the previous three systems, this system depends on an installed infrastructure. Many of its functions would be implemented in that infrastructure ra'ther than on the vehicle. The PROMETHEUS definition differs from that of Mobility 2000 more in emphasis than in content. PROMETHEUS emphasizes the vehicle on-board functions, whereas Mobility 2000's orientation places greater emphasis on systems exterior to the vehicle. (However, the European DRIVE program described below addresses infrastruc- ture in greater detail.) One significant difference between the U.S. and European definitions is the PROMETHEUS cooperative driving sys- tem, which would allow vehicles to communicate directly with each other without using any external roadside infrastructure. The European definition allows for some systemwide capabilities independent of roadside infrastructure. The European Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehicle Safety (DRIVE) program, unlike PROMETHEUS, which emphasizes on- board vehicle systems, takes a more transportation-systems-oriented approach to the traffic infrastructure. DRIVE's purpose is to define functions for an IVHS infrastructure together with a set of European- wide IVHS standards for its realization. Together these functions and standards will define what DRIVE calls an Integrated Road Transport Environment, which will be the plan for a total IVHS transport system (10). Launched by the European Commission in 1988 and running until 1992, DRIVE is funded at 120 million ECUs ($170 million), half of which comes from the European Commission and half of which comes from participating research institutions themselves. In 1992 a follow-on project is expected to be launched. DRIVE's research program is organized in four groups: General Approach and Modeling; Behavioral Aspects and Traffic Safety; Traf- fic Control; and Services, Telecommunications, and Databases. Proj- ects in the first group would develop methods to evaluate the impact of IVHS on the overall traffic system. The next two groups of research projects address general functional issues of driver behavior, safety

74 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES issues, and traffic control. The last of the groups of research projects examines low-level components such as communication architectures, digital maps, and freight management strategies. Although PROMETHEUS and DRIVE arose from separate initia- tives, there is substantial overlap between them, both in terms of the research being conducted and the participating organizations. Their respective approaches to IVHS are highly complementary, with one emphasizing the vehicle and the other the roadside. The most prominent European demonstration projects have been the Leit-und Informations System Berlin (LISB) demonstration (11) and the similar Autoguide demonstration in London. These are combined driver infonnation and traffic management systems. Similar field tests of driver information systems, as well as full implementations of advanced traffic management systems, are planned or under way else- where in Europe. JAPAN The Japanese, unlike the Americans and the Europeans, have approached IVHS largely on a project basis and have not emphasized a conceptual definition of the technology. The two major Japanese IVHS research programs have been Road/Automobile Communication System (RACS) and Advanced Mobile Traffic Information and Com- munication System (AMTICS). RACS was initiated in 1984 by the Japanese Ministry of Construction, the ministry responsible for the nation's roads. AMTICS was begun in 1987 and involves the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and the National Police Agency, the latter being responsible for traffic operations in Japan. Both RACS and AMTICS combine the efforts of government and industry and both have as their goal the development of traffic management and traveler information systems (12). These systems consist of navigation units on board the vehicles, communications capabilities with roadside infrastructure, and a control center to manage traffic flows. Technical research under RACS has focused on on-board navigation systems, roadside beacons with low data transmission rates for simple traffic-related information services, and semimicrowave beacons for high-speed data transmission bursts for individual and business communications such as facsimile trans- mission. Field tests have been conducted. AMTICS uses an on-board navigation system and digital cellular radio for traffic management,

Appendix A 75 but there is only one-way communication to vehicles and no high- speed data transmission. Systems were first tested in 1988, and a major field test was performed in 1990. Efforts are under way to combine RACS and AMTICS into a single project. Plans call for the National Police Agency to operate traffic control centers and analyze traffic and for the Ministry of Construction to operate a system of roadside communication beacons for collecting traffic data. The two government agencies would operate parallel sys- tems for supplying data to vehicles, the Ministry of Construction by its roadside beacons and the National Police Agency by some wide-area broadcast system such as FM sideband. In keeping with the Japanese orientation toward early commercializ- ation and exploitation of available technology, autonomous navigation systems are now offered as new-car options in Japan and have proved popular (13). Research on vehicle automation is also being conducted in Japan. In the Personal Vehicle Systems Project, Nissan and Fujitsu are develop- ing an automatic vehicle capable of driving 30 km/hr on a special test track (14). Research on obstacle recognition and avoidance is also part of that project. A separate project at Mazda combines computer vision, artificial intelligence, and automation technologies in an effort to develop an autonomous highway vehicle. A project with a more short- term goal is developing infrastructure-oriented technologies for collision avoidance, adaptive cruise control, and lane guidance for installation on a new Tokyo-Kobe expressway (15). The Japanese have recently announced a new program to develop vehicle control technology that is potentially highly significant because of its emphasis on basic research for long-term objectives. The Super Smart Vehicle System project (15) is the preliminary phase of a planned national research and development project targeting technolo- gies that would find general application 20 to 30 years from today. The project would develop vehicle-to-vehicle and road-vehicle communi- cations for accident avoidance and other vehicle control functions. Participants are private electronics and automobile firms, universities, and the government. An examination of one of these development programs illustrates the basic conception of IVHS in Japan. The RACS program empha- sizes semiautonomous vehicle navigation and traffic management (16). The IVHS system it is developing would be a traveler informa- tion system with three categories of functions: navigation, information services, and individual communication. The navigation system would

76 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES perform dead-reckoning navigation using an on-board microcomputer that would monitor the vehicle's movements and track them on a digital road map stored in memory. The information services functions would use roadside beacons for two-way communications between vehicles and a traffic system center. This traffic system center would perform areawide traffic monitoring, as well as provide vehicles with such information services as dynamic route guidance based on current traffic conditions, travel time estimation, and parking availability information. The third feature of RACS is individual communication to allow data-intensive communications by car occupants with, for example, their offices. Up to now, the Japanese definition of IVHS has not been very elaborate conceptually, treating IVHS more as an application of exist- ing technology than as the development of wholly new technology. The Japanese apparently have not settled on an overall vision of what IVHS would look like, tending instead to carry out field tests of spe- cific technologies for near-term implementation. In addition, major new Japanese projects are oriented toward long-term research and toward vehicle control functions as well as information. REFERENCES J. M. Sparmann. LISB Route Guidance and Information System: First Results of the Field Trial. In IEEE Vehicle Navigation and Information Sys- tems Conference (VNIS '89) (D. H. M. Reekie, E. R. Case, and J. Tsai, eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, New York, 1989, pp. 463-466. I. Catling and P. Belcher. Autoguide—Route Guidance in the United King- dom. In IEEE Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference (VNIS '89) (D. H. M. Reekie, E. R. Case, and J. Tsai, eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, New York, 1989, pp. 467-473. M. Tsuzawa and H. Okamoto. Advanced Mobile Traffic Information and Communication System—AMTICS. In IEEE Vehicle Navigation and Infor- mation Systems Conference (VNIS '89) (D. H. M. Reekie, E. R. Case, and J. Tsai, eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1989, pp. 475-483. K. Takada, Y. Tanaka, A. Igarashi, and D. Fujita. Road/Automobile Com- munication System (RACS) and Its Economic Effects. In IEEE Vehicle Navi- gation and Information Systems Conference (VNIS '89) (D. H. M. Reekie, E. R. Case, and J. Tsai, eds.), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engi- neers, New York, 1989, pp. A-15-A-21. J. A. Parviainen. An Overview of Available and Developing Highway Vehicle Electronics Technologies. Transportation Technology and Energy Branch, Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, 1990.

AppendLcA 77 R. Von Tomkewitsch. Dynamic Route Guidance and Interactive Transport Management with ALl-SCOUT. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technol- ogy, Vol. 40, No. 1, Feb., 1991, pp. 45-50. I. Catling and B. McQueen. Road Transport Information in Europe—Major Programs and Demonstrations. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, Feb., 1991, pp. 132-140. H. Kawashima. Two Major Programs and Demonstrations in Japan. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, Feb; 1991, pp. 141- 146. D. Reister. PROMETHEUS and DRIVE. Presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Land Vehicle Navigation, Muenster, Germany, July 4-7, 1989. F Panik. General Introduction. Presented at PROMETHEUS Conference, Brussels, Nov. 1987. I. Catling and B. McQueen. Road Transport Informatics in Europe—Major Programs and Demonstrations. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 40, No. 1, Feb. 1991. M. Koshi. An Overview of Motor Vehicle Navigation/Route Guidance Developments in Japan. Presented at Roads and Traffic 2000, Berlin, Sept. 1988. Inside IVHS, Jan. 7, 1991. S. Aono et al. Technology for the Intelligent Car of the Future. Presented at the JSK International Symposium, Tokyo, Nov. 1989. Japan Continues to Set Pace of IVHS Development. Inside IVHS, Feb. 14, 1991. K. Takada and T. Wada. On the Progress of the Road/Automobile Communi- cation System. Presented at the 1st International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technologies in Transportation Engineering, San Diego, Calif., Feb. 1989.

Appendix B History of Development of Advanced Traffic Management, Traveler Information, and Vehicle Control Technologies Despite the current high degree of interest in IVHS, the ideas behind the technology are not new. Computerized traffic control systems have been implemented in many cities throughout the world during the past three decades, and significant research projects on route guidance and vehicle automation have also been conducted dur- ing this period. In order to put today's activities in perspective, it is useful to review their historical roots. There is a lack of thorough, critical reviews of experience with technologies related to IVHS. Such evaluations would be valuable for planning future IVHS activities. The United States General Account- ing Office (1) has reviewed recent studies bearing on IVHS effective- ness. Several other reviews (2-7) have examined experience with traf- fic management systems for the purpose of estimating potential benefits or obstacles to implementation of advanced systems. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT In the field of traffic management systems, freeway systems already have a long history. Detroit's Lodge Freeway surveillance and control 78

Appen&x B79 system entered planning in 1955 and was in operation in 1960. This system demonstrated during the 1960s all the major freeway control components, including surveillance by television and sensors, traffic- responsive ramp metering, variable signs on the freeway and on con- necting roads, and incident management (8). A system in Chicago, the oldest continuously functioning system in the United States, began operation in 1961 and began ramp metering in 1963 (7). Most of the other large systems in the United States were instituted in the 1970s or earlier. In the United States in 1990, eight major freeway management systems were in operation. Each of these had most of the major com- ponents of the advanced traffic management technology: automatic surveillance, ramp metering, driver information through broadcast or variable signs, incident management, and a control center. Most of the systems comprised only single segments or a few segments of the areawide freeway network, although Los Angeles, Chicago, Min- neapolis, and Seattle are now approaching areawide capabilities. Their total extent is about 1,000 mi out of 18,000 urban freeway miles in the United States. Many cities have more limited systems; for example, 19 U.S. cities had freeway ramp meters in 1989 (9). As for urban traffic control systems, the essential elements of the advanced U.S. systems were first demonstrated in the 1960s. More recently, in 1984, the city of Los Angeles installed a geographically limited but technically sophisticated system capable of reacting in approximately real time to changing traffic conditions (10). A repre- sentative advanced large system is the one recently completed in Washington, D.C., in which 1,200 intersections are centrally con- trolled. No recent inventory of U.S. metropolitan signal control sys- tems exists. Advanced traffic management technology has also been applied overseas. The best known of these is the Split, Cycle, and Offset Optimization Technique (SCOOT), a system originating in the United Kingdom that continuously senses traffic conditions and adjusts signal timing to optimize traffic flow. It is considered the international stan- dard outside the United States (11). Like most U.S. systems, SCOOT dates from the 1970s. Japan also has a significant traffic management infrastructure installed and functioning. Between 1970 and 1985 the National Police Agency installed 74 traffic control centers, with at least one in each police prefecture and more in the larger cities. The Tokyo center, the biggest in Japan, covers an area of 190 mi2 and has 6,000 intersections under central control. That system also includes

80 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES 6,000 vehicle detectors, 94 TV monitor cameras, and some 100 van- able signs throughout the city (12). As this history suggests, advanced traffic management technology already exists and components have been widely applied, although integration of freeway and nonfreeway applications has been rare. Unlike most other IVHS technologies, therefore, the issue with traffic management is not only whether to develop new technology, but also whether to invest in the application of the existing technology and how public authorities can manage the applications of state-of-the-art tech- nology efficiently. To date, such investment has not been widespread in the United States and most U.S. cities are without computer-assisted freeway management or signal control systems. TRAVELER INFORMATION Traveler information systems also have a long history. Perhaps the earliest vision of such a system was the General Motors exhibit at the 1939 World's Fair, which showed a traffic control center communicat- ing with drivers over a radio beacon. Decades later, more practical research was conducted in this area. In the late 1960s, U.S. researchers worked on the Electronic Route Guidance System. Its concept, strikingly similar to the Advanced Traveler Information System pro- posed by Mobility 2000, included static and dynamic route guidance, vehicle-roadside communication, and head-up display (13-15). Again, efforts overseas have nearly as long a history. In Japan the Comprehensive Automobile Control System research program was conducted from 1973 to 1978. It was similar to the Electronic Route Guidance System, using vehicle-roadside communications to provide drivers with route guidance. Similar research was also conducted with the German Autofahrer-Leit-und Informationssystem (AL!), or driver guidance and information system, during this period. VEHICLE CONTROL AND TRANSIT APPLICATIONS Research on automatic vehicle control also goes back quite far. During the late 1950s General Motors and RCA demonstrated automatic steer- ing and longitudinal spacing of automobiles. From 1965 to 1980 Ohio State University conducted a research program on vehicle automation. However, research in this field declined in the late 1970s, and rela-

Appendix B 81 tively little new research literature on roadway automation appeared in the 1980s (16). It should be noted, however, that much research in this field is conducted by private firms that are often cautious about pub- licizing proprietary research results. Beginning in the 1970s the Urban Mass Transportation Administra- tion (UMTA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation sponsored research in transit applications of IVHS technologies, in particular automated guideway vehicles and automated transit vehicle monitor- ing. These included the development and installation of a Personal Rapid Transit System in Morgantown, West Virginia, a system that uses exclusive guideways for station-to-station travel; sponsoring development work for a Dual Mode Transit System, a transit mode that uses buses that are operated automatically on exclusive guideways and manually on public streets and highways; and sponsoring development work for an Advanced Group Rapid Transit system, vehicles that oper- ate on exclusive guideways at headways of around 3 sec. In addition, UMTA conducted an operational demonstration of an automated vehi- cle monitoring system in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Thus, current activities in IVHS are the latest in a series of research and implementation activities that have sought to apply electronics technologies to road transport. The United States, Europe, and Japan have all conducted research programs in route guidance systems, and they all operate some traffic control systems now. REFERENCES General Accounting Office. Smart Highways: An Assessment of Their Poten- tial To Improve Travel. GAO/PEMD-91-18. Washington, D.C., 1991. p F. Evarall. Urban Freeway Surveillance and Control; The State of the Art. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov. 1972. Guidelines for Successful Traffic Control Systems, Volume II: Final Report. Report FHWA-RD-88-014. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Aug. 1988. Texas Transportation Institute. Proceedings of a National Workshop on IVHS. College Station, Tex. 1990. 5 P. Davies, C. Hill, N. E. Emmott, and J. Siviter. Assessment of Advanced Technologies for Transit and Rideshare Applications. Final Report, NCTRP Project 60-1A. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991. 6. Castle Rock Consultants. Assessment of Advanced Technologies for Relieving Urban Traffic Congestion. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (forthcoming). 7 • p F. Everall. Urban Freeway Surveillance and Control: The State of the Art. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov. 1972.

82 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLoGIEs A. Taragin. A Summary of the John C. Lodge Freeway Research. NCHRP Project 20-3C. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., July 1976. Ramp Metering Status in North America. Office of Traffic Operations, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1989. E. Rowe. The Los Angeles Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System. Los Angeles Department of Transportation, March 1990. P. B. Hunt, D. I. Robertson, and R.O. Bretherton. The SCOOT On-Line Traffic Signal Optimization Technique. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 1982. Tokyo Traffic Control and Surveillance System. Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, n.d. D. A. Rosen, F. J. Mammano, and R. Favout. An Electronic Route-Guidance System for Highway Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Special Issue on Highway Electronics Systems, Feb. 1970. D. Brand, F. J. Carroll, R. Favout, and J. Zvara. Real Time Information and Control Systems for Urban Transportation. In AIAA Guidance, Control, and Flight Mechanics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro- nautics, New York, 1971. D. Brand. Urban Traffic Control: How Far Can We Take It? Traffic Engineer- ing, Aug. 1972. S. Shladover. Roadway Automation Technology—Research Needs. In Trans- portation Research Record 1283, TRB, National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C., 1990, pp. 158-167.

Study Committee Biographical Information Daniel Roos, Chairman, is Director of the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Japan Steel Industry Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Director of the Interna- tional Motor Vehicle Program. He received a B .S., M.S., and Ph.D. in civil engineering from MIT and, after receipt of his doctorate, became Assistant Professor and Director of the Civil Engineering Sys- tems Laboratory there. In 1976, he was made Professor, and from 1978 to 1985 was Director of the Center for Transportation Studies. He is a past chairman of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Com- mittee on Urban Transport Service Innovations and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, from which he received the Frank M. Masters Transportation Engineering Award in 1989. R. Wade Allen is Principal Research Engineer for Systems Technol- ogy, Inc. He received a bachelor's and a master's degree in engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles. He studies control of ground and aerospace vehicles, including all aspects of driver and pilot behavior, and operator-vehicle interaction. He has carried out research for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Air Force and the Navy. He is a Fellow of the Human Factors Society, was awarded the HFS A.R. Lauer Traffic Safety Award for 1989, and is past Director Editor of the Society. He is also a Fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering; a member of the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Society for Information Display, and the Society for Computer Simulation; and Secretary of the TRB Committee on RN

84 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Simulation and Measurement of Vehicle and Operator Performance. Mr. Allen is a registered professional engineer, Control Systems Branch, in the state of California. Alan A. Altshuler is the Ruth and Frank Stanton Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at Harvard University, with a joint appointment in the Kennedy School of Government and the Graduate School of Design. He is also director of the Kennedy School's A. Alfred Taub- man Center for State and Local Government. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago. Before joining the Harvard faculty in 1988, he taught at Cornell University (1962-1966), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966-1971 and 1975-1983), and New York University (1983-1988), where he served as dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration. In addition, he served as Massachusetts Secretaty of Transportation and Construc- tion from 1971 to 1975. Laurie L. Baker is Vice President Human Resources of PACCAR Inc. in Bellevue, Washington. She received a B.S. in aerospace engi- neering and an M.S. in aerospace structures from Georgia Institute of Technology. She was employed as Structures Engineer for Boeing, Inc., from 1968 to 1976, when she joined Kenworth Truck Company, a division of PACCAR. She was transferred to the newly acquired Foden Trucks subsidiary in the United Kingdom as Chief Engineer. In 1984, she returned to Kenworth Truck Company and became Plant Manager in 1985. From 1988 to 1990 she was General Manager of the PACCAR Technical Center. Ms. Baker is a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, Institute of Road Transport Engineers (U.K.), Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and Society of Women Engineers. Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates in Boston, Massachusetts. His bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineer- ing are from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has served as Undersecretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Associate Professor of City Planning at Harvard University, and Senior Lecturer in the MIT Civil Engineering Department. Mr. Brand is Chairman of TRB's Task Force on Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies. He is also a member of the Coordinating Council of IVHS America, the steering committees of three of IVHS America's technical committees (Benefits and Evaluation, ATIS, and APTS), and

Study Committee Biographical Information 85 the Institute of Transportation Engineers IVHS Committee. Mr. Brand is former chairman of TRB 's Committee on New Transportation Sys- tems and Technology and Committee on Passenger Travel Demand Forecasting, editor of Urban Transportation Innovation, and coeditor of Urban Travel Demand Forecasting. Over the last 20 years he has published many articles on IVHS based on his consulting work and research. A. Ray Chamberlain is the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation. He holds a bachelor's degree in engi- neering from Michigan State University, a master's degree in engineer- ing from Washington State University, and a Ph.D. in engineering from Colorado State University. Dr. Chamberlain was President of Colorado State University, where he held a number of positions, including Dean of Engineering, Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Professor of Civil Engineering. Before his appointment to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Dr. Chamberlain held several executive positions in the private sector: Chief Executive Officer of Chemagnetics, Inc.; Executive Vice President of Simons, Li and Associates; and President of Mitchell and Company, Inc. A registered professional engineer, Dr. Chamberlain is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He also serves on the Executive Commit- tee of the Strategic Highway Research Program of the National Acad- emy of Sciences. He is a member of the TRB Executive Committee and Vice Chairman of TRB's Highway Research Review Committee. He is currently serving as Vice President of AASHTO. Lawrence Dahms is Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transpor- tation Commission in Oakland, California. He received his B.S.C.E. from San Diego State University and his M.B.A. from Sacramento State University. He served as Construction Management Engineer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He next became, in succession, Director of Planning and Marketing, Assistant General Manager- Operations, and Acting General Manager for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Then followed consulting assign- ments with Arthur D. Little, Inc. and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and service as Deputy Director of the California Depart- ment of Transportation. He assumed his current position in 1977. He is a member of the TRB Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and POlicy Processes and the Committee on Taxation, Finance, and Pric-

86 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES ing; past chairman of the TRB Executive Committee; and a member of the Board of Directors of the Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc. John J. Fearnsides is Senior Vice President and General Manager at the MITRE Corporation and Director of its Center for Advanced Avia- tion System Development. Dr. Fearnsides directs MITRE's aviation and air traffic control work in support of the Federal Aviation Admin- istration (FAA) and foreign governments. He is also responsible for MITRE's weather-related research in support of the FAA, the National Weather Service, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Before joining MITRE, Dr. Fearnsides for 7 years held various positions at the U. S. Department of Transportation, including Deputy Under Secretary, Chief Scientist, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, and Acting Administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration. From 1968 to 1972 he served on the technical staffs of Bell Telephone Laboratories and Bellcomm, Inc. He received his B.S. and M.S. from Drexel University and Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in electrical engineering. From 1962 to 1968 he served on the faculty of the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Maryland and Drexel University. He has served on several National Research Council panels on transportation and as Adjunct Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie- Mellon University. MaryAnn N. Keller is Managing Director and automotive analyst with the brokerage firm of Furman Selz Incorporated. Her bachelor's degree was earned at Rutgers University and her M.B.A. at the Ber- nard M. Baruch School, City University of New York. Before joining Furman Selz, Ms. Keller was a portfolio manager with the New York- based investment advisory firm of Vilas-Fischer Associates, Inc., a First Vice President at Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins, and a Vice President at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Inc. She has served on advisory panels of the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress in areas of automotive technology and international competi- tion within the automobile industry. Ms. Keller writes monthly on various automotive topics for Motor Trend, Automotive Industries, and the Japan Economic Journal and is a contributor to World Monitor magazine. Her book on General Motors in the 1980s, Rude Awaken- ing, was published in 1989. Ms. Keller is President and a member of the Board of Directors of the Society of Automotive Analysts.

Study Committee Biographical Information 87 Craig Marks is Vice President, Technology and Productivity, for Allied-Signal, Inc., Automotive Sector. He received a B .S., M . S., and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the California Institute of Tech- nology. He is responsible for all technology functions in the Automo- tive Sector at Allied-Signal, and specific activities related to quality, reliability, productivity, health, safety and environment, public affairs, and advanced engineering development report to him. Before joining Allied-Signal, he served the TRW Automotive Sector as vice president of engineering and technology and vice president of technology for their occupant restraint systems organization. For 27 years, ending in 1983 when he joined TRW, Dr. Marks served in various capacities with the General Motors Corporation, most recently as executive director of the environmental activities staff. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the Industrial Research Institute, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. R. Robert Mayes is Director General, Surface Policy and Programs, for Transport Canada. He received a B.Sc. in civil engineering from University College of London University, and an M.A.Sc. in manage- ment sciences from the University of Waterloo. He worked in a research and coordination capacity at the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada and as Associate Executive Director and Direc- tor of Research of the Canadian Trucking Association. At Transport Canada, he was Director General, Energy Planning, from 1981 to 1983 and Director General, Research and Development, from 1983 to 1990, responsible for the management of the department's technologi- cal R&D program. Since 1988 Mr. Mayes has been Adjunct Research Professor in the Engineering Department at Carleton University. D. Bruce Merrifield holds the Walter Bladstrom Chair for Professor of Management at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business. He is also a consultant for the American Electronics Asso- ciation and has been active with the Greater Minnesota Corporation. He is a graduate of Princeton University and holds master's and doc- toral degrees in physical organic chemistry from the University of Chicago. During the Reagan Administration he was Assistant Secre- tary of Commerce for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation. He is a member of the Directors of Industrial Research and Sigma Xi Honor- ary Society, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a fellow of the Institute of Chemists.

88 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES James Pitz is a civil engineer with Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff. His B.S.C.E. in structural engineering is from Marquette University, and he received an M.S. in structural design from the University of Illinois. He was employed in various positions in the Illinois Department of Transportation, including Director of Planning and Programming, Bureau Chief and District Bureau Chief of Pro- gramming, Unit Chief of Program Development and Management Studies, and head of the Program Development Section. From 1983 to 1990 he was Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation. He received the State of Illinois Resident Engineer Award in 1970 and the Governor's Award from the Michigan Society of Professional Engineers in 1986. He is a member of the Illinois Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers and of the Michigan Society of Professional Engineers. Richard A. Place is recently retired as Director of Technical Planning for the engineering and manufacturing staff at the Ford Motor Com- pany. He has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an M.A. in engineering administration from George Washington University. He has held numerous positions with the Ford Motor Company, most recently Executive Engineer of the Vehicle Safety Office and Executive Director of Mazda Opera- tions. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for Excel Industries. Jerome G. Rivard is President of Global Technology and Business Development, a consulting company that advises businesses and uni- versities on the global business approach, especially in automotive electronics. After receiving a B. S. M . E. from the University of Wis- consin, he was with General Motors, the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency's Redstone Arsenal, and Vicker, Inc. He was then employed in various divisions of the Bendix Company—the Vehicle Controls Department, Automotive Advanced Concepts Program, Electronic Fuel Injection Division, and the Engineering Group, involved in design and development of electronic components and systems for automobiles. He was with the Ford Motor Company from 1976 to 1986, Chief Engineer of the Electrical and Electronics Division involved with worldwide design and development of automotive elec- trical and electronic systems and components. Before forming Global Technology and Business Development, he was with Allied-Signal, Inc., responsible for the Bendix Electronics Group. He is a fellow

Study Committee Biographical Information 89 member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, a fellow member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Donald L. Runkle is Vice President of the General Motors Corpora- tion in charge of the Advanced Engineering Staff. He has a bachelor's and a master's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan and an M.S. in management science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At General Motors, he is in charge of the Advanced Product Engineering, Advanced Manufacturing Engineer- ing, and Artificial Intelligence activities. Mr. Runkle's career at Gen- eral Motors began with a position as analytical engineer at Chevrolet Engineering. He then progressed to Senior Design Engineer. In 1973 he moved to Chevrolet Product Planning, where he held several posi- tions, culminating in Director of Passenger Car Planning. In 1980 he returned to Chevrolet Engineering in charge of body for the full-size Chevrolet and Camaro. In 1982 he became Chief Design Engineer for the 1982 Camaro as well as the Caprice, Chevette, and the interna- tional joint venture cars. He next moved to the Buick Motor Division as Assistant Chief Engineer in charge of powertrain, advanced design, and special products. Before becoming Vice President, he returned to Chevrolet as Chief Engineer in 1984 and then Director at Advanced Vehicle Engineering. Steven E. Shiadover is Technical Director of the Program on Advanced Technology for the Highway (PATH) at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. His S.B., S. M., and Sc. D. in mechanical engineering were all received from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1978 to 1989 he was with Systems Control, Inc., and then Systems Control Technology, Inc., in Palo Alto, California, where he was Director for Computer- Aided Engineering Systems, and Manager, Transportation Systems Engineering. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers. Dr. Shiadover has been a member of the TRB Committee on New Transportation Systems and Technology and is now the chairman of the IVHS America Advanced Vehicle Control Systems Committee. Philip J. Tarnoff is President of Farradyne Systems, Inc. His B.S. in electrical engineering is from Carnegie Institute of Technology and his M.S., also in electrical engineering, from New York University. Mr.

90 ADVANCED VEHICLE AND HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES Tarnoff was with the Federal Highway Administration from 1971 to 1975 and with Planning Research Corporation from 1975 to 1984. His responsibilities at Farradyne have included principal in charge of FHWA's Pathfinder project; participant in the application of wide-area vehicle detection systems to the automated identification of incidents; project manager for FHWA's OPAC project; project manager for the implementation of a 1,200-intersection traffic signal system in Wash- ington, D.C.; project manager for the design of the Dallas, Texas, traffic control system; and analyst of the Overland Park traffic signal system upgrading, which included the use of the NETSIM simulation. He is Chairman of TRB 's Communications Committee and a member of the Traffic Signal Systems Committee.

The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and, the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's purpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, to disseminate the information produced by the research, and to encourage the application of appropriate research findings. The Board's program is carried Out by more than 300 committees, task forces, and panels composed of more than 3,700 administrators, engineers, social scientists, attorneys, educators; and others concerned with transportation; they serve without compensation. The program is supported by state transportation and highway departments, the modal 'adminis- trations of the U.S. Department of Transportatiort, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin- guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autono- mous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Acad- emy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy'of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Stuart Bondurant is acting president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purpose of further- ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

21O asI €onstitutionAvenue N. W. hing,D4Q 8 0 R FIT ORG. STAGE IDTON, D.C NO. 8970 - 000015006 - ROBERT N SMITH .. RESEARCH & - ASSTN:ATLSStJpVR : IDAHO "DEPT OF..TRANSPOR.T.,ATION 0 P 0 BOX 7129 - .BIS:E