Traffic Congestion: State Legislatures Examine Intelligent Transportation Solutions

November 2003 No. 18 Traffic Congestion: State Legislatures Examine Intelligent Transportation Solutions By Matt Sundeen, Program Principal, Transportation Introduction Anyone who has traveled on a road recently knows that traffic congestion is a concern in many places. Trips by car, truck, motorcycle and other motor vehicles comprise a substantial portion of travel in the United States each year. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in 2001 more than 235 million registered vehicles traveled more than 2.78 trillion miles on roads and highways in the United States. 1 FHWA reports that, in 2000, more than 42,500 miles of highways in the United States were congested, including more than 6,000 miles in rural areas. 2 FHWA estimates that drivers are delayed by as many as 4 billion hours each year by traffic congestion. 3 The greater demands on the nation s highways and roads have fueled interest among lawmakers and transportation planners in the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). ITS encompasses a wide range of communications and information technologies such as traffic cameras, ramp meters, dynamic message signs, monitoring centers and more that promise to increase the efficiency, safety and capacity of existing transportation infrastructure. Planners hope that ITS will modernize transportation operations and reduce the need to build new roads. Contents Introduction...1 Understanding the Congestion Problem...2 The ITS Solution...4 The ITS Effect on Congestion...6 ITS Costs...8 Federal Action... 9 State Actions...10 Conclusion...11 Appendix: State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003...13 Notes...21 References...23 This Transportation Review examines the congestion problem and the potential use of ITS as a solution. The report provides an overview of ITS applications and of the benefits and costs of ITS technology. The report, which also details federal and state efforts to develop ITS programs, focuses on 2003 state ITS legislation. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 1

Understanding the Congestion Problem Traffic congestion occurs when the number of vehicles exceeds the capacity of a highway or road. Simply put, when too many cars travel in a limited space, delays result. The exact amount of congestion can be difficult to measure. A variety of different indicators such as speed, travel time and delay can quantify traffic problems. However, congestion often is related to perception and expectations. For example, a road that seems crowded to a person who normally drives in rural areas may not seem as congested to a person who commutes through a large urban area. Similarly, a driver might think a highway has heavy traffic if there are more cars than expected late at night or during the weekend, even if many more vehicles regularly travel on the same stretch of road during peak travel hours. Regardless of the indicator used, most experts agree that traffic congestion continues to worsen across the country. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) reports that the average annual hours of delay per person in the United States grew from seven hours in 1982 to 26 hours in 2001. In the last five years alone, the average has grown by four hours. Gridlock comes with a price that is much higher than just a few angry drivers. TTI estimates that the total cost of traffic congestion in the 75 largest urban areas in 2001 was $69.5 billion, up more than $4.5 billion from the previous year. 4 According to TTI, congestion wastes 5.7 billion gallons of fuel and causes 3.5 billion hours of lost productivity. TTI estimates that the extra time needed for rush hour travel in the 75 largest urban areas in the country has tripled during the last decade. In some large cities, traffic congestion can be quite severe. For example, according to TTI, drivers in Los Angeles, California, experience more than 52 hours of delay each year, the most in the nation. San Francisco area drivers are delayed an average of 42 hours each year, and Denver drivers sit through 36 hours of congestion. Congestion is not only a big city problem, however. Traffic delays can affect drivers in communities of all sizes. TTI reports that drivers in Colorado Springs, Colorado, were delayed an average of 13 hours in 2001. Charleston, South Carolina, drivers were slowed down an average of 11 hours, while Tucson drivers were delayed by 14 hours. According to TTI, the amount of congested travel time in urban areas with populations of less than 500,000 increased by 300 percent from 1982 to 1997. Congestion can occur both inside and outside cities. The FHWA reports that, in 2000, more than 42,500 miles of highways in the 50 states and the District of Columbia were congested. Of these miles, over 6,000 were in rural areas. 5 2 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Not surprisingly, lawmakers and drivers alike believe traffic congestion is a major issue. A 2001 survey of local government officials by Public Technology Inc. (PTI) found that 93 percent believed traffic congestion was an important issue. Twenty-five percent of respondents said it was an extremely important issue. 6 A survey by FHWA found that general public dissatisfaction with congestion is growing. In 1995, approximately 30 percent of people polled expressed dissatisfaction with overall levels of congestion. By 2000, that figure had grown to nearly 50 percent. 7 Although many people are annoyed by congestion, it is difficult to plan around the two basic ingredients: traffic volume and road capacity. Both figures are not constant. The number of vehicles on a road can vary according to time of day, the season, the day of the week, special events or emergencies. Weather, road construction and traffic incidents also can dramatically alter the ability of a road to handle more volume. The FHWA estimates that 45 percent of traffic delay is caused by recurring factors that exist almost every day. 8 These include normal daily traffic demands in addition to other recurring problems such as poor signal timing. Non-recurring factors that change each day account for the remaining traffic congestion. The FHWA estimates that 25 percent of traffic delays are caused by traffic incidents such as crashes and stalled vehicles. Weather accounts for 15 percent of congestion, work zones cause 10 percent of delays, and 5 percent of delays are attributable to other non-recurring factors such as special events. 9 If the two key factors in congestion are traffic volume and road capacity, it would seem logical that adding new roads or expanding existing roads would be a simple solution that could alleviate traffic pressures. In most places, however, road construction alone has been insufficient to solve congestion problems. States and local communities have been unable to build or expand highways at a rate that keeps pace with need. The FHWA reports that, between 1980 and 1999, route miles of highways increased by only 1.5 percent, while vehicle miles of travel increased by 76 percent. 10 According to TTI, during the last two decades, only 50 percent of the new roads that were needed to simply maintain current congestion levels actually were added. 11 Experts have estimated that, between 1998 and 1999 alone, states would have needed to lay 1,800 new lane-miles of freeway and 2,500 new lane-miles of streets to relieve congestion in the United States. For cash-strapped states, adding capacity to the highway system often is not feasible. Road construction can be expensive, time-consuming and environmentally challenging. Construction can take long periods of time, may create additional traffic hazards, and may compound congestion. Moreover, it is physically impossible in some urban communities to find space to add sufficient infrastructure to relieve crowded highways. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 3

The ITS Solution Because construction has not kept pace with transportation needs, states and local communities have looked to alternative solutions that can enhance congestion management efforts. One supplement has been the use of intelligent transportation systems. ITS is not a single technology or program. Instead, it refers to adopting strategies and using technologies to better manage traffic, coordinate congestion mitigation efforts, improve safety and enhance the efficiency of roads. ITS encompasses a broad range of technologies that can be used for hundreds of different applications. Planners envision ITS as a means to tackle both recurring and non-recurring problems on roads. ITS programs can be found in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It has been used in urban and rural communities, on interstate highways and small city streets, in transit centers and rail stations, at ports, and in trucks and cars. ITS can be used for diverse needs, ranging from controlling the flow of traffic, detecting emergencies on highways, and warning drivers of impending danger, to improving freight security, routing on-demand travel services and efficiently checking registration documents for commercial vehicles. ITS technologies range in size and scope from a single ramp meter, dynamic message sign or transponder to an entire traffic management center or networks of computers and software. Traffic management ITS can help control traffic along major highways and roads. Transportation managers use cameras and surveillance devices, adaptive signal controls, information displays, traffic and lane control devices, ramp meters, variable speed limit signs and work zone signals to alter traffic volume and speeds when they begin to see congestion form. Signal priority systems can be used to help emergency vehicles navigate traffic and clear incidents more rapidly. Pedestrian control devices help reduce encounters between pedestrians and vehicles. Automated enforcement devices can reduce red light violations that result in congestioncausing crashes. Dynamic message signs and radio advisories warn drivers of impending congestion and allow them to plan their routes to avoid high-traffic areas. According to an annual survey by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the use of ITS technology to manage traffic is widespread. 12 In 2001, for example, 381 local transportation agencies across the country used signal preemption technology to give emergency vehicles priority at 26,845 intersections. Work zone management systems operate in 12 states. Thirty-four states use dynamic message signs, while eight agencies use variable signs to control speed limits on highways. Fourteen agencies use a total of 1,162 ramp meters to control the flow of traffic from on ramps to highways. Fifteen states use route diversion systems to move traffic from crowded highways. 4 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Incident management Cameras and surveillance devices allow traffic managers to more rapidly detect incidents such as crashes and stalled vehicles. Automatic vehicle location devices can guide emergency responders to crash scenes and locate vehicles more quickly in rural areas. Traffic management centers, computer-aided dispatch devices and vehicle guidance systems can help route emergency vehicles and coordinate response services. Technology and programs that help detect and clear incidents are widely used by states and local communities. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 83 agencies in 29 states employ closed circuit televisions along 3,921 miles of roads to detect incidents. Traffic surveillance systems in 20 states allow managers to detect traffic jams or preempt signals for emergency vehicles. Thirty-two agencies deploy call boxes along 2,384 miles of roads. Fifty-eight agencies coordinate service patrol incident responses. Traffic management centers that coordinate operations are located in 25 states. Electronic toll collection Transponders allow travel through toll areas at highway speeds, reducing congestion. In 2001, 68 agencies operated 711 electronic toll collection plazas that allow vehicles through at highway speeds in 4,772 toll collection lanes. Forty-four of those agencies use electronic tags or transponders that can be used by other toll collection agencies. Travel information Travel management centers, web sites and information kiosks allow travelers to make more informed decisions about departure times, routes and mode of travel during inclement weather or during high congestion periods. According to the U.S. DOT, 30 states use traveler information systems. Eighty-five local agencies use Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) to provide motorists with advisory information. HAR reaches drivers on more than 4,436 miles of highway. In addition, 100 agencies provide travel information on Internet Web sites, and 20 agencies use information kiosks. Road weather management ITS can be used to survey and monitor traffic conditions, road surface conditions and weather conditions. Technology allows speed limit control, lane usage control and signal control and can improve response to weather conditions such as plowing and winter maintenance. Dynamic message signs and travel advisories can warn motorists of impending problems related to weather. According to the U.S. DOT, 39 states deploy technology that detects weather problems and warns drivers about conditions. Ninety-seven local agencies use 2,805 permanently stationed variable or changeable message signs to warn motorists of impending road condition problems such as weather, construction, crashes or congestion. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 5

Electronic screening for commercial vehicles ITS services allow safe and legal commercial motor vehicles to bypass weigh stations and safety inspection stations at highway speeds. Technology can automatically check safety credentials and weigh vehicles, reducing congestion at ports of entry and improving travel time for commercial vehicles. Intelligent vehicles Technologies are being used to improve the safety and performance of motor vehicles and theoretically can reduce the number of congestion-causing crashes. Dashboard-mounted navigation systems, route guidance systems and voice directions can decrease driver dependence on hand-held maps and also improve safety. Other safety devices include intelligent cruise control, rear end warnings, road departure warnings, intersection warnings, longitudinal controls, speed controls, devices that sense low traction, automatic collision notification and Mayday systems, on-board monitoring of driver conditions and vehicle diagnostic systems. The ITS Effect on Congestion The effects of ITS on gridlock can be difficult to judge. Given the continued national rise in congestion levels, it is clear that no technology has yet solved the problem. However, some studies indicate that ITS helped slow overall congestion growth where it was deployed. According to TTI, three ITS applications ramp meters, incident management programs and signal coordination reduced the growth of the national average annual delay for trips by commuters during peak periods by two hours from 2001 to 2002. The reduction occurred despite relatively low deployment rates in some cities. TTI estimated that if the remedies were used on all the major roads in all 75 cities it studied, total travel delay would fall by 15 percent, equal to the congestion levels in 1996. 13 Overall, TTI estimated that the three ITS operational strategies accounted for a reduction in delay of more than 205,000 hours in the 75 cities studied in 2001. 14 This lessening in delay accounted for more than $4 billion in savings. 15 Several studies of the effects of individual ITS programs indicate mostly positive results. According to a 2003 report by Mitretek Systems, many ITS technologies help mitigate congestion and provide additional benefits such as enhanced traffic safety, greater mobility, increased productivity, energy efficiency and reduced impact on the environment. 16 Examples from the report include the following. Signal control systems Signals that can adapt to changing traffic conditions can help reduce delays. Such systems use cameras and sensors to detect high volumes of traffic, allowing automatic light changes 6 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

to optimize traffic flow. Studies from six cities in Brazil, Canada, Scotland and Spain found that adaptive signal controls reduced delay by amounts ranging from 5 percent to 42 percent. An adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada, reduced motor vehicle emissions by 3 percent to 6 percent and generated 4 percent to 7 percent fuel savings. 17 Synchronization among multiple traffic lights has provided significant benefits in many jurisdictions. According to the report, signal coordination along 76 corridors in California cities reduced vehicle delay in the corridors by 25 percent. In Phoenix, Arizona, signal coordination reduced crash risk by 6.7 percent. The reduction in delays, fuel use and emissions from the coordination of lights in Richmond, Virginia, resulted in an estimated $4.2 million in annual benefits for the city. 18 Ramp meters Ramp meters control the number of vehicles that enter the highway during peak travel times. A study in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, found that speeds increased on highways by amounts ranging from 8 percent to 26 percent when ramp meters were in use. The study found that freeways with ramp meters could accommodate a 10 percent increase in traffic volume and credited ramp meters with a 22 percent decrease in travel time and a 21 percent reduction in motor vehicle crashes. 19 Incident management systems Incident management technologies help detect and clear incidents more rapidly, reducing not only congestion but also the potential for further crashes. A study of the Maryland Coordinated Highways Action Response Team found that the system reduced the average incident duration by 57 percent in 2000 and by 55 percent in 1999. 20 Studies in Colorado, Indiana and Minnesota found that incident response systems saved $1.2 million to $1.8 million in lost productivity by clearing congestion more rapidly. Six studies of a management system in San Antonio, Texas, found that ITS technology reduced subsequent crashes by 2.8 percent at incident locations. 21 Electronic toll collection Electronic toll collection facilities allow drivers to pass through tollbooths at highway speeds. Ten years after New York implemented its E-ZPass system, approximately 5.1 million transponders, which allow drivers to pass through toll areas without stopping, are in use. Officials report that more than half of all throughway transactions 136 million annually now are conducted through the E-ZPass program. A study of a facility on the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York City showed an electronic toll lane could process 1,000 vehicles per hour, while a manual lane could process only 400 to 450 vehicles per hour. 22 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 7

Traveler information systems ITS technologies that provide pre-trip and en-route information to drivers are intended to help travelers avoid congested areas and peak travel times. Simulation studies and model projections in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Michigan, Seattle, Washington, and San Antonio, Texas, indicated that traveler information systems could improve travel time reliability, reduce delays for individual drivers and improve highway capacity. 23 However, no figures on the actual effects of those systems on traffic congestion are available. Work zone management State and local communities are developing strategies to improve detection of and reaction to traffic incidents in work zones. The goals of ITS in work zones are to reduce congestion and improve worker safety. A study in Albuquerque, New Mexico, found that a temporary traffic management center and motorist assistance patrols at a construction site reduced the average clearance times of traffic incidents by 44 percent. 24 ITS Costs Many ITS programs and technologies can be expensive to implement and operate. Virginia, for example, is planning to integrate its Smart Tag electronic toll collection technology with E-ZPass toll collection programs already established in Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. By joining the multi-state E-ZPass program, Virginia will allow its drivers to use their Smart Tags in other member states and permit drivers from other states to pay tolls electronically in Virginia. Although the move will improve congestion by allowing drivers to travel through toll facilities at highway speeds and ultimately will save the state money with leveraged buying power on long-term technology costs, the initial expenditures for the integration appear high. Virginia authorities estimate that it will cost the state between $3.5 million and $4.5 million to integrate the technology, with an additional $250,000 fee to join the E-ZPass program and $70,000 in annual fees. In Washington, transportation officials upgraded the North Seattle Advanced Traffic Management System to better coordinate traffic signals in Seattle, nine other cities, three transit agencies and the state DOT s arterial signal and freeway ramp metering system. 25 The capital costs for implementing the upgrades in 1998 were $1.7 million. Annual operating and management costs for the system total approximately $140,000. Officials in Indianapolis, Indiana, linked 220 intersections to a central computer system. The upgrade allows synchronization of lights at busy intersections, reducing the likelihood of congestion. The total cost to complete the change was $5.1 million. 26 8 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Often, the costs can overshadow potential benefits. For example, New Jersey officials announced in 2003 that they would launch an investigation into problems with their E- ZPass electronic toll collection program. E-ZPass allows motorists who participate in the program to drive through toll plazas at highway speeds, reducing congestion at toll facilities. Although the program is popular with New Jersey drivers, serious financial concerns have plagued the system since its inception in 1998. In July 2002, Governor James McGreevey announced a series of reforms intended to bring back the E-Z Pass program from a $469 million deficit. Officials revealed in 2003, however, that a $402 million lawsuit against the bankrupt company that had originally operated E-Z Pass had been settled for just $10.4 million. FHWA tracks costs and specific ITS expenses through a database on its Web site. The ITS Benefits and Costs Database, located online at http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/, provides information about hundreds of ITS technologies and applications, including initial capital costs for individual units, the expected lifetime of the technology, anticipated expenses for operation and maintenance, and notes about the technology benefits. The database also provides detailed cost data for entire ITS systems. Federal Action When Congress passed the massive Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1991 (ISTEA), it launched a new era for the use of ITS in the national transportation network. ISTEA significantly advanced ITS by initiating research, development and operational testing projects at the national, regional, state and local levels. The act authorized ITS as a component of the nation s surface transportation network and established the goals of enhancing the capacity, efficiency and safety of the highway system. In addition, the legislation promoted the ITS industry in the United States and the development of a technological base that would enhance industrial and economic competitiveness, facilitate technology transfer, and establish a U.S. presence in the ITS field. ISTEA also prompted the creation of the ITS Joint Program Office within the U.S. DOT to better coordinate the national ITS program. Congress renewed its commitment to ITS in 1998 with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The legislation provided $1.282 billion toward ITS through 2003 to expedite integration and deployment of ITS programs, improve regional cooperation and operations planning, develop a capable ITS work force, and promote innovative uses for private resources. The federal investment in ITS programs through ISTEA and TEA-21 has led to an explosion in ITS projects. In 1996, there were approximately 400 federally funded ITS projects in the states. Today, that number has expanded into the thousands. Twelve years after ISTEA, federal lawmakers are considering the next large transportation bill that will help determine future support for ITS. The legislation proposed by the NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 9

administration the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA) suggests $247 billion in funding for transportation programs during the next six years. ITS measures contained in the proposal place a greater emphasis on system performance and operations. One section establishes an ITS Performance Incentive Program. It includes $135 million per year in funding to reward states that are aggressively developing ITS projects. In addition, the legislation contains proposals for $121 million per year for ITS research and development, a 20 percent increase over the amount contained in TEA-21. SAFETEA also provides funding to improve deployment of ITS in commercial vehicle operations. Specifically, it provides funds for states to complete implementation of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks program (CVISN). CVISN is an ITS program for commercial vehicle operations that allows for exchange of safety information, registration, fuel tax, hazardous materials, and commercial driver license information among states. State Actions State ITS legislation often is overshadowed by activity at the federal level. However, states shoulder much of the responsibility for implementing ITS programs. State legislatures must appropriate money for ITS systems and often must authorize projects or the use of specific ITS technologies. In 2003, legislators in at least 17 states considered measures related to ITS. Some legislation was intended to provide financial support. California legislators, for example, passed a measure to fund specific ITS projects that improve emergency response. Senate Bill 795 provides funding for freeway service patrols, including money for motorist aid call boxes and changeable message signs. Legislatures in other states deliberated over bills intended to provide broad support for ITS programs. Legislators in Arizona, for example, considered a measure to create a regional transportation district. Under HB 2288, the new district would have the responsibility to define the regional transportation system services that comprise a multi-modal, cross jurisdictional, transportation infrastructure, including regional intelligent transportation systems. Texas legislators considered a bill to establish an integrated multi-modal transportation corridor. If passed, HB 1198 would have created the Trans Texas Corridor to combine various transportation facilities, including highways, turnpikes, rail lines, pipelines and utilities. The legislation was intended to provide the necessary authority to develop and operate the corridor with the goals of enhancing safety and relieving traffic congestion. However, the measure was left pending in committee at the end of the session. 10 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Some states authorized or required the use of specific ITS technologies in 2003. For example, New Jersey SB 390, approved in January, requires the New Jersey Department of Transportation to conduct an emergency response priority system pilot program using computer-assisted techniques to allow priority signal control for emergency vehicles. Rhode Island and Virginia legislators considered automatic enforcement legislation. Rhode Island HB 5451, if passed, would establish a traffic control system to monitor red light running. Virginia HB 1728 would have allowed the state police to use photo-radar for speed limit enforcement. However, the measure died in committee. North Carolina enacted a law that is intended to improve the distribution of information to motorists. SB 58 authorizes the Department of Transportation to automate its 511 traveler information phone system. Lawmakers in some states restricted the use of technology for traffic operations. Illinois, for example, prohibited the installation of traffic signal preemption devices on motor vehicles. SB 123, enacted in July, prohibits the use of signal preemption devices on unauthorized vehicles. However, the devices are allowed for official vehicles, including emergency vehicles, police vehicles and vehicles used for snow removal. California legislators considered legislation intended to protect the privacy of people who use ITS systems. AB 198, if passed, would prohibit state officials from selling or sharing information about the driving patterns of a motorist who uses an electronic toll payment device to drive through a toll bridge, toll lane or toll highway. As of October 2003, the measure was still in committee. Hawaii legislators considered two proposals to collect information about ITS. HB 1516, which died in committee, would have required the Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study on converting freeways to intelligent highways that can automatically control the movement of cars. House Concurrent Resolution 15 requested the study of photogrammetric computer systems as a means of expediting accident investigations and minimizing lane closures. As of November, 2003 the resolution was still in committee. Conclusion Traffic congestion continues to be an important issue for lawmakers. The traditional solution of building new roads has not kept pace with the growing demands placed on the transportation network. Intelligent transportation systems in some cases have demonstrated the ability to help planners stretch the capacity of existing infrastructure. ITS can be expensive, however, and no single technology can solve the entire congestion problem. As lawmakers in Washington debate the next major multi-year transportation funding bill, it is important for state legislatures to be involved in the process of determining which ITS programs are most appropriate for their state. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 11

12 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 State Citation Description Status Arizona Creates regional transportation districts. Among the HB 2288 responsibilities of the districts are to define the regional transportation system services that comprise a multimodal, cross jurisdictional, transportation infrastructure including, regional intelligent transportation systems and regional transit systems. California Would prohibit the department or any specified AB 198 transportation agency from selling or sharing the actual driving patterns of a motorist who uses an electronic toll payment device to drive through a toll bridge, toll lane or toll highway. Allocates any money exceeding the amount needed for Enacted SB 795 full implementation and ongoing costs to maintain and operate the motorist aid system of call boxes toward transportation safety projects such as changeable message signs used to notify motorists of delays, hazards, etc.. Prohibits the use of information data encoded on a SB 602 driver s license for marketing purposes or for use in an electronic device that reads personal information. AB 684 Requires publicly owned transit operators who use a smart card system to comply with specified requirements. Colorado SB 225 Creates the Highway Crossing Protection Fund to promote the public safety and to provide for the Enacted payment of costs of installing, reconstructing, and improving automatic and other safety appliable signals or devices at crossing grade of public highways or roads over the tracks of any railroad or street railway corporation in this state. Connecticut SB 587 Would provide state funding for improvements to communication systems such as radio equipment for interdepartmental communications. Such communications have proven to be a vital resource for first responders to an emergency situation. State funding to upgrade communications systems among first responders would increase the safety of those involved in an incident, the first responders and the general public. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 13

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Connecticut HB 5671 Would provide state funding for improvements to (continued) communication systems such as radio equipment for interdepartmental communications. Such communications have proven to be a vital resource for first responders to an emergency situation. State funding to upgrade communications systems among first responders would increase the safety of those involved in an incident, the first responders and the general public. HB 5647 Would provide state funding for improvements to communication systems such as radio equipment for interdepartmental communications. Such communications have proven to be a vital resource for first responders to an emergency situation. State funding to upgrade communications systems among first responders would increase the safety of those involved in an incident, the first responders and the general public. HB 5654 Would provide state funding for improvements to communication systems such as radio equipment for interdepartmental communications. Such communications have proven to be a vital resource for first responders to an emergency situation. State funding to upgrade communications systems among first responders would increase the safety of those involved in an incident, the first responders and the general public. Georgia S.B. 257 Allows State Road and Tollway Authority to consider unsolicited proposals to build transit systems, transportation management systems, and intelligent vehicle highway systems, so long as the proposals are not substantially similar to other transportation systems already in programming stages. Hawaii HCR 15 Requests the metropolitan planning organization to study the use of multidisciplinary investigation teams and technology, including the use of photogrammetric computer systems to expedite accident investigation procedures and to minimize lane closures of roadways and the effect this has on the driving public. HB 1516 Requires the Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study on converting freeways into intelligent highways that can automatically control movement of cars. 14 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Illinois Michigan New Hampshire New Jersey Nevada SB 123 HB 4429 HB 253 SB 390 SB 26 SB 220 Prohibits installation on a motor vehicle of a traffic control signal preemption device, a device that changes a traffic control signal to a green light or extends the duration of a green light. Prohibits unauthorized operation of the device. Provides that the device may be installed on specified emergency vehicles or commuter buses. Specifies the conditions and circumstances under which a device installed on one of those vehicles may be operated. Provides that violation of the provision is a Class A misdemeanor. Transportation Appropriations Bill. Section 714 directs the Department of Transportation to work with local transit agencies to provide demand-response transit services. Section 719 appropriates money for rail/highway grade improvements. Relates to the design-build concept for certain projects. Statewide transportation improvement program projects with a cost not to exceed $1 million and that are related to transportation enhancement, congestion mitigation and air quality, or intelligent transportation systems, may be developed and constructed using the design-build concept, based on a request for proposal, provided that selection is based on an objective standard and measurable criteria for evaluation of the proposals. The commissioner shall report the results of any statewide transportation improvement program project using the design-build concept to the capital budget overview committee within 90 days after the completion of the project. Requires the Department of Transportation to conduct an emergency response priority control system pilot program using computer-assisted techniques to allow control of traffic signals when emergency vehicles are responding to emergencies. Identical to AB 958. Bill number from prior session is SB 1451. Establishes certain requirements relating to monitoring devices attached to exterior of vehicles to track movement or location of vehicles. Repeals prohibition against certain use by governmental entity of photographic, video or digital equipment for gathering evidence for issuance of traffic citation. Enacted Enacted NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 15

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status New York North Carolina Rhode Island Texas SB 2827 SB 38 HB 5451 SB 404 HB 200 HB 1208 Requires timely posting by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of transit information relating to certain operational and financial performance on any site maintained for the public on the World Wide Web. Designates the Department of Transportation as the state agency responsible for fixed guideway transit safety, amends the DOT logo signs program to authorize attraction logo signs, authorizes the DOT to adopt temporary rules concerning logo signs, authorizes the DOT to automate its 511 traveler information phone system, and revises the law concerning high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Would establish a traffic control monitoring system known as the Rhode Island Red Light Running Act of 2003. The board of a transit authority may create an advanced transportation district within its boundaries and may propose an increase in the sales and use tax at a rate of 0.25 percent. This bill expands the definition of advanced transportation and adds the definition of mobility enhancement. Relates to traffic management systems, bus ways, bus lanes, technologically advanced bus transit vehicles and systems, transit centers, stations, electronic transitrelated information, signal prioritization and coordination, and feasibility studies and mobility enhancement projects. Relates to the authority of a municipality to implement a photographic traffic signal enforcement system; provides for the imposition of civil penalties, and provides a criminal penalty. Enhances the ability of TxDOT and the Texas Transportation Commission to finance, construct, maintain and operate high-occupancy vehicle lanes and toll lanes on the state highway system, and to maximize the efficient move of vehicles on state highways through the use of high-occupancy vehicle and toll lanes and exclusive lanes. Enacted Enacted Enacted 16 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Texas (continued) Virginia SB 1066 HB 901 HB 1198 HB 1340 HB 1632 Authorizes TxDOT to designate restricted or exclusive lanes and to contract with certain entities to design, operate and maintain high-occupancy vehicle and toll lanes. The bill also exempts police and emergency vehicles from restrictions under this bill and requires construction and maintenance of traffic control devices to implement and enforce such restrictions. Relates to the authority of a municipality to implement a photographic traffic signal enforcement system; provides for the imposition of civil penalties, and provides a criminal penalty. The Trans Texas Corridor would combine various facilities, including free highways, turnpikes, freight, rail, passenger and commuter rail, pipelines, communications lines, and other utilities. These integrated corridors will enhance the safety of travelers, relieve congestion, and protect the human and natural environment by serving population centers without directing traffic into heavily populated areas. Would require certain governmental entities that operate toll highways or toll roads to permit the use of a transponder issued by another governmental entity to pay a toll. Photo-toll program. Enhances penalties associated with failure to pay a required toll for using a toll facility using a photo-toll toll payment enforcement system and explicitly allows the use of photo-toll systems on non-vdot toll facilities. The bill also requires that, if a vehicle owner submits an affidavit that he was not the operator of the vehicle for which no toll was paid, he must identify the operator. Also provides a mechanism by which penalties can be assessed against operators of rented and leased vehicles. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 17

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Virginia (continued) HB 1687 HB 1696 HB 1728 HB 1882 HB 2479 SB 721 Expands the current prohibition on having television receivers in motor vehicles within view of the driver to include video monitors. The bill also provides that any vehicle equipped with a television receiver or other video monitor forward of the driver s seat or the screen of which would otherwise be visible to the driver while driving the vehicle will not be issued a Virginia motor vehicle safety inspection approval sticker or be registered in Virginia until such television receiver or other video monitor is removed or permanently disabled. Any person in Virginia who installs any device or equips any vehicle in violation of these provisions will be liable for the cost of removal of the unlawful equipment on demand of the vehicle s registered owner. Expands photo-monitoring systems for traffic signal enforcement to all of Virginia instead of only in specified localities. Allows state police officers (and law-enforcement officers of localities where authorized by ordinance) to use photo-radar technology, operated by law enforcement officers, to enforce speed limits. Enhances penalties associated with failure to pay a required toll for using a toll facility using a photo-toll toll payment enforcement system and explicitly allows the use of photo-toll systems on non-vdot toll facilities. Also requires that, if a vehicle owner submits an affidavit that he was not the operator of the vehicle for which no toll was paid, he must identify the operator. Provides a mechanism by which penalties can be assessed against operators of rented and leased vehicles. Allows all localities to use laser speed determination devices. Enhances penalties associated with failure to pay a required toll for using a toll facility using a photo-toll toll payment enforcement system and explicitly allows the use of photo-toll systems on non-vdot toll facilities. Provides a mechanism by which penalties can be assessed against operators of rented and leased vehicles. Enacted Enacted 18 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Virginia (continued) Washington SB 840 HB 1019 HB 1702 HB 1324 Allows all localities to use photo-red programs to enforce traffic light signals and extends the program s sunset to July 1, 2010. Pertains to the personally identifying information of people who acquire and use a transponder or other technology to facilitate payment of tolls. The department may, at the secretary s discretion, disclose aggregate information on toll collection to governmental agencies or groups concerned with public transportation or public safety as long as the data does not contain any personally identifying information. Personally identifying information may be released to law enforcement agencies only if the request is accompanied by a subpoena. Authorizes erection and maintenance of motorist information sign panels within the right of way of the interstate highway system to give the traveling public specific information about gas, food, lodging, camping, or tourist-oriented business available on a crossroad at or near an interchange. Relates to regulating the use of automated traffic safety cameras. Automated traffic safety camera means a device that uses a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an intersection traffic control system, a railroad grade crossing control system, or a speed measuring device and a camera synchronized to automatically record one or more sequenced photographs, microphotographs or electronic images of only the rear of a motor vehicle at the time the vehicle fails to stop when facing a steady red traffic control signal or an activated railroad grade crossing control signal, or exceeds a predetermined speed as detected by a speed measuring device. Automated traffic infraction notice means a notice of a traffic infraction generated by the use of an authorized automated traffic safety camera issued to the registered owner of a vehicle photographed while exceeding a predetermined speed limit or failing to stop at a red traffic control signal or violating an activated railroad grade crossing control. An automated traffic infraction notice issued by the use of an automated traffic safety camera system must include a copy or facsimile of the NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 19

Appendix. State Intelligent Transportation Legislation, 2003 (continued) State Citation Description Status Washington (continued) West Virginia Wisconsin SB 588 HB 2191 HB 3137 SB 148 AB 87 photograph showing both the vehicle license plate of the offending vehicle and the traffic control device, the activated railroad grade crossing control, or the speed detected by a speed measuring device. SAME AS SB 5369. Authorizes development of an information system to take advantage of cost savings through a combination the Department of Transportation and the Development Office Geographical Information System needs in a centralized data warehouse and dissemination system to meet the current and future needs of the Department of Transportation and the development office using Web infrastructure investments made previously in the higher education system. Creates and maintains an information systems disaster recovery center within the state. This article shall be known and may be cited as the West Virginia Transportation and Economic Development Information System (TEDIS). It is the intent of this article to develop a partnership among and between the department of highways, the development office, and the Nick J. Rahall, II, Appalachian Transportation Institute to take advantage of cost savings through a combination the department of transportation and the development office geographical information system needs in a centralized data warehouse and dissemination system to meet the current and future needs of the department of transportation and the development office using web infrastructure investments made previously in the higher education system. Requires counties that receive wireless enhanced 911 fees to use the money to ensure equipment is available so that wireless enhanced 911 service is available throughout the county. Prohibits the Department of Transportation from enforcing or administering any law or administrative rule that requires or permits installation of a computer chip on a vehicle to determine the mileage of the vehicle for the purpose of collecting revenues from the vehicle owner in lieu of, or in addition to, the collection of motor vehicle fuel taxes. Under current law, the revenue from motor vehicle fuel taxes is credited to the transportation fund. 20 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003

Notes 1. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington, D.C., 2001). 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Web Site, (accessed October 29, 2003) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/tidbits.htm. 3. Ibid. 4. David Schrank and Tim Lomax, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report (Texas Station, Texas: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2003), 23. 5. Jeff Paniati, Traffic Congestion and Sprawl (presentation at Press Club Event, November 19, 2002) (accessed online October 29, 2003) at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ congestion/congpress.htm. 6. Author Public Technology, Inc., Unclogging Arterials: Prescriptions for Relieving Congestion and Improving Safety on Major Local Roadway (Washington D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 2003), 5. 7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in Communities, (Washington D.C., 2001), 40. 8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations, Congestion Mitigation (accessed October 29, 2003) http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/congest2.htm. 9. Ibid. 10. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Web Site, (accessed October 29, 2003) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/tidbits.htm. 11. Schrank and Lomax, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report, 34. 12. U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS Deployment Tracking 2002 Survey Results (accessed October 29, 2003) http://itsdeployment2.ed.ornl.gov/its2002/. 13. Schrank and Lomax, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report, September 30, 2003 news release (accessed online October, 2003) at http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/ news_release/. NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003 21

14. Schrank and Lomax, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report, 68. 15. Schrank and Lomax, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report, 69. 16. Mitretek Systems Inc. Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs: 2003 Update (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 2003). 17. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 20. 18. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 21. 19. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 27. 20. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 39. 21. Ibid. 22. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 46. 23. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 51-52. 24. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 63. 25. Mitretek Systems Inc., Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, 21. 26. Ibid. 22 NCSL Transportation Review / November 2003