Real-Time System Management Information Program

Topics:  Federal Highway Administration

Victor M. Mendez
Federal Register
July 19, 2011

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42536-42539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17986]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 511

RIN 2125-AF19


Real-Time System Management Information Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Summary of responses to request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The final rule establishing the minimum parameters and 
requirements for States to make available and share traffic and travel 
conditions information via real-time information programs as required 
by Section 1201 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was 
published on November 8, 2010. In issuing the final rule, the FHWA also 
sought additional comments relating to the costs and benefits of the 
Real-Time System Management Information Program and general information 
about current and planned programs. Thirty-one entities provided 
responses to the Request for Comments and this document provides a 
summary of those responses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Rupert, FHWA Office of 
Operations, (202) 366-2194, or via e-mail at robert.rupert@dot.gov. For 
legal questions, please contact Ms. Lisa MacPhee, Attorney Advisor, 
FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1392, or via e-mail at 
lisa.macphee@dot.gov. Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 
4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document, all comments, and the final rule may be viewed on 
line through the Federal eRulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. The docket identification number is FHWA-2010-
0156. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one 
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 
65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Request for Comments

    The FHWA issued the final rule establishing requirements for the 
Real-Time System Management Information Program on November 8, 2010, at 
75 FR 68418. The final rule document also sought additional comments 
relating to the costs and benefits of the Real-Time System Management 
Information Program and general information about current and planned 
programs. Although the Regulatory Cost Analysis found in the docket for 
the rulemaking attempts to capture the scope of costs and benefits 
associated with this rule, the FHWA sought further information to 
determine a comprehensive picture of costs and benefits given the 
flexibility of approaches that can be used and the limitations of the 
current studies.
    The specific questions posed in the Request for Comments were:
    (1) What are the costs and benefits of each individual provision 
required under rule? If some provisions have net costs, would certain 
modifications to those provisions lead to net benefits?
    (2) What are the impacts of requiring these provisions on States 
and Metropolitan Areas (do some States and Metropolitan Areas realize 
net costs instead of net benefits)? If some States and Metropolitan 
Areas realize net costs, would certain modifications to provisions 
ensure net benefits?
    (3) Is there a specific, alternative approach to calculating costs 
and benefits that would be more appropriate than the current use of the 
Atlanta Navigator Study?
    (4) Although information dissemination to the public is not within 
scope of this rule, it is important to understand how information is 
typically disseminated so that the technologies used to collect and 
monitor data are compatible with technologies used to disseminate this 
information. This is especially important to keep up with new 
technological advances and to ensure that States use the most 
effective, low cost methods to both collect and disseminate 
information.
    (A) What technologies will States use to collect and monitor 
information under this rule?
    (B) What technologies are States planning to use to disseminate 
this information or what are they already using?
    (C) Do the technologies States plan to use present any 
interoperability issues? Do they allow for use of advanced technologies 
that could be the most cost-effective means of collecting and 
disseminating this information?
    (D) Are there any structural impediments to using low-cost advanced 
technologies in the future given the provisions and specifications 
contained in this rule?
    (E) Given the research investment into wireless communications 
systems in the 5.9 GHz spectrum for Intelligent Transportation Systems 
applications, to what extent could systems in this spectrum also be 
used to fulfill the requirements of this rule and/or enable other 
applications?
    (F) Given that there are legacy technologies in place now, and that 
there are new technologies on the horizon that are being adopted, how 
can we ensure that investments made today to comply with this rule are 
sustainable over the long term?
    (5) This rule defines Metropolitan Areas to mean the geographic 
areas designated as Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Office of 
Management and Budget with a population exceeding 1,000,000 
inhabitants. Is this population criterion appropriate, rather than 
considering traffic, commuting times, or other considerations?

Summary of Responses

    Fourteen of the 31 parties that provided comments responded to at 
least some of the questions. Other comments provided discussions 
regarding real-time information or presented questions on specific 
provisions of the regulation. Clarifications are offered below in 
addition to summarizing the responses to the Request for Comments.

Comments on the Final Rule

    Three of the general comments to the docket posed questions related 
to the roadways that are included under the Real-Time System Management 
Information Program and travel time reporting requirements. The program 
includes all the roads of the Interstate System (23 CFR 511.311) and 
other roads in metropolitan areas deemed to be ``routes of 
significance'' by the States (23 CFR 511.313). Similar to design 
exceptions permitted under 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(1)(B)(ii), highways on the 
Interstate System in Alaska and Puerto Rico may be granted exemptions 
from the requirements of the Real-Time System Management Information 
Program upon request from the States.

[[Page 42537]]

In metropolitan areas, the requirement for travel time information in 
metropolitan areas under 23 CFR 511.309(a)(4) only applies to roads of 
the Interstate System and routes of significance that are limited-
access roads.
    Seven of the comments posed questions related to the information 
requirements of the Real-Time System Management Information Program. 
There were two specific comments about the need for increased 
infrastructure or sensors to provide continuous roadway weather 
monitoring to comply with the requirements of 23 CFR 511.309(a)(3) for 
roadway weather observations. In addressing similar comments received 
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Final Rule was revised to 
reduce the frequency and minimum level of roadway weather information 
required under the program so that observation-level (in contrast to 
electronically-monitored) information could comply with the 
requirement.
    A couple of these commenters included questions related to 
determining the quality of the real-time information in meeting the 
requirements of 23 CFR 511.309(a)(5) and (6). Since the Real-Time 
System Management Information Program only includes requirements for 
information and does not include any specific technology or system 
design requirements, specific methods for measuring the quality of 
information cannot be included. The States, as designers or procurers 
of the systems that provide the information required under the program, 
are in the best position to decide upon the specific methods for 
gauging the quality of their information systems. Hence, the provision 
in 23 CFR 511.311(b) requires States to determine the methods to be 
used in measuring the quality of the real-time information and receive 
FHWA concurrence in the selected methods.
    Finally, three commenters discussed specific aspects of system 
design or information dissemination related to the Real-Time System 
Management Information Program, including referring to private sector 
providers and detailed methods for determining locations. Since the 
program requirements do not include specific system design or 
dissemination, these comments, while providing good information and 
discussion about real-time information systems, are outside the scope 
of the regulation.

Responses to the Request for Comments

    The responses to the first two questions were very similar in 
nature. Responders noted that determining costs and benefits for 
individual provisions of the regulation was difficult if not impossible 
since, as noted by the South Dakota Department of Transportation, ``* * 
* the same infrastructure is used to satisfy multiple provisions, 
identifying individual costs is also very complex.'' The Virginia 
Department of Transportation commented that the benefits of information 
depend largely on how such information will be used and decoupling data 
collection from data usage makes it challenging to properly define or 
quantify the benefits. In addition, the Minnesota Department of 
Transportation commented that it is very difficult to determine costs 
and benefits for the individual rule provisions since the various 
provisions are not normally implemented separately. Since these 
functions tend to be deployed simultaneously, separate determination of 
the costs and benefits is often impossible.
    Three responders provided information related to costs to implement 
and operate various transportation management and information systems. 
Minnesota provided its costs for installing freeway management systems 
that include real-time traffic monitoring components but also include 
video cameras, dynamic message signs, and other components outside the 
scope of this regulation. Alaska provided costs related to its 
statewide information system, but also included costs related to 
highways of significance. Because Alaska does not have any major 
metropolitan areas (as defined in 23 CFR 511.303), there are no routes 
of significance subject to this regulation. Kansas provided detailed 
cost information for its traveler information systems, including costs 
related to additional installation of roadway devices for real-time 
monitoring in the Kansas City metropolitan area that reflect 
implementation across the entire Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 
As noted later in the summary of responses to the fifth question and 
responding to concerns related to the expanse of the MSA, the FHWA will 
develop guidelines to provide assistance in consistent identification 
of affected roadways in metropolitan areas. This cost information, when 
examined for potential implementation of systems within the scope of 
this regulation, aligns with the cost assumptions presented in the 
rulemaking.
    No responder was able to provide any readily-available quantifiable 
information about benefits of a real-time information program. The 
Kansas Department of Transportation provided information from an 
analysis conducted for the Kansas City metropolitan area that indicated 
an eight to one (8:1) benefit to cost ratio for investments in the 
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies used in the 
Kansas City area, but noted that the ratio would likely be lower for 
rural areas. The Kansas Department of Transportation also noted that 
potential modifications to the provisions to eliminate continuous 
reporting of construction, incident, and road condition information or 
increasing the timeliness of information to more than 20 minutes may 
reduce overall costs. The North Dakota Department of Transportation 
similarly commented on the challenges of providing continuous traffic 
and travel conditions, especially for rural States.
    The Minnesota Department of Transportation commented that one 
consideration of costs and benefits is that for public sector 
transportation management systems, the benefits accrue to a different 
entity than the entity that pays the costs. The benefits accrue to 
individual drivers and to society as a whole, but do not provide 
funding back into the public agency's budget, although the public 
agency must manage the costs of installation, operation, and 
maintenance as part of its constrained budget. Minnesota further 
commented that one way to increase the benefit-to-cost ratio would be 
to increase the use of automation, thereby decreasing manual data 
entry. The personnel that manually enter data are the busiest with 
their other tasks at the very time the data needs to be entered. 
Meeting the rule timeliness requirements is most affected by 
availability of staff to ensure timely data entry, which is a cost 
consideration. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 
Facilities noted that a Federal requirement for real-time data 
management requires department-wide cooperation and collaboration at 
the State and local levels, and it cannot stress this as a benefit 
enough, considering the many stove pipe systems around the department 
that should coordinate.
    There were four responses to the third question. The Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation commented that it anticipated using its 
own benefit-cost analysis methods for any real-time information system 
implementations. The Virginia Department of Transportation commented 
that one alternative approach is to calculate costs and benefits within 
the contexts of different objective areas, for example, analyzing 
congestion relief along a

[[Page 42538]]

corridor or an urban area, improving traveler satisfaction, or 
improving the effectiveness of traffic incident management. The Kansas 
Department of Transportation reiterated the approach it used in 
determining the benefit-to-cost ratio of eight-to-one for the Kansas 
City area. The South Dakota Department of Transportation commented that 
an approach that is more clearly applicable to rural areas would be 
desirable since congestion is not the primary travel concern in rural 
States such as South Dakota.
    The fourth question, with its six parts, was the most complex and 
received 12responses. Not all responders commented on all parts of the 
question. The responses to the first two parts related to technologies 
used to collect and to disseminate information, indicated the use of 
traditional techniques such as manually-entered information, sensors, 
cameras, highway advisory radios, dynamic message signs, 511 travel 
information telephone services, and Internet web sites. Some responders 
noted the use of newer and emerging techniques such as gathering 
information from buses serving as traffic probes, acquiring information 
from private providers, using social media to provide information, 
electronic mail alerts, and developing applications for use by consumer 
mobile electronic devices.
    Responders to the third part of the fourth question, related to 
interoperability issues of planned technologies, discussed the desire 
to use open platform based applications and approved ITS communications 
standards. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation noted that 
interoperability issues associated with meeting the Real-Time System 
Management Information Program requirements would be similar to 
interoperability issues associated with deployment of a statewide ITS 
device command and control software application. The Chicago Department 
of Transportation noted that it is working with regional stakeholders 
to address the interoperability, technical, and comparability issues 
within the framework of the northeastern Illinois regional ITS 
architecture.
    Responses to the fourth part of the fourth question indicated that 
there may be some challenges to using low-cost advanced technologies, 
especially related to State procurement or public-private partnership 
arrangements. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation noted that 
a potential impediment may be State procurement laws that could 
determine how technologies may be obtained, and that there are certain 
cases where proprietary hardware should be considered. The Minnesota 
Department of Transportation commented that a structural impediment 
exists in combining State-owned infrastructure-based information with 
purchased privately-sourced information. The use of purchased data from 
private sources to fill in gaps in coverage has been hindered by data 
ownership issues, necessitating a completely separate data system to 
ensure that the private-sourced data is not provided to competitors 
through the State's information dissemination system. These duplicate 
systems have not been practical, but in geographic areas with little 
State-owned infrastructure-based information this would be less of an 
impediment. The Kansas Department of Transportation commented that 
although it has had a positive experience with public-private 
partnerships, it is also aware of the risks associated with purchasing 
from or relying on third-party providers for critical infrastructure 
components needed for the rule.
    The fifth part of the fourth question asked about the potential for 
5.9 gigahertz (GHz) wireless communications to fulfill the requirements 
of the Real-Time System Management Information Program. In general, 
responders commented that 5.9 GHz communications holds potential for 
helping meet the regulation's requirements, but in cooperation with 
other wireless communications methods. The Vehicle Infrastructure 
Integration Consortium (VIIC) noted that it expects that vehicles and 
roadway infrastructure equipped with 5.9 GHz communications systems for 
safety enhancement ultimately could support the purposes of the Program 
and be used to fulfill some of the requirements of the rule. However, 
these cooperative communication systems are unlikely to be available 
widely on vehicles or the infrastructure by the November 2014 date for 
States to establish their information programs for interstate highways. 
The Minnesota Department of Transportation noted that, given the likely 
time frame for deployment of 5.9 GHz communications systems, it is too 
early to plan for 5.9 GHz as part of the implementation of the Real-
Time System Management Information Program. The Virginia Department of 
Transportation commented that it envisions using 5.9 GHz communications 
as a component of its future ITS roadside applications since it could 
facilitate the collection and derivation of travel time information, 
but Virginia is also testing other wireless technologies to capture 
travel times. The Illinois Department of Transportation noted that 
absent a system architecture and standards for this communication and 
data, there is a significant risk that stakeholders might invest in 
technologies that will depend on the 5.9 GHz spectrum that may be 
allocated to other users as the migration to comply with this 
requirement occurs. Other responders such as the Nebraska Department of 
Roads and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 
did not see a role for 5.9 GHz communications at this time.
    The last part of the fourth question asked about ensuring that 
investments made today to comply with the Real-Time System Management 
Information Program are sustainable over the long term. In general, 
responders commented that sound planning for investments, including the 
appropriate use of established standards, offers the best opportunity 
to ensure that the investments made today and the investments needed in 
the future are sustainable. One responder commented that technology 
advancements should not discourage deployment of systems using 
technologies, but rather sound investments require that agencies and 
developers need to do a good job with the engineering of these systems. 
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation commented that it is 
always transitioning to newer and more cost-effective technologies 
where applicable since ITS technologies are ever advancing. The 
replacement of today's technologies will be addressed as part of the 
on-going expansion and update of a State's ITS infrastructure, with 
effective planning, partner participation, and standardization for 
interoperability where possible assisting with program sustainability. 
The Chicago Department of Transportation also noted that the regional 
ITS architectures, the architecture planning process, and the continued 
engagement of operator-level stakeholders offers the best opportunity 
to insure that the investments made today and the investments needed in 
the future are sustainable. Chicago also noted that continued vigilance 
is required to make sure that changing technologies are appropriately 
considered in planning for, developing, deploying, and operating 
Intelligent Transportation Systems. The Minnesota Department of 
Transportation noted that there have always been legacy technologies 
and new technologies and it has sought out new technologies and adopted 
them as appropriate. Minnesota further

[[Page 42539]]

commented that it will use the best current technologies for new 
projects and upgrade legacy equipment through attrition, since it is 
not necessary to replace all the operational legacy equipment every 
time something new comes out. The Kansas Department of Transportation 
noted that using existing standards offers the greatest probability of 
future compatibility as States continue to stay up to date on new 
technologies, use non-proprietary equipment, support standards 
compatibility, and cautiously use non-proven technologies. Finally, the 
VIIC commented that related to the development of 5.9 GHz 
communications systems, Federal governance is necessary to avoid the 
implementation of divergent and conflicting requirements at the State 
or local governance levels, which would make deployment of a 5.9 GHz 
communications system impracticable for both system providers and 
users. The VIIC also commented that a Federal role is important to help 
assure long-term technological stability for these 5.9 GHz 
communications systems.
    The 11 responses to the fifth question were consistent in 
identifying issues related to metropolitan areas. In general, there was 
agreement to using the metropolitan statistical area population of at 
least one million to determine which metropolitan areas should fall 
under the provisions of the Real-Time System Management Information 
Program. However, the comments identified issues related to the expanse 
of the geographic coverage of the roads within the metropolitan area. 
Because the geographic areas included under the Metropolitan 
Statistical Area (MSA) designations are expansive to include areas to 
provide nationally consistent delineations for collecting, tabulating, 
and publishing Federal statistics, there may be Interstate and other 
significant roads that rarely if ever experience congestion or 
variations in travel times. Four responses, three from States that do 
not include affected metropolitan areas, concurred with the use of the 
MSA for the Real-Time System Management Information Program. Three 
responses concurred with the use of the MSA but suggested flexibility 
be permitted to address the needs reflected by traffic patterns. Four 
responses suggested using the metropolitan planning boundaries or 
central counties for the geographic coverage of the Real-Time System 
Management Information Program. While there are no changes to the 
definition of metropolitan areas, these comments indicate a need for 
additional guidelines related to the roadway coverage within the 
metropolitan areas. The FHWA will develop guidelines from these 
comments and in collaboration with States and other stakeholders to 
provide assistance in consistent identification of affected roadways in 
metropolitan areas for implementation of the Real-Time System 
Management Information Program.

Conclusion

    The FHWA and other programs within the DOT will use the valuable 
information offered in the responses in shaping program activities and 
projects. Specifically, FHWA will use the information to help in 
developing further assistance in implementing the Real-Time System 
Management Information Program, including working with stakeholders to 
develop guidelines related to roadway coverage in metropolitan areas.

    Issued on: July 11, 2011.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-17986 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P