ITS Program Advisory Committee Teleconference/Web Conference

U.S. DOT Headquarters Conference Center

April 6, 2009

Attendance

ITS Program Advisory Comittee:

Steve Albert
Scott F. Belcher
Robert Peter Denaro
Ann Flemer
Alfred Foxx
Randell H. Iwasaki
Thomas C. Lambert
Adrian Lund
Michael Replogle
Joseph M. Sussman, Committee Chairman
Ronald Greer Woodruff

ITS JPO Director:

Ms. Shelley Row

Committee Designated Federal Official:

Mr. Stephen Glasscock

CITIZANT:

Charlie Valez
Andy Palanisamy
Amy Polk

Also Present:

Chuck Gault
Michael Volling
Harmony Allen
Timothy O'Leary
Bruce Schopp
Craig Updyke
Meredith Singer
John Augustine
Robert Monniere

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic Page

1. Opening Remarks
2. New Administration Transition Issues and News
3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4. ITS Program Strategic Plan
5. Committee’ Proposed New ITS Program Goal
6. Transportation Legislation Reauthorization
7. ITS America Annual Meeting
8. U.S. DOT ITS Program Governance
9. Summary and Wrap-up

Proceedings 2:07 p.m

Opening Remarks

DR. SUSSMAN: Let me call this distinguished group to order.

This is our teleconference of the ITS Program Advisory Committee. The purpose is, essentially, to bring everybody up to speed on a variety of events that have transpired in the world of ITS and beyond.

Although, since we've met, the new administration has moved in, the economy has tanked even further than it had tanked the last time we were -- that we were in session, our friends at JPO have made a lot of progress in -- on various fronts, including their strategic plan. And we were interested -- given the impending reauthorization activity, we were interested in seeing if we could have a useful discussion about the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU that could perhaps inform directions that that legislation might go to be of value to us. And Scott Belcher, who's on, wanted to give us a sense of the ITS America Annual Meeting, to be held, if I recall correctly, in Washington this June. So, there are a variety of topics, some long, some relatively short, and I appreciate everybody taking the time to participate in this teleconference. As I speak, the Red Sox are opening up in -- at Fenway Park, so it's an auspicious day before we even begin. I think they're going to get rained on pretty soon, though.

So, with no further ado, Shelley, unless there are any comments from the committee, I -- I'll turn it to you for several briefings and the briefings that some of your colleagues may have, as well.

MS. ROW: Okay, thank you, Joe. And let me just do a couple of housekeeping things before we start. For those of you who are on the phone, if you would please mute your phones when you're not speaking, that helps us keep the interference and the background noise down.

Also, if and when you wish to make a comment -- and we hope you will; there are several discussion topics on the agenda today -- then unmute your phone and please state your name so we are clear on who is speaking. I'll remind you that we are required to provide transcripts of all of these meetings, so we have a recorder here in the room, and they need to know who is speaking. So, if you all would, please help us out in that regard.

The other thing, Joe, I wondered -- we do have a number of people in the room here -- would it be appropriate to go -- do a quick round of introductions so the folks on the phone know who are in the room?

DR. SUSSMAN: I think that would be very helpful. But, before you do that, let me just thank Shelley for reminding us that this an official, if you will, meeting of this Advisory Committee, exactly of the sort that we've had before, operating under all those same, I guess, FACA rules. So, I guess, Shelley, if somebody wanders into my office and wants to participate, I have to let them, right?

MS. ROW: That's correct.

DR. SUSSMAN: And I -- I'm suspecting that won't happen. But, this is an official meeting of our committee. Okay, Shelley, go ahead.

MS. ROW: Well, I'll start, and then we'll just go around the room. I'm Shelley Row, the director of the ITS Joint Program Office.

MR. AUGUSTINE: John Augustine, Deputy Director, ITS.

MS. ROW: And if you guys would speak up.

MS. ALLEN: Harmony Allen, with the International Road Federation.

DR. SUSSMAN: Can you repeat that, please? We couldn't hear that. I couldn't, anyway.

MS. ROW: Just come on up, so --

MS. ALLEN: Harmony Allen, with the International Road Federation.

MR. VOLLING: Mike Volling, Census Networks.

MR. GAULT: Chuck Gault, Wind River Systems.

MS. SINGER: Meredith Singer, IBM.

MR. O'LEARY: Tim O'Leary, Peak Traffic Corporation.

MR. UPDIKE: Craig Updike, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, NEMA.

MR. SCHOPP: Bruce Schopp, also NEMA.

MR. GLASSCOCK: Stephen Glasscock, ITS [inaudible].

MR. MONNIERE: Bob Monniere, Red Sox Nation. No, that's --

[Laughter.]

MR. MONNIERE: -- Office of the Chief Counsel.

MS. POLK: Amy Polk, Citizant.

MR. PALANISAMY: Andy Palanisamy, with Citizant, Inc.

MR. VALEZ: Charlie Valez, Citizant.

MS. ROW: And that's everyone in the room here with us, Joe.

DR. SUSSMAN: Good. So, these are, if you will, guests of -- people from the general public who have some interest in these proceedings.

MS. ROW: That's correct.

DR. SUSSMAN: So, the only ones, then, if I was counting right, from JPO itself are you and John. I didn't hear [inaudible], but maybe I didn't --

MS. ROW: No, Stephen Glasscock is here.

DR. SUSSMAN: Stephen, okay. Stephen, how are you?

MR. GLASSCOCK: Good, Joe.

MS. ROW: Okay. Before we get started on the agenda, Bob Monniere is here. He's RITA's chief counsel, and he, and we, felt like it was appropriate to do a quick reminder on some of the ethics issues surrounding the Advisory Committee.

So, Bob, I'm going to turn it over to you, please.

MR. MONNIERE: Thank you, Shelley. And, by the way, I'm the acting chief counsel until we --

MS. ROW: Sorry.

MR. MONNIERE: -- until we've --

MS. ROW: Sorry.

MR. MONNIERE: That's quite all right.

MS. ROW: I knew that.

MR. MONNIERE: I take promotions wherever I can get them, more of the permanent variety than temporary.

[Laughter.]

MR. MONNIERE: But, I did want to take a few moments just to talk about ethics. And let me, first, start by saying that, if you ever have any questions concerning ethics, you certainly are encouraged to give me a call. My number is 202-366-5498.

As you already -- as you should know, the General Services Administration, in fact, does have FACA regulations that apply to every Federal Advisory Committee and the meetings thereunder. Part of that regulation states that the agency head has a responsibility to ensure that committee members do not have ethical conflicts. And, while I'm certainly not going to go over all the possible ethical conflicts that could occur, I did want to touch on one area, and that would be the appearance of a conflict of interest.

And by that, I mean -- and I'm just going to take some examples, because so many of these situations are fact-dependent. But, if we had, for instance, a committee member also who -- and, obviously, the vast majority of committee members have private employers -- if that committee member's private employer was doing business with the agency, we would want to know about that.

That particular situation would have to be reviewed to ensure that, one, there was no actual conflict of interest, and, two, there was no appearance of a conflict of interest. And how that might arise is that, let's say, the committee member worked for a company which had a contract with RITA. It would give the appearance of a conflict of interest if that committee member was contacting the agency about the contract, either to get it extended, negotiating terms of the contract -- there would have to be a firewall between that committee member and the agency concerning that contract.

That is not to say that the company could not have a contract with RITA. That is, however, to say that that committee member should not be involved in the execution of the contract, the negotiation of the contract, trying to mediate contract issues. And I hope everyone understands that and can recognize the inherent conflict of interest there.

I'm going to limit myself to a few minutes, here, because I know you have a very busy schedule, but I want to, again, emphasize that if, at any point, you should encounter a situation where you have questions, where you feel perhaps someone is asking you to do something that you don't feel is appropriate, be that either within the company or on the outside, please do give me a call. That's what we're here for. We're here to support you and to answer questions in this area. And ethics can be a very sticky area. So, as I said, it's very fact-dependent, and if you change some of the facts, you often result in a -- you often come to a different result. And again, the number is 202-366-5498, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you folks may have.

DR. SUSSMAN: Bob -- is it appropriate, Shelley, to ask you a particular question now, or is -- about my own situation, or is that something I ought to do offline with Bob? I'm referring, here, to MIT and its status as one of the university transportation centers, which is, of course, a program run by RITA.

MR. MONNIERE: I think, for specific situations, please do give me a call, because, as I've found these ethics discussions, one question leads to another, and we would basically be taking up everyone's time with a discussion that may only apply to one individual. But, certainly if you have general questions of a general nature, I'd be happy to try to answer those now.

[No response.]

MR. MONNIERE: Okay --

MS. ROW: All right.

MR. MONNIERE: -- hearing none.

MS. ROW: Okay.

MR. MONNIERE: Again, feel free to give me a call, and I appreciate your time.

MS. ROW: Thank you.

DR. SUSSMAN: Bob, I'll call you on that question, then.

MR. MONNIERE: Thank you. That'll be fine.

MS. ROW: And let me just mention to you all, as well, two things. First of all, Bob means what he says; he has, just, been an excellent resource for us. If you have any questions at all, don't hesitate to give him a call or send him an e-mail. He is -- responds very quickly, and has been most helpful to us.

So, he's there -- he is there to support you, and he does do that very well. The only other thing I would add is that we are very well aware that, in fact, most of you have some kind of contractual relationship with the Department in various forms or fashions. We knew that at the time you were selected, so we've taken some measures already in that regard. But, if anything changes or if there's a situation you are uncomfortable with, again, do not hesitate to contact Bob. Okay?

Anything else on that?

[No response.]

DR. SUSSMAN: Sounds good, Shelley.

MS. ROW: Oh, and Al Foxx, are you there?

MR. FOXX: Yes, I'm here.

MS. ROW: Great, Al. Has anyone else joined us?

[No response.]

MS. ROW: Great. Okay. Joe, should I move on?

DR. SUSSMAN: I think so. I expect that Bob Denaro will chime in as soon as he gets through security and gets to the room he's reserved to make his call.

New Administration Transition Issues and News

MS. ROW: Okay, excellent. The first thing on the agenda that Joe and Bob asked me to just make a few remarks on is the current state of the new administration and the transition. At the time we put this on the agenda, there wasn't much to say, and now, lo and behold, there is more to say. As Joe noted, we do have a nominee for the RITA administrator. It is Peter Appel. I don't personally know him. His bio reads very well. We're very excited to start working with him. He does have a background in transportation, 20 years of experience in transportation. As Joe pointed out already, he has a master's in transportation from MIT, he's worked in -- with Amtrak, with FAA, in the freight industry, and is currently with A.T. Kearney, a management consulting firm. We don't have any more information, other than that, so we'll be happy to keep you apprised as we learn more.

Also, since we all spoke last, there has also been a nominee for the Federal Highway Administration administrator, that is Victor Mendez. Some of you may know Victor. He was the commissioner -- or, the director of the Arizona Department of Transportation. He was the past president of AASHTO. He -- many of us have known Victor for quite some time. His State, in Arizona, has long been a leader in ITS, so we know that he is going to be a friendly voice for ITS at the Federal Highway Administration. We don't have any more information about some of the other modes that we typically work with, but we'll keep you apprised. Obviously, we've had a Secretary now for some time. In addition to the Secretary, we have a slate of a variety of different supporting folks in the Office of the Secretary, a chief of staff, White House liaison, scheduler, various different folks up in OST, and I won't go into all that. So, we are moving along. No major policy changes, at this point. All attention, at this juncture, has been focused on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So, before I go into that, let me just pause and see if there any questions or comments or information that any of you might have about the new nominated administrators.

DR. SUSSMAN: Shelley, this is Joe. I was curious if one has any sense of the timeframe within which these people would come up for confirmation.

MS. ROW: No, I don't. I asked that of one of our other folks earlier today, and, no, there's no information that I'm aware of. Bob, do you have anything?

MR. MONNIERE: Well, they obviously would have to schedule a confirmation hearing, and obviously that's up to the Senate and their scheduling issues. So, at this point, this early juncture, we don't really have a feel for that.

DR. SUSSMAN: RITA's, it seems to me, is ahead of the game already in that. I recall, in the past administrations, the RITA administrator is named -- or, nominated very late in the process, so it seems as though it's getting a bit more profile. I'm put a positive construction on that.

MS. ROW: Yes, we are very encouraged. We -- in fact, we're just tweaking our briefing-book materials for the new administrator so that we have our best foot forward when they walk in the door. And I think we have that, actually. I've been very pleased with the materials that we have.

DR. SUSSMAN: Sounds good.

MS. ROW: Anything else from anyone before we move on?

[No response.]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

MS. ROW: Okay. Joe, then do you want me to move on into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

DR. SUSSMAN: Yes, that sounds -- that sounds like a good idea.

MS. ROW: Okay. And you all should see this presentation on your computer screens. What I -- what we're going to share with you is the materials that have been developed by the Department, primarily FHWA, to describe ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is a lengthy presentation. I have no intention of going through all of the slides with you. I will just hit some of the high points. If you have other questions, I will try to answer them. If I can't answer them, I'll find someone who can. So, let me go ahead, Charlie. We're just going to briefly give you an overview of the objectives of the act, a little bit of a high-level picture of the funding, and some of the requirements, just a snapshot about the reporting requirements, which are extensive, and a little bit about the next steps.

DR. SUSSMAN: Shelley, just let me ask a question. You mentioned seeing it on your computer screen. I'm simply on the telephone, and I have your hard copy. I didn't -- wasn't aware that was an option. How does one get in and have these on one's computer screen?

MS. ROW: The instructions were e-mailed out. Let me see.

DR. SUSSMAN: I can [inaudible] this way with no problem.

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: This -- there is a --

MS. ROW: It would be helpful -- let's see, that was an e-mail sent out a few days ago.

DR. SUSSMAN: I've got it, I'm sorry. I didn't -- I didn't have it. Why don't -- why don't -- let's just proceed. I can use the hard copy.

MS. ROW: Okay. All right, that's good.

All right, so ARRA -- go on to the next slide -- oh, here we go. I think everyone's heard about the -- we were calling it a stimulus package. It's official name is the American Recovery -- well, what is it? -- Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. I won't read the quote to you. You know what the point is: job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization.

The transportation of this -- the total amount is 787 billion, the transportation piece is 48.1 billion, which includes 27.5 billion for highways. And again, I've mentioned -- the presentation package you're seeing was developed by the Federal Highway Administration, so it's going to drill down primarily into that highways portion of the funding. Of the 27 and a half billion that became available, there is some amount of it that is taken off the top, so to speak, and you can see it enumerated here and in the next slide. What that means in -- is that there's a total of 26.6 billion that is available to be apportioned to the States. That apportionment is done, as you see on this slide, which is based on a formula allocation, based on the Surface Transportation Program, which is a standard program that we've had for years. And so, that's what the allocation is. There are some set-asides -- 3 percent for transportation enhancements, and then a 30-percent suballocation to metropolitan areas. And you can see what those suballocations are for into those urban areas.

This slide that has the diagram on it, it shows of -- a pictorial image of what I just described in words. So, you see the 27.5 billion, the takedown off the top, leaving 26.2 -- 26.6 billion, and then those suballocations and redistribution, then, to the State DOTs.

Eligible uses. This is some of the language from ARRA. What I would mention specifically to you
all, it says "restoration, repair, construction, and other activities under the Surface Transportation Program." ITS is part of "other activities under the Surface Transportation Program." ITS projects are eligible for ARRA funding.

Now, I will pause for just a minute here and refer you to tabs 3, 4, and 5 in your read-ahead materials. Those tabs contain a white paper that we prepared with the other modes to articulate how ITS investments meet the criteria of ARRA -- that they are quick to implement, they create jobs, they provide short- and long-term benefits and environmental benefits. That white paper was distributed widely, largely through the associations and NTOC, so hopefully you saw that. We were hoping to use that paper to encourage State and local governments to fully consider ITS investments for some of the ARRA funding that they received.

There are some of you on the phone who received that money, and so, I will defer to you if you have anything to offer about how successful you were in getting ITS projects. Our input has been that there has been some success, but it has been less than what I think we all would have hoped for. Let's see. Okay, so those funds that are apportioned to the States are intended to be completed within 3 years and located in economically distressed areas. Some of that mapping has been provided to the State DOTs from FHWA.

The money has to be moved pretty quickly. The first distribution must go out very quickly. At the end of 120 days, money that is not obligated will be withdrawn and redistributed into the second distribution. And again, that funding is to be obligated promptly. And again, if it hasn't been obligated, it will be subject to redistribution in -- September 30th, 2010. So, it's all about moving the money, and our indication is that that is going rapidly. Everyone is very busy these days. I am not going to go into some of the specifics about certifications, so I'm going to just skim through this part. Let's go on to the next one. There are a number of provisions relating to, kind of, standard Federal requirements for funding.

Again, I'm not going to go into the specifics. There's a DBE requirement, Buy America provisions, Davis-Bacon requirements. So, there's a lot of that. Basically, we have to comply with all other laws and regulations. Now, the second pot of money, so to speak, that I would mention is the $1 and a half billion that's been allocated to the Office of the Secretary, for discretionary grants. You can see a little bit of information here about that. The requirements for that -- there we are -- the requirements for that discretionary program are still being developed -- yeah -- no, back -- there you go -- they're still being developed, they have to be released within 90 days of enactment. That's about mid-May. Yes.

DR. SUSSMAN: Shelley, what PowerPoint are you on, for those of us who are just thumbing through the book?

MS. ROW: It's on PowerPoint slide 25.

DR. SUSSMAN: Oh, you took a big jump, okay.

MS. ROW: Yes.

DR. SUSSMAN: Good, thank you.

MS. ROW: Okay? Sorry about that, Joe.

So, we -- there's a group within DOT that's developing that criteria. We have provided information about ITS to that group. I have not personally seen the draft criteria that they are working on, but it should be coming out very shortly. Accountability. That has been a big part of this program. There, in fact, are substantial reporting requirements. Again, I'm not going to go into the details of it; there are quite a number of slides in your packet about the reporting requirements. Just know that they are substantial. The Department -- or, indeed, the administration -- are very committed to following the distribution of this funding, and the accountability of it, so that we spend it wisely. The next slide. Keep going, one more. Keep going. Okay, the -- I think the -- one of the final points that I would have is that, within the Department, this is clearly a top priority. This references FHWA. It is no different for the other modes. There is tremendous energy, time, and attention that is going into managing and overseeing the ARRA funding and to ensure the highest standards of accountability.

Let's go ahead and -- We recognize -- one back, Andy -- we recognize that we are very likely to have a higher level of scrutiny, so we're preparing now for that. "We," being the Department as a whole. So, there's a lot of activity here with this program, and it's going to consume a lot of resources to keep it on track and keep it managed. So, that's a very high-level overview of it. If you have questions, or there might be some of you who have experience with it already, from your vantage points, who can, maybe, provide more firsthand knowledge of what it looks like on the receiving end.

DR. SUSSMAN: Can you enlighten us on the purposes of this money, in the sense of deployment versus R&D and other such program functions?

MS. ROW: I would say that its purpose is -- I wouldn't couch it as deployment; it is not an R&D program. It is intended to get things done on the ground, put people to work in a short period of time, create jobs, rebuild, so to speak, infrastructure. So, for example, the ITS program, the research program, got no money out of this. It all went to State and local agencies.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay.

MR. FOXX: Shelley, this is Al Foxx, in Baltimore. We've been involved with this for quite some time, and it -- most of the -- almost all of the funds that is coming to Baltimore City has been used in infrastructure projects, not so much as ITS, but, you know, fixing up the roads, highways, and things of that nature. And that's where all the emphasis was placed when we first got into this for designating projects. However, there's a benefit to ITS, because it freed up some of the local funds that we could invest in ITS programs, like you had in your white paper. We was doing optimization -- signal optimization. It -- the stimulus money allowed us to free up some local funs to put into our signal optimization. So, there are some --

MS. ROW: That's good.

MR. FOXX: -- benefits to ITS because of the funding.

MS. ROW: That's good. That's good to hear, Al. Thank you.

MR. WOODRUFF: Shelley, this is Greer Woodruff, and I was just going to comment. I thought the summaries written on the different ITS projects was exceptional, and you answered a question earlier about how that was distributed, but I would just ask Al, or maybe others that received this type of information, which I do not, did we send it to the right people to be aware of what all is available and what the costs and the benefits are if local funding is what's generally going to be freed up to make these kind of investments, or does there need to be another group that this information is forwarded to? The information was great; and if we get it into the right hands, I think it will make a difference, perhaps, in using some available funds and getting more deployment of these technologies.

MS. ROW: I can address where -- how we distributed it, and then maybe you all can give some feedback on whether it was effective or not. We leveraged our network of associations through NTOC, the National Transportation Operations Coalition, and we sent it to them, who got it out to all of our contacts in, oh, gee, I don't know, 10, 12 associations. So, then AASHTO, ITE, ITS America, APWA, all of those -- ACTA -- all of those folks then redistributed it to their membership. So, that was the way that we handled distribution. We put it on our Web site. So, maybe you all can say how that worked for you all.

MS. FLEMER: This is Ann Flemer. We received it through ITS America, in terms of the members there, and, I know, through the process of distributing information through the State of California, there was also an effort to get that information out. So, that must have also been through the AASHTO program. We ended up having ready-to-go projects that were ITS nature in the San Francisco Bay area, so we fit the definition without having to jump through any extra hoops, you know, for -- as it being ITS, because there was a commitment to -- in our existing programs, to put money there. So, we were somewhat successful.

I think what's going to be interesting is meeting all of the deadlines, as you've pointed out in your presentation. And ITS, even though it is a quick- hit kind of opportunity, I think it'll be an interesting thing to see how quickly we can move on the design and final installation of some of these programs.

MS. ROW: Good. Good.

DR. SUSSMAN: Shelley, at MIT there's, of course, a lot of interest in the opportunities for developing laboratories and things of that sort, as well as funding for major R&D programs. The issue is the question of the very high rate at which the monies must be spent and the question of gearing up, say, a major research effort over a less-than-2-year period, and then in -- the support goes away and you've got graduate students in the middle of programs, and things of that nature. So, certainly MIT is going to aggressively compete for these funds, but there are concerns about how you handle the ratchet-up and then the cliff that you hit a few years out.

MS. ROW: Okay. They're not really designed for research programs, Joe, so I'm not sure -- if the States --

DR. SUSSMAN: No, no, I -- what -- I didn't -- I didn't state that clearly.

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: The large-scale equipment and things of that nature in support of research programs are, I believe, one way in which the monies can be spent.

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: Implying larger -- the potential for more aggressive research programs.

MS. ROW: Okay.

I also wanted to mention to you all, since the white paper came up that's in your tabs -- the short version is under tab 3, and then there's longer versions, under 4 and 5, that elaborate -- we are also creating another white paper on ITS applications in work zones. We're trying to take advantage of every lever possible. Because this work will be going out into construction very quickly, and there will be so much of it going on at one time, it's going to eventually generate a lot of construction zones around the country. That is yet another potential application for ITS. So, we're writing a white paper right now -- I looked at a draft of it this morning -- that we plan to distribute, similarly to the first one, that, again, states the benefits of using ITS in work zones, in a temporary basis, as well as installing them for construction, and then keeping them in place permanently. So, we're taking that tactic, as well, to see if we can get more ITS installed as a part of the ARRA work.

MR. FOXX: Shelley, this is Al Foxx again. You mentioned earlier about the Secretary's 1.5-billion grants. And I'm wondering whether or not -- and you stated that there was the criteria for applying for those grants that are still being developed. Is that -- do you have any indication that there were -- that would have limits as to what areas that the grant money will be applied to? Or could you -- will research and development and ITS and all those other programs be available -- or, not "be available," but could apply for those grants if we -- if the agency needed additional money to do some of those projects?

MS. ROW: It's a good question, Al. They are developing the criteria right now. There's a couple of slides that speak to that in the presentation package. What I can tell you -- what I know, at this juncture, is that they are working on the criteria. I have not personally seen what they are working on. However, we were contacted to provide some information about ITS, and it is my understanding that it was the intent to create either criteria or kind of a bonus criteria if you use technology in some of the investments.

MR. FOXX: Okay.

MS. ROW: But, understand that, you know, that's based on one phone call, so don't take that to the bank. The criteria should be released in the next, oh, month or month and a half.

MR. FOXX: Okay. Still subject to the same time limits -- 2 years?

MS. ROW: Let me see. They have to be completed within 3 years of enactment.

MR. FOXX: Okay.

MR. REPLOGLE: Shelley, this is Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense Fund. These backgrounders that were dated January 16th on investment opportunities for ITS, are those things that you're looking for comment from us on?

MS. ROW: No, that's been released. So, that was, you know, completed and sent out the door in mid- January. We were trying to get that out ahead of the ARRA information, so that, as States were formulating their ready-to-go project list, they -- we could do everything we could to encourage them to consider ITS investments.

MR. REPLOGLE: Okay. Do you expect to be doing, I guess, further updates to those?

MS. ROW: I don't, at this point, Michael.

MR. REPLOGLE: Okay. I guess I -- the reason I ask is, I mean, I -- having seen these -- I did look through them, and it was struck that -- you know, I think that they could benefit from paying, perhaps, a little bit more attention to some of the bus rapid- transit strategies, and I didn't really see any mention at all in here on transit ridership information systems on buses, [inaudible] get them through your cell phone or the Internet or at a bus stop, telephone. There's nothing on [inaudible] or [inaudible] control systems and railways. So, there were just a few areas where I think those could be strengthened.

MS. ROW: Okay. We -- we're trying very hard to make it multimodal. Bus rapid transit is there, transit automated vehicle, AVL, and CAD is in there, parking management systems. It's not -- border crossing systems, as well as electronic credentialing and screening, is in there. So, yeah, I thought we had --

MR. REPLOGLE: Yeah, it doesn't -- I guess -- they're here. I mean, for example, VRT, just [inaudible] --

MS. ROW: Right.

MR. REPLOGLE: -- was almost entirely on vehicle assistance automation. Most VRT systems are not -- are a minor component. So --

MS. ROW: Okay

MR. REPLOGLE: -- [inaudible] that could be done with other elements [inaudible]. So, if it's an area of interest [inaudible] wanted to highlight it [inaudible] that was part of the package.

MS. ROW: Okay. Joe, I'll turn it back to you, or do you want me to move into the next item?

ITS Program Strategic Plan

DR. SUSSMAN: The next one is your strategic plan, right?

MS. ROW: Yes. And we're already over our time, so I want to try to catch up a little bit, because the point here is for -- you all have plenty of time to talk about the proposed goal that you suggest, as well as reauthorization. So, Joe, I will move through the strategic planning discussion fairly promptly, if that's okay with you.

DR. SUSSMAN: Yeah, let's do that. Bob, have you -- Bob Denaro, have you tuned in?

VOICE: Yes.

MR. DENARO: I'm here, Joe.

VOICE: Yes, he's tuned in.

DR. SUSSMAN: Oh, you're here, okay. I didn't realize you had -- that you had joined. Good. Thank you.

MR. DENARO: Yup. Sure.

DR. SUSSMAN: So, let's go into the strategic plan, then, Shelley.

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: What tab is that?

MS. ROW: It's tab 6.

DR. SUSSMAN: Thank you.

MS. ROW: Now, as -- by way of a preface, the presentation that you have is a briefing that we did for our ITS Strategic Planning Group -- the SPG, we call it. That's the internal organization within U.S. DOT of the modes that we primarily work with. So, consequently, this was tailored for that meeting, which was just last week, and we have not had a chance to update this based on that meeting. So, I will do some of that update verbally. And I'm also going to skip some of these slides, because they're just not as relevant to our discussion today. DR. SUSSMAN: Okay. So, if you could just let us what page you're' on in hard copy, know when you're doing that, that would be helpful.

MS. ROW: Will do.

VOICE: And do you want us to offer comments as you're going through this, or wait until you're finished walking through?

MS. ROW: It might be easiest to wait til I get finished. The intent of it, Michael, is to just set the stage, really, for the discussion that follows.

MR. REPLOGLE: Okay.

MS. ROW: Joe, is that okay with you?

DR. SUSSMAN: That's fine.

MS. ROW: Okay. I'm on page 38. So, basically, I'm just going to give you a summary of the strategic planning efforts to date. You will recall that we did a fair amount of strategic planning discussions with you all in some of your first meetings, where we talked about trends that we were seeing in technology, in transportation, and we started with some of that work; that distilled it into some goal areas, and we're basically picking up where we left off before to move forward now into creating a multiyear strategic plan. The other thing I would refresh your memory is, we have a number of major initiatives underway right now. Most of those will complete their funding cycle this fiscal year, which means that FY10 is a critical opportunity for us to establish new major research programs, and that is the intent of the strategic plan. So, on page 39, again, our intent --

DR. SUSSMAN: Wait I don't -- I don't understand what you're talking about, with page numbers like that. I have -- I just have your PowerPoint, page 1, 2, 3, and so forth.

MS. ROW: In the read-ahead packet, it's slide 39.

DR. SUSSMAN: [Inaudible] under tab 6.

MR. REPLOGLE: Yeah, it's -- number 3 is --

VOICE: He may have two slides per page.

DR. SUSSMAN: Number 3?

VOICE: Yeah.

MS. ROW: No, apparently --

MR. REPLOGLE: They're very small characters on the Power-- under tab 6.

MS. ROW: There's are not paginated.

VOICE: I think they've got a different --

MR. REPLOGLE: -- [inaudible].

MS. ROW: Is this --

VOICE: Joe, for you it's --

MS. ROW: Is this what they have?

VOICE: Uh-huh.

VOICE: -- in the left bottom corner --

MS. ROW: Oh. Oh, okay.

VOICE: They've got it.

MS. ROW: Okay, we now know what you have. Sorry about that.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay.

MS. ROW: So, I'm at the top of page 2 --

DR. SUSSMAN: Right.

MS. ROW: It says "Foundational Assumptions."

DR. SUSSMAN: Right.

MS. ROW: Are we together?

DR. SUSSMAN: Yes.

MS. ROW: Okay. The slide number is 3.

DR. SUSSMAN: I got it.

MS. ROW: Okay, great. Okay, so again, what we're about here is
creating a multiyear roadmap. It will guide investments. It is intended to be done in partnership with the modes. And there are several -- are two specific opportunities for stakeholder involvement, and I'll talk more about those in just a minute. So, on page 4, I'm not going to speak to this. The reference here to Annex A and Annex B -- just so you all know, we have been working very diligently to create some governance documents within DOT to help manage the program. So, we now have a charter that has three annexes -- A, B, and C -- that help document how we're going to work together. So, you don't need to worry about that. That's referencing an internal document.

On slide 5, or page 5, I guess, again this is just a follow-on, and we're picking up where we left off before and we're going to adapt to the environment that it is today. Clearly, we have political leadership that's coming in the building who will undoubtedly want to have input on the strategic plan, so we will be adapting, as well, to their input and their guidance as we move forward.

The next slide, which I believe is page 6 in your read-ahead packet, is just a visual depiction of how we're going to drill down through strategic initiatives, goals with objectives, performance measures, into action plans.

The next page, which is your page 7, I'm not going to talk about this. We developed this mission statement last year with the JPO staff. It needs to be revised. It was a starting point, but I'm not going to go there today.

The next two pages, if you have really good memories you might remember this. This actually came out of briefings that we did with you all and discussions that we had with you all on what would we wish for. So, you may recall a working session, where we talked about: If you went wishing, what would you wish for? And slide 8 and 9 are the things that you all came up with. The exception are the last two bullets on slide 9, which identify -- the last bullet, specifically, comes from the recommendations that the Advisory Committee provided to us about adding a potential goal area. And we'll talk more about that shortly.

DR. SUSSMAN: Right.

MS. ROW: Okay? Moving on to page 10, this is a trip down memory lane. And I think this is important as the glue that holds the program together. If you look back in the history of the program, there are headlines, sound bites, if you will, that capture the intent of the program over the years. I would phrase it as originally, field operational tests of, basically, Defense Department technologies, moving into a focus on deployment and then a focus on integrated deployment, and now I would suggest that we're moving into the age of connectivity.

So, the word "connectivity" is that glue that holds together the direction that we feel we're moving in with the next generation of the ITS program; meaning, wireless connectivity that can enable what we believe are transformational safety improvements and transformational multimodal solutions that will give us improved mobility within the system. So, that is a common thread, even though it's kind of stated more or less differently in each of the goal areas. What you see in slide 12 is our requirements that we are providing to our staff and the multimodal staff as we begin to think about how to frame future programs. Obviously, it has to fit within DOT goals. We believe that there should continue to be a few very focused, high-value, bold research initiatives. So, we're not looking at a lot of little things; we want a few big, high-impact things that have impact at a national scale. We generally are looking for things that transcend a single mode, although we are -- we are focusing on some -- a fraction of the program that would be for mode-specific research, and we're working with the modes to identify that now. We do expect it to address a clear research question that would not otherwise be filled by someone else. We obviously expect it to offer a positive return on investment with a clear federal role. It needs to be something that's implementable with supporting partners. And, ideally, a market catalyst. We recognize, in this day and age, that federal research is only at the tip of a very big iceberg, and, in fact, we want to catalyze market forces to carry this work into deployment and implementation. So, all of these are criteria we will be looking for within each of the goal areas to structure this upcoming research. Okay?

Now let me move into the goal areas and the objectives. Again, this should look fairly familiar. It's built off the work that we all did together last year. It will come as no surprise to you that there is a safety goal. We intentionally, in every one of these, drill down. So, you'll notice that there is a broad statement at the top, and then, as you go through, we are intentionally narrowing the scope. Again, we want a few focused activities, not a lot of broad things. So, in this case we're focusing on the notion of crash-list vehicles through connectivity -- vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure kind of connectivity.

Some of the objectives that we see are the ability to create this 360-degree awareness for low- latency safety applications, as well as applications that are more in the warnings which could be done without low-latency applications. Providing some foundational research for vehicles to take their own action, looking past V-to-V and V-to-I into automated vehicles and maybe some foundational research in that area.

Providing -- and it's not stated on here, it came out of our SPG meeting -- but, doing all of this in a manner that does not create hazards for the driver, trying to get at that driver distraction issue, but we don't want to make it a worse situation than what we already have.

Okay, let me move on to mobility, which is slide 14 for -- in the read-ahead package. In the mobility goal, what I'm expecting this to change to is to break this goal into three areas. One area will center around capturing realtime information on all modes -- all modes, all roads -- as well as realtime information on cost -- meaning, parking cost, transit costs, tolling costs, congestion- pricing costs -- capturing all the data on the system. The other part of this goal, we expect to break into applications that would use that realtime data, both using the realtime mobility data, as well as the costing data. There's tremendous application potential here.

The third part of this one, we expect to be focused on e-payment pricing strategies, the standards that would enable nationwide interoperability for pricing, including all the way from integrating parking, bus, rail, tolling, pricing, but also to include the possibility of a future VMT fee policy, should that come into place. Okay? So, again, we've not had a chance to update this slide since Thursday of last week.

Okay, let me go to the next slide. The environment. We see this as being, again, another goal area. That should -- I believe, slide 15 for you all. Again, there's lots of things to do in the environment. We see the focus that we can particularly serve is getting fuel and emissions data off of the vehicle and identifying applications -- helping create applications to use that data in modeling for traveler information, a lot of applications we see that would be of value, should we have that kind of data off of the vehicle.

Okay, let me move to the next one. This was pertaining to VMT fee collection. It's just a fancy way of saying it. We now feel that we're going to roll this into the mobility goal area. It will not be a separate goal area.

On the policy work, we, again, believe that all of these activities I've talked about to date, in the safety, in the mobility areas, and the environmental areas, all have -- have a policy aspect to them that is essential. So, in this case, we have culled it out as a separate goal. Our thinking now is, is that it should be incorporated as an inherent part of the research of each of those other goal areas. So, that is our intent, at this point, of how to handle the policy research that is so essential to the successful enactment, so to speak, of the programs. Equity. This is the goal area that you all recommended to us in your advice memos and in our meetings. What you see on this slide is a very first cut at a statement of it, and this is the area that we intend to have discussion with you all today, so I'm not going to go into it any further here. Okay.

This last -- or, one of the last slides here -- again, we don't need to go into. The goals, once they are stabilized, we intend to form multimodal teams to flush them out, to clearly articulate the research question, to articulate the federal role, what we can understand today about the benefit-cost -- meaning, the business case. What are the implementation issues, the policy issues? How would we evaluate it? And then, again, some budget estimates. We fully expect to have more good programs proposed than we have money, so we will be evaluating the program proposals and then going through a selection process to scale them to fit, and prioritize them to fit, the available funding. Let's go to the next slide. Oh, that is the next slide.

Okay, I mentioned stakeholder input. We currently have two opportunities planned specifically. We will very shortly, as soon as we can review the document, be getting an RFI out to the community that will articulate some version of the goals that you just saw, and we will ask the community for input into those goal areas, ranging from, "Are they appropriate, do they make sense?" to any specific recommendations that the community has for high-value work that they think would be appropriate for us to pursue. We also are working with ITS America, thanks to Scott. We intend to have a day-long workshop on June the 4th, immediately following the ITS America meeting here in D.C. So, everyone can come to the meeting and then stay for the workshop. In that workshop, we will have the multimodal teams who will have been working, at that point, and have their thoughts to date to share in breakout sessions, is what we're envisioning right now, to get more specific feedback from the stakeholder community on what they think would catalyze the market, be a high-value work that the Federal Government could have an appropriate role in. And that's the kind of input that we will so desperately need at this juncture so we can make wise choices about investment strategies. This last one is just inside-the-building schedule. You don't need to worry about it, except to know that, if you call us and we don't respond right away, it's because we're in one of these meetings.

[Laughter.]

MS. ROW: So, that's a high-level overview of the strategic planning effort to date.

DR. SUSSMAN: Shelley, when are you -- maybe it's on that timeline, but when are you planning to have completed text on that strategic plan?

MS. ROW: Two answers to your question. We are formulating, right now, revised slides on the goals and objectives, so I expect to have that back to our modal partners -- and I'm happy to share that with you all, I'd like to say, this week, because we're on such a short timeframe. I mean, we have to -- it's the basis for the RFI. So, that's one answer. The other answer is that all of this information will eventually be written into a prose document that will say "ITS Strategic Plan" on the cover. That will lag this effort. It probably will not be done until the fall. The biggest push that we have is to get the guts of the plan done by September so that it can frame out our work budget for FY-2010, which starts October 1. Okay? So, we need to have enough fidelity on the work for the first year of the strategic plan to create a budget October 1, but the actual prose can be written and finalized later that fall.

MR. AUGUSTINE: So, Joe, if you look at the September column on that calendar chart, you'll see that the two green diamonds talk to the schedule, to try and have a strategic plan prepared for rough draft in mid-September and then published in the October timeframe.

DR. SUSSMAN: Oh, I see it. Those are the green diamonds. Okay.

MR. AUGUSTINE: Correct.

MS. ROW: Yes. Did that answer your question, Joe?

DR. SUSSMAN: It does, thank you.

MS. ROW: And, Joe, I will turn it back to you and Bob. I'm happy to either discuss this or, if you all want to discuss your proposed goal, however you see fit to use the time.

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, the way Bob and I have split up the next two agenda items is, I'm going to take the lead on this first item, which is scheduled
for 25 minutes ago --

MS. ROW: Right.

Committee’ Proposed New ITS Program Goal

DR. SUSSMAN: -- "Committee's Proposed New Program Goal." To a certain extent, I am almost tempted to declare victory on it, since you've got it in this plan. But, perhaps I ought to give a little context to the general approach that the committee has taken, to refresh everybody's memory, on these goals, harking back to last year.

So, in the very first advisory memo that we wrote to U.S. DOT, dated May 29th, 2008, we made some comments, at that time, on the ITS program goals. And to quote that report, "The committee sees the goals of the ITS program as being multidimensional." Those stated by JPO were mobility safety, the environment, and then we noted, as an aside, "The committee was pleased to see the addition of the environmental goals since our last meeting, in November 2007, when the committee spoke out on the need for an environmental perspective." Some of you will recall that, in that first meeting, there was not an environmental goal. The committee urged that there be one, and here, an Advisory Committee -- advisory memo number 1, they are applauding the fact that environment was put onto that agenda. And then went on to comment on the 21st- century institutions, innovations, and partnerships. And we say, "These goals reflect vital national transportation priorities -- congestion, safety, environmental protection -- enabling the deployment of new technologies to institutional innovations." And then, came back to an idea that's kind of been the touchstone of what the committee has been about, which is urging our JPO, what we have called an "integrated systems perspective" -- that is, thinking systemically about ITS and what it can provide.

So, we were pleased that the JPO saw the value of an environmental goal, and added it, and were pleased further to see that we weren't simply talking, in the program, about technology, but about political, social, and deployment issues, which tend to be institutional in nature.

And then, in that same Advisory Committee memo 1, we also suggested an additional goal, ITS- enabled universal access to the U.S. transportation system. And the proposed focus area under the goal was to conduct research on, and enable deployment of, means by which all citizens can access full mobility and information benefits of the U.S. transportation systems through ITS technology. And sort of the shorthand for this is, we were concerned about social equity and the digital divide that many scholars speak of, the concern that, with the advent of the Internet and related technologies, that disadvantaged populations may have yet another disadvantage; that is, their inability to access information and, in our particular context, access information about the transportation system. So, we put that on the table, and then, in the -- in the second Advisory Committee memo, again, urged -- repeated our urging of that so-called "digital-divide goal." And the way we characterized it, at that time, is that, if one thinks in terms of ITS contributing to a sustainable transportation system, and a sustainable -- and sustainable development contributed to by sustainable transportation, that the classic definition of "sustainability" has an economic development component, which is embodied in mobility, an environmental protection component, which is explicitly considered in our environmental goals, and finally, the third "E" of sustainability, social equity.

So, the committee viewed our push for the equity goal as kind of rounding out the sustainability aspect of what ITS could bring to the table, in terms of transportation. So, that kind of brings you up to where we are. I think that, with the new administration and some of the moves that we anticipate the Obama administration taking, and their emphasis on broader participation in the fruits of federal research to all members of society that were, in some sense, on the side of the angels, at this point, in terms of how we would imagine they would respond to this kind of initiative, and all I can say, at this point, is I am pleased to see that, in the strategic plan for JPO, that that has become integrated in their thinking. So, that was a longer speech than I intended to give. Professors to do things like that. So, let me stop, at this point, and ask for comments, either from the committee or from Shelly, about the additional equity goals.

MS. ROW: Joe, this is Shelley. If I could just pose a question for the committee, to help start the discussion. Obviously, you see that we have framed this out as a separate goal. I will tell you that we've had some internal conversations about how we would actually do this, and a lot of our conversation tends to come back to the other goal areas and doing specific activities in research that address equity within those other goals. So, one of the questions for you all is, Do you see this as a standalone goal area? And if so, we need some help understanding what the work would be. Or, are you -- would you be comfortable if we specifically cull this area out within the other goals to accommodate the equity concern?

And let me just give you one example. And we have examples for every one of the goals. If you look at the safety goal area, where we talk about vehicle- to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communications for safety, it is most likely that that would come to be in luxury cars first, which is obviously a social equity concern.

So, what we would propose, in order to deal with the equity issues, is that there be a specific part of that research program that addresses retrofit feasibility and/or after-market feasibility, so that we could bring on and provide those same benefits to people who can't afford a new luxury vehicle with all the latest bells and whistles.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay.

MR. REPLOGLE: Yeah, let me -- let me -- this is Michael Replogle -- let me toss out another way of, for example, addressing the same vehicle --

DR. SUSSMAN: Michael, you need to speak up. I can barely hear you.

MR. REPLOGLE: Okay. Another way of addressing the equity issue under safety would be to add another objective under that safety goal, of ensuring greater predictability in context-sensitive vehicle operations that protect pedestrians and cyclists, inasmuch as a lot of the challenges of, particularly, low-income people in America are related to the very high incidence of their being involved in accidents as pedestrians or cyclists.

MS. ROW: Okay.

MR. REPLOGLE: So, I just toss that out as some -- as another way of addressing that whole [inaudible].

And then, under the equity goal itself, I think it might be useful to cull out, not just the digital divide and the access to transportation information, but access to transportation information and opportunities, so that the objective might be stated as "assessing and recommending the use of ITS within the public sector to provide equitable access to transportation and information," recognizing that access to transportation itself is something that ITS can help to enhance, and that information access is only a means to that larger end, which is really where you need to go with equity.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay, those are helpful comments. Shelley, did you want to proceed to give us examples? You just gave a safety example, and I think -- I thought you said you had examples in each of the other areas.

MS. ROW: We do, because that -- one of our fundamental issues is, Do we do this as a standalone goal or incorporate it into the other goals? So, for example, in mobility, when we talk about the goal area where we are capturing realtime information and realtime cost information, we would expect that -- there to be standards around that data set. We would expect that -- the private market to take that information, to use it, much as you've seen with Google Transit, as you see with applications in iPhones and those sorts of devices. And that's great. However, we also see systems like 5-1-1, which is a telephone-based system, being able to use that data in providing increased quality of information and service to people who simply have a telephone. And so, we think that the 5-1-1 will eventually migrate into kind of the low-cost public option for traveler information, while the market takes off with high-end tailored devices that are available to people who can purchase such things.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay. So, you -- we'll get to the question of whether we want this crosscutting -- whether we want to put the equity within the other areas, but why don't you give us all -- all of them, and --

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: -- and your examples thereof, as input to that discussion.

MS. ROW: Okay. Again, on the mobility goal, when we talk about applications that would use this data, the goal is to improve transportation system network performance. If you improve network performance, that's improved for everyone. So, we feel like that that's inherent in that one, if we can create tools for transportation managers to improve multimodal network performance, based on the data. So, we feel like that one is -- that's -- works for everybody. On the costing part of the mobility goal, which is where we capture and standardize payment systems, one of our thoughts there was -- is, if we can capture that information and help create standards that promote nationwide interoperability for seamless payment, that if we do it in a smart way, that capability can enable many social equity policy choices. So, for example, if you have standards around that, you could choose to provide, I don't know, rebates for people who ride transit. You could provide access to HOV lanes for certain social segments of the population. All policy issues that we'd -- we would not be engaged, in the ITS program, but we enable the standards and the ability for decisionmakers and policysetters to choose to implement it in a way that fulfills social equity goals. But, we have to be the enabler.

DR. SUSSMAN: I understand.

MS. ROW: Same goes for the environmental piece. Again, if we can capture fuel economy, emissions data, create models that can feed back to travelers which routes are green routes, which routes are going to maximize their fuel consumption, minimize their emissions, then that can be information, again, that's useful as people purchase vehicles, as people use information. That could eventually -- eventually, that could be on a 5-1-1 type of a system. Then they can choose the routes that use the less -- least amount of gas, for example. So, the information inherently gives people choices that can enable them, whatever they need to choose for their personal circumstance.

DR. SUSSMAN: And how is this a social equity argument? I'm not quite following that one.

MS. ROW: The idea is that if you know how your vehicle is using fuel, if you know how -- which route is the one that's going to use the most fuel, then you can choose to use less fuel.

DR. SUSSMAN: So, if you're poor, you're [inaudible], that's a valuable service. Is that the point?

MS. ROW: Yes. Or not -- you don't even have to be poor to care about that one. That actually has been --

VOICE: [Inaudible.]

MS. ROW: -- implemented. Japan has provided feedback of that sort in some tests that they've run with some of the automotive industry, and have achieved really amazing results -- something like, I think, 18- percent reduction in fuel usage, just by giving that kind of information to the driver.

DR. SUSSMAN: I see.

MR. REPLOGLE: You know, I wonder if it makes sense if -- you know, if you're looking -- I could see having equity as a separate goal. I could also see rolling equity and environment together, and also, filtering both equity and environment into these other strategy areas, where it makes sense to do so.

DR. SUSSMAN: Louder, Michael, please.

MR. REPLOGLE: I'm sorry. I see the utility of keeping equity as a separate goal. I could also see the potential for modifying -- having it linked, environment and equity goal, which also expands capacity to manage transportation networks, to reduce environmental injustice, in terms of air pollution hotspots -- for example, helping to route dirty trucks outside of areas where there's increased population exposure -- adding an objective under the environment, for example, to enhance the attractiveness, safety, and utility of public transit, ride-sharing, walking, cycling, and other substitutes for high energy- consumption personal-vehicle travel for -- or to modify the existing objective of increased mobility that will positively affect fuel consumption by saying, "increase mobility and expand mode choices that will positively impact fuel consumption and vehicle air-quality emissions." Because I think that it gets to this issue of -- you know, expanding modal choices is also generally good for equity, because the lower-income people tend to have less access to motor vehicle use because of their economic circumstance.

DR. SUSSMAN: Thank you, Michael. Shelley, I have a -- I have kind of a process question. We've got less than 40 minutes to go. We have what I think is a very important discussion that Bob will chair, and he sent out some discussion questions in advance of the meeting. I'm the professor, but Denaro gave the homework. The -- and I'm anxious that we have a chance to discuss that reauthorization. And then, of course, we want to give Scott his opportunity to talk a bit about the annual meeting.

MS. ROW: Yes.

DR. SUSSMAN: So, I mean, I suspect we could continue to go on this equity goal for a while, and I'm -- I'm looking for a little guidance as to how we should proceed and reach closure. I don't think it's likely we're going to be able to do so on the telephone.

MS. ROW: I would say, as far as the agenda is concerned, that the last couple of items on the agenda, we do not have to discuss, so those are low priority. However, the things you noted, Joe, I do agree, you want time for. Frankly, we need some -- we need some guidance on this equity goal. We have been, as I -- as I indicated, we've been able to identify some research issues that are specifically related to ITS, that we could incorporate into some of these other goals. Frankly, I struggle a lot with a standalone goal and what we do that is specifically ITS-related. There are a lot of policy issues that, I agree, are enabled by ITS. Those are not ours to do. So, we are just, frankly, struggling a bit with how to handle this. We are going to meet with some folks within the building, to talk with them about it, to get some more input and guidance. But, we need some information from you all. You can do it offline, if you prefer. But, we do need some input.

DR. SUSSMAN: Seems to me, Shelley, that there are two dimensions to this. One is the notion of the substance of ensuring that equity -- social equity is part of the program, that it -- that there's an explicit consideration given in developing the research agenda to social equity. There's -- that's a substance question.

MS. ROW: All right.

DR. SUSSMAN: The political question is the visibility of equity in the program. I think, from my perspective at least, there are some advantages to having equity as a high-level goal of the program, as a way of assuring the substance of equity, in fact, being researched within the other aspects of the program that you discuss. So, that would include mobility, environment, safety. So, there's this substance- versus-political question. I see some value in keeping that as visible. So, an alternative one might consider would be to, in some sense, make equity, perhaps, a crosscutting goal, or a crosscutting part of the program that kind of slices across mobility, safety, and the environment, the way you described it. Indeed, as I was looking at the other goals, one could consider that policies be -- the policies [inaudible] could have that structure, as well. So, you've --

MS. ROW: Yeah.

DR. SUSSMAN: -- got the goals that are, if you will, on the ground -- mobility, environment, and safety -- and then you've got goals that are, in some sense, overarching or enabling, which involve the policies, institutions, and partnerships, as well as social equity. So, that's perhaps another way of thinking about it.

But, in the interest of moving on, I think perhaps we ought to, for the moment, table the question and see if we can articulate this better offline to give you folks the benefit of our thinking about what we mean, in more detail. I would certainly appreciate receiving the particular examples that you culled out just a few moments ago. I guess I'll see it in the transcript, but if I could see it more directly, that would be helpful, at least to me, in thinking it through more completely.

MS. ROW: Okay. We can do that. We can summarize those. Because we just talked about it at the end of last week. And I like the idea of the -- kind of the crosscutting, overarching goals, because policy is like that, and I think we could frame it in a way that -- clearly articulate it, and then we clearly had a -- an item, within each goal, that addressed policy and equity issues. But, you all can provide us more.

MR. LAMBERT: This is Tom Lambert. I think you've hit it, where you -- I think, coming across with crosscutting to make sure that all of those issues that are impacted by the strategic initiatives are really there. And I think the crosscutting approach is probably the right approach to take.

DR. SUSSMAN: Thank you, Tom. I think that may allay some of the Shelley's concerns about articulating it, and, at the same time, keep me content on the issue of the visibility of that kind of equity question.

MS. ROW: Good.

MR. LAMBERT: It does that, and also allows and the team there to move forward with a pretty active schedule, from what I can see they just laid out, as well.

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, let's -- if it's okay with everybody, let's declare victory, in some sense, on it, [inaudible] having reached that notion of a way of, if you will, having it both ways, and get that question out a bit, by Shelley and her group, and see if we can move forward from there.

MS. ROW: Okay, thank you.

Transportation Legislation Reauthorization

DR. SUSSMAN: If everyone's okay with that, I would like to turn it over to Bob Denaro, the vice- chair of this Advisory Committee, who would like to facilitate a discussion of transportation legislation reauthorization. And let's see if we can move forward productively on that.

MR. DENARO: Okay, thanks, Joe. What I want to do -- and we do have a couple of other presentations, so I think I'll cut this a little bit short -- but, the intent of this discussion is to provide some feedback to the JPO about the reauthorization. And in your -- as you saw from my note that I sent out in the book here, we had some stakeholder input. So, what we'd like to do with the committee is also provide input. And what we'll probably do is provide it under the headings that they have in that tab 9, there, so there's safety, mobility, environment, and productivity.

So, let's do two things. I'd like to ask that any of you who have some specific comments that you think we should provide from the committee in each of these areas; and then, secondly, I listed, what, five questions in the e-mail I sent out, and we'll just walk through those real quickly and just kind of get your input on that.

What we'll do, then, is, Joe and I will take the inputs that we get right now, and we'll also allow you to send them later -- e-mail or whatever -- and we'll put together a proposed input, then, from the committee in each of these areas and send that out for vetting with the rest of the committee. So, to that end, let's just walk through these one at a time.

The first area was safety. Does anybody want to offer up some comments that you don't see covered in here, or just something you think reflects our position there?

DR. SUSSMAN: Are we referring, now, Bob, to any piece of paper that we can look at or --

MR. DENARO: Well, I'm just looking at the stakeholder report, in tab 9. So, we had a lot of stakeholder input under these four headings, of safety, mobility, environment, and productivity. And my suggestion is to just walk through each one of those and --

VOICE: Bob, I don't have a comment, I just -- I've got a question, more. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, has there been no feedback from them at all, or are they not engaged any more? What's the issue with that? Because I see nothing back from them at all.

MS. ROW: That's probably -- we just did not -- oh, no, we did capture -- I guess, we looked at it, but didn't have anything -- oh, no, it's coming.

VOICE: Okay, all right. Thank you.

MR. FOXX: This is Al Foxx. I notice, from the list, also, that the National Association of City Transportation Officials are not included in there at all. And these are transportation officials from major cities around the U.S. I know they have a position paper out. They've been working on the upcoming authorization. Did you not get anything from them?

MS. ROW: We went out to the associations that we were aware of that have been -- have historically worked in this area, and that is apparently not one that we went out to. Is National Association -- which one is it?

MR. FOXX: I'm a member of the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

MS. ROW: Okay.

MR. FOXX: NACTO is what it's called.

MS. ROW: Okay. All right. If you have something you can share with us, Al, that would be helpful.

MR. FOXX: Yeah, I have a position paper. I'll send it your way.

MS. ROW: Okay, thank you.

MR. FOXX: All right.

MR. DENARO: And we're still open to comments on the safety area. Does anyone have any specific comments there?

MR. IWASAKI: This is Randy Iwasaki. APTA doesn't have a position on safety?

MS. ROW: Now, we just summarized the input from their paper, so maybe there was something --

MR. AUGUSTINE: [Inaudible.] There's something there.

MS. ROW: Yeah.

MR. AUGUSTINE: "N/A" would be zero, so that's --

MS. ROW: There's something, but, you know, again, we just summarized the high points, and so, apparently it was nothing that jumped out at us on that one.

MR. IWASAKI: And then the other question is, Where does transportation security or transit security or transportation infrastructure security reside? Is it in safety? And do we want to comment on that?

VOICE: That's a good question.

VOICE: I think, traditionally, Randy, it's not going to be captured under safety. I think it needs to have a particular area that -- there's a lot of ITS technology being used for infrastructure security these days, and transit security these days.

MR. IWASAKI: Yeah, I think 6 years ago this wasn't an issue, versus today; you know, it's more and more of an issue, right? I guess 6 years ago it was an issue, but --

VOICE: Well, I think 6 years ago it got a lot more of attention. It's always been an issue where technology's been at play. But, probably more and more recognition today, and more and more focus.

MR. REPLOGLE: Yeah, this is Michael Replogle. I think it makes sense for us to weigh in, in support of the use of ITS technologies to help support automated enforcement of speed limits and traffic enforcement devices, things like that, as a way to both improve safety and to address other impacts of transportation.

[Background flight announcement.]

VOICE: Hey, Bob, they weren't calling your flight, were they?

MR. DENARO: Actually, no. I put my phone on mute so you wouldn't have to listen to it, but -- unfortunately, I have to talk, here. No, I'm fine. My flight's a little bit later. I just came to the airport early so I could do this. Okay, let's move on -- I think what we'll do is -- like I said, leave it open to -- in fact, I'll probably reach out and solicit comments in an e-mail, but then Joe and I will put some proposals together on here and send that out, with or without comments. Mobility. Any comments from the committee on the mobility area? Anything you feel is missing or we should add, there?

DR. SUSSMAN: Are there other -- are there [inaudible] not chime in on mobility, I guess would be my question, in the same way that Randy wondered about how APTA didn't respond to safety, I think was what he said?

MR. DENARO: Well, I noticed a lot of that, Joe, when I went through there, too. I mean, when people are commenting on -- I was surprised at some of
the "N/As" in here. But, as Shelley said, we were just summarizing what they had heard, and, you know, so they didn't jump out, but --

MS. ROW: Just so you all know, what we did is, we collected the -- anything we could find written about reauthorization policies, positions, from these organizations, and then summarized them into this table. So, this is based on what we could find in writing that these organizations have put out.

MR. DENARO: Okay. All right. Let me just open it up to the other two areas, then. We've got mobility, environment, and productivity. Any comments from the committee, in these areas, about -- that you feel is missing in [inaudible] emphasize?

DR. SUSSMAN: All I could comment is, it would have been interesting -- it would have been premature, but it would have been interesting if we had equity as a fifth column.

MR. DENARO: Right.

DR. SUSSMAN: But -- to see who saluted at that and who did not -- but, that's water over the dam.

MR. DENARO: Yeah, Shelley mentioned a -- I think, Shelley, you were talking about safety when you said "applying equity to the safety goal," where typically it's on luxury cars, not smaller cars. The same thing, I think, goes for environment, when you look at some advanced technologies that could provide greatly enhanced fuel economy. Very often it's not the people buying luxury cars who are focused most on that, it's people buying small and midsized cars. And when you look at the volumes of sales in these various sizes, those are significant volumes in those cars. So, there is a real need for a way to figure out to get some of these technologies that can improve fuel economy into small cars, as well.

MS. ROW: Bob, if my -- I might offer a comment. The rest of the committee might not be aware. We, at U.S. DOT, are not able to engage in a substantive discussion with you on this subject, so we're sitting to listen. But, what I can share with you is just a little bit of, maybe, background about legislation.

Legislation is an art form to write. What you might do in your discussion today is to focus on the basic principles that you would wish to see in the program. And that's really the level of detail that you need to engage in. You don't really want to get into great detail about how a program would be structured, but more the high-level principles -- funding levels, focus areas, that sort of thing -- that you all would wish to see in a ITS program.

MR. DENARO: That's a good comment. Good suggestion.

MR. IWASAKI: So, then, based on that, Shelley, there -- this is Randy -- there should be some kind of position on the use of ITS technologies to enhance system performance to sync signals together and do all these things to reduce greenhouse gases and other things, and then maybe another topic for the environment and sustainability, or you're making sure that, whatever you do to the system, that there's -- resources are available for the next generation, right? To continue --

MS. ROW: Yeah.

MR. IWASAKI: -- or somehow kind of get that into the environment piece. Because a lot of this is
different. Each one of these boxes kind of comes at the issue from a different angle.

MS. ROW: Yeah. And again, just to, maybe, kind of help with the discussion, Randy, for example, in our existing legislation -- there's a goal statement in the existing legislation -- it's in one of your tabs, as a matter of fact -- that basically says the focus of the program should be on technologies to enhance surface transportation for safety, mobility, and the environment and productivity. So, you know, if you all are happy with that kind of a focus, then maybe you're happy.

VOICE: That's good.

MS. ROW: The other thing, the program is currently not real clearly focused on research and technology and evaluation -- technology transfer, I mean, and evaluation. If you all have an opinion on how that part of the program is focused, you might want to say so.

MR. DENARO: It sounds like, Shelley, that we're going to have to work this offline a little bit, and, you know, maybe with the rest of the committee, as
well, to provide some input. So, we'll go ahead and do that. You know, we still have a lot of input today. Let me -- if there are no other comments in these areas, there's nothing jumping out for anybody, I do have -- I do want to get some opinions on the specific questions I have in here, in the e-mail. And the first one is the principle that Shelley presented very early in the strategic plan, the focus of the program being on research technology transfer evaluation, rather than deployment. And it sounds to me like that's what -- the direction we've been going, and that makes sense. I just want to see if there's any -- if there's agreement on that or any other opinions about that.

VOICE: That's the first question on the e- mail, right?

MR. DENARO: Yeah. So, the question is, Is the focus of research technology transfer and evaluation the right one for the JPO, and RITA in general, as opposed to deployment -- a focus on deployment?

MR. BELCHER: This is Scott. I think that the JPO ought to be doing both, a little bit of both. On -- in our reauthorization principles, we have a -- an initiative called Smart Cities Program, which would be a large-scale deployment that'll be done in -- with a focus on research, basically to try to deploy, in a systemic way, a number of these technologies in a much more in-depth way, to really take the data that's necessary to see what will happen when we -- as we try to deploy the technology nationwide. So, I think there's -- I think part of it is a bit of terminology, but I think we are at the point where a lot of this technology needs to get more than transferred, but really needs to be deployed.

MR. DENARO: Okay. All right. We'll continue to flesh it out.

VOICE: I agree with Scott on that, Bob.

MR. DENARO: Okay. All right. The second question was a role for the JPO in promoting preliminary standards in order to -- well, for all the good things that standards are for. Anyone have --

DR. SUSSMAN: Could you clarify, Bob -- this is Joe -- what the adjective "preliminary" means in this context?

MR. DENARO: Well, Shelley maybe can help me here.

MS. ROW: Yeah.

MR. DENARO: But, my interpretation is that the JPO is not a standards-setting organization, so they don't develop the entire standard. So, at the preliminary standard, they do the original work, but then maybe it goes to an official standards organization to be done. Is that a good interpretation, Shelley?

MS. ROW: Well, actually -- I should have provided you some more comments on this, Bob, beforehand. I apologize. The language that we currently have is that we are -- we have a role in developing standards. We do that through standards-development organizations.

MR. DENARO: Okay.

MS. ROW: We also have the authority right now to develop and set, quote, "provisional standards." So, we actually have the authority to set a standard while it is in the process of being created through the regular consensus standards-development process.

MR. DENARO: Oh, okay. Provisional standard, okay.

MS. ROW: Uh-huh.

MR. DENARO: Okay. Any comments on that from the committee?

VOICE: I think that's an important role, my opinion.

VOICE: Agreed.

DR. SUSSMAN: Yeah, I do, too. I'm not a standards expert. And going back to the [inaudible] days of ITS, back in the '90s, I was totally bemused by these very lengthy timeframes on standard-development, having very little experience in the area, and it turned out that, even the most conservative of the people coming up with estimates turned out to be wrong.

[Laughter.]

DR. SUSSMAN: So, anything that advances standards more quickly seems to me to be on the side of the angels.

[Laughter.]

VOICE: Right.

VOICE: Right.

MR. DENARO: If I -- let me just move quickly, in the interest of time, here. I had a question, here -- and Shelley brought it up a couple of times -- this question on VMT tolling. You know, major change to the way funding is gathered. And is -- any opinions on that? I -- I'll throw one comment. I do see you're moving extremely aggressively in this direction, and I assume that we -- DOT -- are watching what they're doing and are learning from it. And it does seem to have some attractive characteristics. It -- does anyone have any strong opinions, on the committee, on this type of tolling?

DR. SUSSMAN: Bob, this is Joe. I'm not quite -- are you asking this in the context of the committee advising on the importance of this concept? I'm --

MR. DENARO: The advisability of this concept.

DR. SUSSMAN: Yeah, well, my own -- my own personal view would be, it's of vital importance that -- and I personally believe it's the wave of the
future, the future -- how far out the future is, I'm not sure. But, the idea that we're going to have this more scalpel-like instrument for controlling traffic flows, rather than the bludgeon-type instrument that we call the gas tax, to say nothing of having [inaudible] source of revenue for infrastructure, I believe it's fundamental to the future of surface transportation in this country.

VOICE: Right.

VOICE: But, I think the topic can be the issue of tolling, in itself. You don't have to limit it just to one brand of tolling. I think the concept has to be that you've got that as one of the tools that we can use in the future, whatever that may look like in the future. So, don't draw a line in the sand when you don't have to. But, clearly the issue of tolling is something you've got to continue to consider.

MR. DENARO: Yeah, okay. Good comment.

DR. LUND: This is Adrian Lund. I would point out that, in this area, I think we really run into the crosscutting issue of equity, since a lot of tolling, and especially in Europe, is being used to limit access to various areas or various roadways --

MR. DENARO: Right.

DR. LUND: -- by charging, you know, very high prices for rich people to drive luxury cars to catch the bonus checks.

[Laughter.]

VOICE: Yeah, I think that was a comment that was made initially when we had hot lanes and tolling on HOV lanes. And I think that our studies have proven that it actually isn't the rich that use hot lanes; it's actually the soccer moms and dads who try to get to pick up Junior on time. So, I think that notion has been evolved through studies of various toll roads throughout the United States.

DR. SUSSMAN: Yeah, I read a study, some years ago, that working women were a major user of looking at confiscatory childcare costs, if they were 4 minutes at the daycare center, and decided this was --

VOICE: [Inaudible.]

DR. SUSSMAN: -- [inaudible].

VOICE: I think the only point I'm trying to make is, when you starting bringing it down to a specific type of tolling is where you get the focused conflict. I didn't -- the issue of tolling has to be there, and should be there.

MS. ROW: And I --

MR. REPLOGLE: There's a role for -- the role for the Joint Program Office is to make sure that there's a technology platform that's open and interoperable, and that can be deployed more systematically.

VOICE: And, Bob, [inaudible] -- I apologize -- I have to run to another meeting, so I'm going to apologize. I have to bail out.

MR. DENARO: Fine, thanks.

VOICE: Thanks, Joe.

MR. DENARO: I think, in the interest of time, I think we'll have to do some homework, here, and provide it back to the committee to pull together comments on this whole section. But, I'm just looking at the clock, and we're running out of time, and I -- there's some important topics to come up yet. So, let's just close off this discussion, and we'll do some homework and provide some feedback later on, Joe.

MS. ROW: Okay. Thank you, Bob.

DR. SUSSMAN: Do you want to pass on question 4 and 5? Is that what you mean, Bob?

MR. DENARO: I'm going to pass on those, yes.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay. Let's -- Shelley, in that case, let's move it along. I have to get off promptly at 4 o'clock, my time. That's 10 minutes from now.

ITS America Annual Meeting

MS. ROW: Okay. I believe the next item is to talk about the annual meeting. Scott?

MR. BELCHER: Yeah, I'll forego the presentation, in the interest of time. This is, I think, a unique opportunity that we have, in June. It's -- the meeting will be in Fort Washington, Maryland, which is right across the river from D.C. We'll have the entire space there. So, I think it -- I think if you look at where we are with the fiscal stimulus package, where we are with authorizations, two topics that have taken up the 2 hours of time of this call, there's probably not a better time to be having a national meeting than now.

Anyway, we've got -- we're the only transportation organization that'll have a national meeting in D.C. this summer. So, I think this is a great opportunity. It's a great opportunity to push for ITS solutions. And that's what we intend to do. The Secretary has indicated his interest in being the keynote speaker, and we're working with this staff to schedule that. I think, you know, as the modal administrators get named, we'll invite them, as well. We've got a number of key Congressman and Senators who are -- who have agreed to participate. They were very interested in what's going on. We'll be having -- in fact, we'll be having a hearing on the vehicle mile travel tax, as well. There will be demonstrations -- not as exhaustive as in New York, but we'll still have a lot going on there, and there will be a lot of -- we've had over 140 vendors who have signed up to exhibit, and over 100 educational sessions.

So, I think this is a great opportunity to be unique -- again, because it is in Washington, and given the timing. And so, you know, I hope that the members of the Advisory Committee will be there, and will bring their staffs. And, Shelley, if you -- if you're interested, or if the Advisory Committee is interested, we -- you know, we could have a meeting there or we could, you know, do a tour of the exhibit hall, as we did in the last meeting.

MS. ROW: Yes.

MR. BELCHER: But, that's just my pitch for the meeting.

MS. ROW: And, Scott, thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the things that Joe and Bob and I had talked about we wanted to get a sense from the committee. At the World Congress in New York, we did organize a tour of the -- "we" -- Scott and his staff, organized a tour of the exhibit hall, that was just excellent. My only regret is that there were so few of us who got to participate. And we wanted to see if there was a desire of doing that again. The only caveat here that I think is unfortunate timing is that, almost all but one of you, your terms expire July the 6th, so shortly after the meeting. Nonetheless, if you're interested in doing a tour, we will happily work with Scott to organize it.

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, I'll still be -- we'll still be on the advisory board at the time of the meeting.

MS. ROW: That is correct.

DR. SUSSMAN: The meeting is in early June, and we don't expire until July. Is -- do I have that right?

MS. ROW: Yes, I'm hoping you all expire much later than that, but your terms expire in July.

[Laughter.]

DR. SUSSMAN: Yeah. Right.

VOICE: Yeah, I think it -- a tour would be interesting.

DR. SUSSMAN: We've --

MS. ROW: Joe --

DR. SUSSMAN: -- got a quorum, I would -- I would think so. It -- a lot of effort went in on the World Congress, and I think there were only -- Scott, do you remember -- perhaps four of us?

MS. ROW: Four of us.

MR. BELCHER: Yeah, there -- yeah, there were.

MS. ROW: Well, Joe, if I might offer a suggestion, we can put out an electronic poll to the Advisory Committee members to see who expects to be there on which days, and if they are interested in participating in a tour of the exhibit hall.

MR. FOXX: This is Al Foxx. I'll be interested, since you're located right close -- right next door to me. Baltimore.

DR. SUSSMAN: The dates are the 1st through the 3rd? Is that right?

MR. BELCHER: Yeah. Yeah, and the 3rd is actually the day that'll spent primarily on Capitol Hill, with meetings with your respective Members of Congress -- and will, in fact. And the -- we'll end the annual meeting with a reception in the Capitol Visitors Center and -- the new Capitol Visitors Center, which is a pretty interesting place, if you haven't been there yet.

MS. ROW: So, the opportunities for tours would be on Monday or Tuesday, Scott, is that correct?

MR. BELCHER: That's correct.

MS. ROW: Okay.

DR. SUSSMAN: Are there any events, Scott, on the Sunday or -- some welcoming stuff, or what?

MR. BELCHER: No, we're starting on Monday. We're -- you know, we've got it focused on the three days that we're there.

DR. SUSSMAN: And that's -- and the exhibit area opens first thing Monday morning?

MR. BELCHER: I don't have the -- I don't have it in front of me, but I think it does. I don't have the -- it in front of me.

MS. ROW: We're looking, Scott. We'll see if we can find it.

MR. BELCHER: Yeah, I'm just --

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, I would certainly say that the people who were singled out to talk to the committee, as they toured around, really seemed quite energized by it. We all felt that we got some very special attention from these folks who had been standing there for many days, seeing all the visiting firemen come through.

MS. ROW: Yes, Joe, it opens at noon on Monday.

DR. SUSSMAN: Noon on Monday, okay.

MS. ROW: Well, Joe, do you want us to put out a solicitation to the members and see about interest?

DR. SUSSMAN: That's a good idea, Shelley.

MS. ROW: Okay, will do.

U.S. DOT ITS Program Governance

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, we have about 5 minutes. I'm looking at the rest of the agenda. The one that -- the item that sort of catches my eye is this DOT ITS Program Governance, which sounds as though it could potentially be meaty. Perhaps, Shelley, you could just say a sentence or two about what that involves.

MS. ROW: Yes. I'd be happy to. And I'm -- I alluded to it previously. As you all know, this office, ITS Program Office, is intended to work multimodally and collaboratively. We have, historically, done that with the various modes in U.S. DOT. We have had no written processes or procedures, roles, responsibilities that govern the interaction. We've just been doing it kind of the way we've always done it. So, we have now written a charter for how the modes are going to work together, and three process documents, there alluded to earlier as Annex A, B, and C. We are also writing a charter for what we call the Management Council -- that is, the administrator level of coordination for the program.

While that may seem like a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork, I can assure you it is very essential to the smoother, uninterrupted governance of the program and clarity of interaction between us, the JPO, and the modes, who actually execute most of the program. We have drafts of all those documents. We expect to finalize them in the month of April or early May. And I'm personally very pleased with the progress we've made in that area.

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, is this something you're looking for any input or support or anything from this committee?

MS. ROW: No, frankly, we had not. I'm happy to share the documents with you. They specifically pertain to how the modes are going to work together inside the building.

DR. SUSSMAN: Well, that -- you know, that potentially has some meat. We know, in the past, the -- some of the headknocking that's gone on among the modes that may have been not fully productive for the ITS program or generally speaking. So, I hope what you proposed will make those interactions smoother and more collegial, shall I say, than they've generally been.

MS. ROW: Yes, I am very pleased with how it has progressed and the level of cooperation we've had in the creation of them. I'm happy to share them with you once we get them to a consensus stage. I'm happy to share them with you anyway, but it's probably more productive if you let us complete them. They're almost done anyway.

Summary and Wrap-up

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay. We're down to about a minute. We -- I'll wrap up simply by saying I thought this was a productive meeting. I appreciate people taking a hunk out of their business day to participate in this.

We -- Shelley and I and Bob should perhaps talk offline of the optimal timing of the next face-to- face meeting. And, of course, there is, at least in principle, the possibility of being able to do it at the ITS America meeting, although, frankly, I think the practicalities of getting that done are kind of daunting. But, Shelley, Bob, and I can talk about when we need [inaudible] as to contribute as best we can to the ongoing program.

Shelley, is that okay with you, that we don't work to set it right now?

MS. ROW: Yes, I think that's entirely appropriate. And I do just need to point that if the next meeting is after early July, then we are, by law, required to have a new committee appointed. So, I don't know what the makeup of the committee will be, at that point. It is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary's office to appoint the committee members. So, we have no knowledge of that. We're working the process now, are just starting on it, so we'll have to see what the timing looks like.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay, well, we'll have to discuss the logistics of all this. But, thanks, to the JPO folks. I hope we kept the audience down there suitably entertained, and we -- let -- I think we can sign off now and say thank you, again, to all the committee members for their participation.

Bob, you'd better go catch your plane. We'll all talk again soon, I am sure. Any closing comment, Shelley?

MS. ROW: No, just our thanks, as well, for everyone's time. We appreciate the busy schedules you all have. So, thank you for participating with us. Even though it's less than ideal to be on a phone, I think you all did a great job.

DR. SUSSMAN: Okay. Thanks, and we'll be in further touch. Thanks a lot.

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]