Transportation

Develop a national ITS technical architecture that can serve as the template for the implementation of ITS at federal, state or provincial, and regional, community, or local levels. This has been a strength of the United States, Japan, and South Korea.

ownership of the highways has meant the government could move forward directly with deploying intelligent transportation systems. On most roadways in conti- nental Europe, national ownership is the norm as well. A quite different situation prevails in the United States, where states or localities have authority over the vast majority of roads, and the only roads in the United States under the direct control of the federal govern- ment are those that traverse national parks or military installations.¹⁷³ Likewise, the U.S. government funds only 20 percent of annual expenditures on highways in the United States, with states and local municipalities providing the vast majority.¹⁷⁴ Moreover, the deploy- ment—and ongoing operation—of most intelligent transportation systems in the United States is the deci- sion and responsibility of states and localities.
As a percentage of GDP, South Korea and Japan each invest more than twice as much in intelligent transportation systems than the United States.

So entrenched is the view that states and localities implement surface transportation policy in the United States that it is somewhat anathema to many to sug- gest that the federal government take a more active role in ITS implementation. But it is not as if the Unit- ed States is incapable of exercising federal leadership over the national transportation system. The Inter- state Highways Act, and the building of the Interstate Highway System, was largely a federal initiative. The federal government funded it, set the design standards (down to the width of Interstate highway lanes), and even selected the routes. Certainly the states were part- ners in building the Interstate, but the United States would never have had an Interstate Highway System if the federal government had simply given money to the states and suggested they build it. ITS is the 21^st century, digital equivalent of the Interstate Highway System, and needs the same level of federal govern- ment leadership that the development of the Interstate Highway System enjoyed.

In summary, the U.S. Department of Transportation needs to move from a focus on research to leadership. DOT needs to set a vision for ITS, including defin- ing what the states need to do, ensuring that the states are deploying open, interoperable technology, funding

most of the deployment of nationally integrated ITS systems, and holding states accountable for results. One of the main reasons for this is that the portion of ITS that have system interdependencies requires a national approach. Another reason for the need for na- tional leadership is that while all state DOTs have deep expertise in conventional transportation technology (for example, pavement and bridges), many may lack either expertise or interest in ITS. Centralizing that knowledge in one location makes more sense.