Transportation

degree of Centralization in ITs decision-making authority
The degree of centralization in ITS decision-making authority may be the most important policy factor for ITS success. The importance of centralized ITS decision-making is pertinent from two perspectives: The extent to which transportation—and hence in- telligent transportation systems—policymaking and implementation authority resides at a national level or at the state/regional level, and the extent to which ITS decision-making authority resides with a single (or fi- nal) agency or authority.

The degree of centralization is one of the most im- portant explanatory factors because, as discussed pre- viously, many intelligent transportation systems have chicken-or-egg characteristics, face very difficult sys- tem coordination problems, and often require scale and need to be implemented at a nationwide level. Lo- cal or state actors may not have the same willingness to innovate or invest in ITS, and even if they do they are unlikely to have sufficient funding or the ability to reach sufficient economies of scale. For all these rea- sons, national level vision, leadership, and coordina- tion are essential for ITS success.

The countries leading the world in developing and deploying intelligent transportation systems feature strong government leadership in crafting a clearly- articulated ITS vision, setting a national agenda, con- vening relevant stakeholders, and spearheading imple- mentation. Japan, Singapore, and South Korea have the advantage of being unitary polities that permit strong policy setting and coordination at the national level.
ITS is the 21st century, digital equivalent of the Interstate Highway System and needs the same level of federal government leadership that the development of the Interstate Highway System enjoyed.


For example, in Japan, transportation policy is set at a national level by the Ministry of Land, Infrastruc- ture, Transport and Tourism, supported by the Na- tional Police Agency and the Ministry of Internal Af- fairs and Communication.¹⁷⁰ In Singapore, all modes of transportation administration, and ITS policy, are under the control of a single agency, the Land Trans- port Authority.¹⁷¹ This allowed Singapore to integrate and synchronize its application of ITS technologies across roadways and public transportation, including buses and rail, right from the beginning. South Korea charged the Ministry of Construction and Transporta- tion with spearheading the country’s ITS deployment.


This contrasts with the United States’ federal system, where transportation policymaking is distributed, be- ing devised and implemented at national, state, and regional levels. As the Director of one U.S. state’s De- partment of Transportation remarked, “There has not been much national level policy guidance for ITS in the United States.”¹⁷² Whereas it has been a challenge for the United States, the centralized nature of trans- portation policymaking in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore has enabled these countries to articulate clear and concise national ambitions and objectives towards ITS.

Closely related to the centralization of ITS authority is the issue of which entity or level of government actual- ly “owns” or has control/authority over the roadways. In Japan, MLIT, along with the National Police Agen- cy, has control over the roadways. For Japan, national