Hello and welcome to the Talking Operations web conference on Real-time Traveler Information Systems - New Proposed Rule. aMy name is Jennifer Symoun and I will be giving a brief introduction to the web conferencing environment before turning the session over to James Pol who we are very pleased to have as our moderator and presenter for today’s seminar. Please be advised that today’s seminar is being recorded. Today’s seminar will last approximately an hour and 30 minutes, with 60 minutes allocated for the presentation and the final 30 minutes for audience Question and Answer. During the presentation, if you think of a question, you can type it into the smaller text box in the chat area on the lower left side of your screen Please make sure you are typing in the thin text box and not the large white area. Please also make sure that you send your question to Everyone rather than just the Presenters. The presenter will be unable to answer your questions during their presentations, but James will use some of the questions typed into the chat box for the question and answer session in the last 30 minutes of the seminar. A file containing the audio and the visual portion of this seminar will be posted to the National Transportation Operations Coalition’s or NTOC website within the next week. I will type that address into the chat box shortly. We encourage you to direct others in your office who may have not been able to attend this conference to access the recording. The PowerPoint presentation for today is available for download in the file download box in the lower left corner of your screen. The PPT will also be available within the next week on the NTOC site. Attendees will be notified of the availability of the PowerPoint, the recording, and the closed captioning of this seminar. At this time I would like to introduce James Pol, the moderator and presenter for today’s web cast. James Pol is the Team Leader for Program Management and Evaluation in the USDOT ITS Joint Program Office. He was involved in the development of data and information management programs such as traveler information/511, archived data management, transportation management center operations, and road weather management (including the Clarus Initiative).Most recently James was the Real-Time System Management Information Program manager in the FHWA Office of Operations. James has a bachelor’s in Civil Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a master’s in Computer Systems Management from the University of Maryland, and he is a registered professional engineer in Delaware. James is also a certified Project Management Professional from the Project Management Institute. Now, I’ll turn things over James who will start things off. Terrific. Thank you, very much, Jennifer. I want to also indicate for the audience that seeded in the room with me today is Bob Rupert who is the transportation management team liter for the Federal Highway Office of Operations and who is also the author for the proceedings request for affirmation that was published back in 2006. I will elaborate upon that during this presentation. I want to indicate two things as the a matter of course for this presentation. Press participation that this presentation or listening to a recording of this presentation is not to be considered an analog to a actual pocket submission. This briefing is provided to the community for informational purposes. I would highly recommend for those that are considering providing actual responses to the notice of the proposed rulemaking and the ancillary docket to go to the website that I will talk about and that a moment to formally submit their comments to the docket. Also, I want to acknowledge with the Q&A session following this briefing, the responses that will be provided are for informational purposes only. The answers that I will be providing while really reflect more of some of the reasoning behind entering those items into the notice of proposed rulemaking or the regulatory benefit cost Analysis. It is not intended for [ indiscernible ] purposes. I am not seeking to defend or itemize any of these items that you do raise as questions. I would, however, encourage you to raise those questions and comments both for the positive and negative as you consider in the--When you make your docket submission. I am seeing some notes here that the volume seems to have dropped a little bit. I will request that Jennifer look into improving the sound quality. In the meantime I will move a little closer to the microphone, itself. It sounds fine on my end. The operator, can you look into issues of the sound? Otherwise, go ahead. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you, very much part of this briefing is intended to talk about the nose of proposed rulemaking on the return System Management Program. The NPRM was published the Federal Register in January. It is also that the federal wide docket system at www.regulations.gov as 15 number FHWA-2006-24219. They must be received before--Made comments will be accepted as practical. All comments received to the docking will be made viewable by all parties, meaning the entire Public. The briefing will also discuss the regulatory benefit cost analysis conducted to support this NPRM part of the regulatory benefit cost analysis is available and not be docket along with the NPRM for the community at large to consider. The community on both the NPRM and the predatory benefit cost analysis are highly encouraged. This is not screen capture of the docket on regulations.gov. I will try to put a pointer over here available at regulations.gov. When you enter the site you can perform a search of either 24219 or [ indiscernible ] to locate the docket paid. You can get to the same page. Please note that the docket was opened and acted as sex when the defied and the restoration put out a these are comments that Bob Rupert offered. The original docket includes this new NPRM and regulatory benefit cost analysis. By considering 45, 46 and 47 dockets. All comments submitted to the docket will be available to the entire public to inspect. The Talking Operations was established by Congress under Section 1201 of our current authorization law. The legislation stresses that States brought the capabilities to deliver permission to address contestant part of the provision of traffic and travel conditions reporting to other agencies and Travels shall enabled agencies to--Within their state and metropolitan areas. Such information shall disclose the presence and the severity of the intestine and other travel impedances that limit traveler mobility and efficient movement of goods. There is no requirement for a state or other entity using federal funds to apply any particular technology, particular technology dependent application or any particular business approach for establishing a real-time information program. [ indiscernible ] other public agencies are encouraged to consider any other salient technology, technology-dependent application and business approach solutions that yields information products consistent with the requirements set forth Act as proposed rule. States are encouraged to--Providers to establish real time information programs, value-added providers--Commercial use or sale to a customer-days or for other commercial enterprise and purposes. Such products can be derived from information from public sector resources addition to the private sector Papp's own capabilities for creating information content. This table summarizes the main characteristics of information that is to be provided through a real-time information program as proposed in this proposed regulation. The thresholds that are listed here are and more towards the provision of trouble affirmations of the electorate and legislative information--troubled conditions. There is no control feature an act is real-time information program. There is high tolerance for the lag that the production of that's the and when that data are released as an Information Product. It should also be noted that the travel time along Highway said thats is required only for metropolitan areas with a population over 1 million people. The Federal Highway administration proposes to require that real-time information programs be established in two stations as--In the 2006 request for information and that which the Federal Highway Administration proposed broad constructs for a real-time system management information program. There is a focus on the most highly traveled routes and would also routes that served for diversion around ingestion and routes that served evacuation purposes. The most significant characteristic for metropolitan areas and that the baton system management information program is that travel time reporting on highways said thats is required on all interstate highways. For a definition of the largest such poets and areas that are considered and that the context of this notice of proposed rule making, we provided the URL for the Census Department that has defined the metropolitan statistical areas. These are the population counts for the largest metropolitan statistical areas. The brief description-I will elaborate here a little bit of the structure of the NPRM as it was released. The brief description summarize in a if you paid it and send it is the intent, purpose and contents of the proposed rule. The background provides an a discussion on the legislative history. The may at the 2006 request for Information section describes the RFI on the program, the nature of the responses received and what was done with the comments that were received. The enhancements section provides a narrative section of the services and able through the provision of real-time information from public and private sector sources. The section by section discussion provide the a narrative description of the proposed regulatory language part of this, many, provides background and analytical material to support the regulation. The bulk of the NPRM is in this discussion session part of the rulemaking analysis and notices address several presidential executive orders that govern how Agency plot appeared content prepared legislation. Lastly, the proposed language is provided. I will elaborate on the overall structure of the proposed regulation on this slide. For the purpose for which this considers the implementation of the program as directed by legislation, policy includes a para summary of what the regulation enables person of the definitions provide stated definitions that pertain to this regulation, if they are not defined elsewhere within the Code of Federal regulations. Eligibility identifies the direction or the directing of funds that can be used to satisfy this regulation. Under provisions for traffic and travel conditions reporting, it provides the information characteristics as shown on slide six, which includes that table. For real-time information program establishment, of this elaborate on the requirements for implementing the program, including the time constraints. A special section of metropolitan areas, real-time information programs supplement provide the special additional requirements for metropolitan areas over 1 million people. Lastly, the program administration which reasserts that the Federal Highway administration will be monitoring the progress of the state plans for attaining compliance with the future final rule. A regulatory benefit cost analysis is required by the Office of Management and Budget to be prepared to justify proposed rulemaking. If the regulatory than the cost analysis or RBCA provides capital, operating and maintenance costs projected over a period of Time. To provide the next present value that the specified by OMB and A-924. The regulatory benefits cause analysis was substantially--Within the department and also my the Office of Management and Budget, itself. The RBCA is released along with the NPRM by review and comment by the community stakeholders and, certainly, the department encourages those that are reading through and interested not commenting on the NPRM to please consider and provide comments on the regulatory benefit cost analysis itself. I will elaborate on little more on the regulatory benefit cost analysis to illustrate the value of being able to comment on it. Via RBCA was based upon an analysis done by the Georgia DOT with support from the [ indiscernible ]. The analysis considered the impact of the Atlanta hero program that offers motorist assistance for vehicle plates and bought in incidents that might impede [ indiscernible ]. The results were extrapolated across the largest 50 metropolitan areas under the assumption that this would represent the largest proportion of total cost and total benefits. The largest of the metropolitan areas were apportioned into Ben's, low cost for those that have established by 11 and approximately 80% monitoring on Highways. The median costs for cities with limited 511 and moderate Advanced monitoring on Highways and high cost of these that have less than 50% monitoring on Highways. Below, medium and high cost estimate claspers respond to the capital cost for expanding existing coverage to become fully compliant with the current draft of the proposed regulation. The Georgia Navigator analysis focused on the few good measures that were outlined by the ITS joint program office, and guidance for evaluations. Using [ indiscernible ] tied it on incidents and flow along monitor routes, the analysis conducted by George DOT through the [ indiscernible ]--In their highway helper assistance program for addressing incident. This enabled an assessment of the impact of the traveler information, and help with the assistance on reducing delays throughout the roadway Network. For further details on the Georgian Navigator analysis, provided here is the URL where you can retrieve the report prepared by Georgia DOT. The extrapolated results reveals substantial societal benefits that can be shielded through such programs. Traveler Information, when coupled with the response mechanism, can yield a benefit cost ratio of 24.7. Meaning that for every dollar of investment, there is a gain of nearly $25 societal benefits. However, the proposed rulemaking concerns only the provision of information and not the provision of information along with a response mechanism. A couple of assumptions were then made to consider the impact of providing travel information alone and described the sensitivity Analysis test. Assuming that travel information alone produces only one-third of the total benefit, the benefit/ cost ratio lowers two 8.2, meaning a $8.20 return on every one dollar of investment. The next present value in this instance is about $8.8 billion on a national scale. Assuming that the traveler information, along, produces only one-tenth of be benefit, meaning that this would be the second sensitivity Analysis test, the benefit/cost ratio lowers two 2.5, meaning a $2. 50 return on every one dollar of investment part of the next present value common nationwide, would then be, approximately, $1.8 billion per of the total estimated cost over a tenure spanned including capital cost and operating costs is projected to be under $1.6 billion. The cost is constant across the various sensitivity tests that are described here. The cost estimation approach is based upon what is considered by many to be the more expensive options for deployment. It should be noted that this analysis considers only benefit for reducing because by incidents. It does not account for occurring contestant, which is now May substantial component of the total amount of the stairs there is possible higher gains and benefits that could be accrued. As you see in the bold the item over here, all comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking and regulatory benefit cost analysis are due on or before April 14, 2009. The final rule will be shaped by the responses that are received an Act the federal docket that is located at www.and regulations.gov. The final will also vote might be it further shake to align with the DOT programs. A new regulatory benefit cost analysis will be prepared to support the final rule, when that is developed. As of now, we anticipate a possible release of a final rule late that the calendar year 2009. Lastly, our comments or contacts that are available for questions regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking. Two of them are for myself and for Bob Rupert. We are directly identified on the notice of proposed rule making, itself. An additional point of contact is Ben [ indiscernible ]. His number is listed over here. Additionally, a URL was established within the Office of Operations website to articulate the it will times System Management Information Program. That Britain must conclude my briefing. The-that, pretty much, concludes my briefing. And that the meantime we can see if anyone has questions over the phone. If you can get instructions on how to ask questions over the phone next the next certainly protest after questions, please press the *1 and record your name so we can announce that your line is open. *1 for questions, please. Once again, to ask your question, at *1, on your touch-tone telephones. I am seeing two questions in the chat box. I will take those in sequence. I am getting more. That is good. Starting with the question, can you define real time, as it relates to this docket? Well, the real time itself, is articulated according to the timeliness threshold that were identified in the proposed role. Let me back up to slide six. So, for the perspective of the proposed rule, this is within the confines of real-time. Satisfying the production of information from the time that the event is recorded, either by some automated means the Fed or by some human intervention. This, right now, is identified as the timeliness constrained. I see a question from Phil Winters. What about public transportation? That is an excellent question. In the request for information that was published back in 2006, there were items that were placed into the RFI regarding the provision of the transit information. However, the Federal Highway Administration received no comments from the transit industry regarding the availability of that information. Some of this is discussed in the NPRM is self. It is noted that transit information is not, currently, included in this notice of proposed rulemaking. If you look into the section of the published NPRM and consider the section entitled May 2006, request for information, there is some information regarding what was done-regarding the lack of comments and also some of the comments that were received that identified that the Federal Highway Administration not include information on transit. All right. A question from Joshua. How are these and Metro Regions supposed to pay for all of this? That is, again, a important question to ask. Essentially, the item that I would have to say about that is that's all available federal funding would be applicable to achieve this. Also, I would reiterate the point that I made about the regulatory benefit cost analysis discussion in that's it considered what is considered by many to be the most expensive option out there phone deployment. There are many other of lower cost alternatives for being able to satisfy, essentially, the same means. So, I would invite you to provide some comments regarding that's about the viability of working with alternative information providers and be able to implement such programs or obtain compliance. This is Bob Rupert. Just to expand on that answer, the legislation that created this does-and did not include any additional funding or any specific funding for this program. It did, as James intimated, it did include an explicit that the major federal aid funding programs are eligible to carry out this program--the service transportation program and the congestion mitigation and air quality programs. So, as James said, it certainly could be used for those upper of the language it explicitly call out the eligibility for those programs for this. Okay. How will the state's compliance be measured? Comments date sent needs to be archived? Again, it is an excellent issue to raise. In terms of compliance and measuring compliance, this is a notice of proposed rulemaking. The guidance that the Federal Highway Administration when administered to the division offices and also to the states would be constructed following the publication of the final rule, it sells. This is an item that the Federal Highway Administration understands is important and is internally discussing now. However, there is nothing available that would be able to articulate the measured or methods for attaining compliance. Regarding how much data needs to be archived, the proposed regulation does not specify the archiving data. There is discussion in the preamble or narrative of the NPRM at that describes archive and data Management Systems as being a beneficiary for the establishment of this role. But, at the proposed World does not articulate or specify archiving data. Then, the last question, why is reduction and crash rate considered? In the NPRM itself, there is no specific discussion about reduction in crash rate. Consider qualitative as opposed to qualitative. I only read half of that question. I apologize. Why is reduction that crash rate considered qualitative as opposed to quantitative? I do not remember if there was any discussion-- Unfortunately, I do not have a response for that, at least no that I recall from being in the NPRM, itself. Another comment from Joshua, current rules of Fort [ indiscernible ] will only allow us to use CMack four three years. Currently, none in terms of altering those roles. This is a notice of proposed rulemaking and is entirely possible or allowable or permissible for one to provide or offer that as an a comment. Another question from Cutter. Does propose rule address ownership of data and access to data so that we can meet timeliness requirement in a cost-effective way? The proposed rule does not specify ownership of data. The ownership of the data item is something that is of interest to all of the communities on right now, especially with the rapidly evolving private sector information services market. I am aware that the department and a number of other researchers around the country are looking into policy research regarding this matter. I would submit that that the future, certainly when the final rule is published, that the Federal Highway Administration will likely craft some guidance regarding that particular item. I will have to turn back over to slide 13. Okay. Thank you for noting the crash rate item on the slide of 13 of the slide show. This was a table that was directly it listed from the Georgia benefits report and also from the benefits measure-it is a composite of the Georgia been this report and also the ITS programs evaluation of guidance. Close three columns that you see the there were amended in the Georgette DOT Report. So, that's reflected from the Georgette DOT's Report's perspective what date sent they would be able to supply in order to conduct the study. So, thank you for allowing me to make that clarification. A comment, I understand that this is Technology neutral. On slight six recording timeliness of delivery, is timeliness of delivery referring to any specific delivery method to travelers or to the DOT, for example, is a [ indiscernible ] message activation enough or are their requirements for more accessible delivery methods to travelers? The proposed regulation, and essentially, if you were to consider the continuum of recording the event, whatever that might be an outputting information about that event two a 511 or two a DMS, the proposed regulation is sandwiched not between those two and Points. It is merely the processing of information that is gathered either from a human source or from some automated source and making it available. In other words, when a event occurs and the availability of information about that event is within the time span that is articulated in this proposed regulation, placement of that information onto 511 or onto a DMS is beyond the scope of this proposed regulation. Comment from Mark. With regards to funding as mentioned, those initiatives to be an act compliance with the rule can be eligible under NHS and CMack funds but once and the NPRM is effective, we will, most likely, be under a new build--With a new category of funds. Can you expand on how this would be addressed? Patch this is as Bob Rupert. No, to be blunt. As it is spelled out that the current legislation, it refers back to those sections that the U.S. code that authorized--Categories proposal, if we have a new authorization by the time this goes final, we would have to make some sort of adjustment to make those back or Congress would to make those adjustments back. At the moment those are the references enacted legislation that are pretty specific. We would anticipate something like that in the new legislation. Lord knows what that would look like probe Lord knows what those programs would look like. Or when. I do not see any additional comments. To be have anything coming over the phone? Currently, and no phone comments. Once again, that is *1 for your phone comments. Currently, no phone,s. Yes, we do. One moment. Rick,your line is open. Hi, will be data that is going to be collected under the real-time system management information program be required to be reused in at any downstream federal reporting requirements or any planning requirements? The short answer is, at no. The proposed regulations does not direct any provision of that information to the federal government. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Mark. Your line is open. Oh comment thanks. Just more of a comment. I understand the answer and the blunt no from Bob and James. Again, *1 for your comments or questions. It does look like two more questions came in. I am sorry. Was there at a phone comment? It looks like three questions just came in type in. Okay. Which agency will oversee this effort? This is Bob. If you are asking about which agency within the Department of Transportation that the--If you are asking about how this would be implemented that the field, locally, so to speak, the proposal is not to change any existing relationship that is out there that between state, Metropolitan, planning organization or any other planning organizations or transportation agencies that might be responsible for any particular run byes or Roberts that would be covered by this. In General, since the rule and is it focuses on the interstate highway system, is likely to be the state Transportation Department that is ultimately responsible. But, again, this rule does not change-does not propose to change any existing relationships. Okay. A very good question here from Eric. Can you expand on how accuracy requirements for traffic conditions, [ indiscernible ] should be calculated? That is not elaborated upon directly on the notice of proposed the making or in of the preamble. There is somebody in research, both within-Well, throughout the department for a different areas that touch upon this role. One that comes to mind is road weather information, which has established methods or algorithms for establishing accuracy as it is related to be [ indiscernible ] initiative. What would very likely occur in the future is some likely development of guidance to be able to do that. I know that on my own, over the past year, I have worked on engaging the community and not some dialogue regarding data Quality as defined in this NPRM to be able to speak out, what kind of ways would be worthwhile to establish guidance for agencies to obtain compliance with the proposed rule? So far, that remains still a research activity. I am certain that the Federal Highway Administration will work towards developing at some guidance that would help ease the ability of agencies to obtain compliance. Hello, Lisa. Has law enforcement or public safety provided input, particularly regarding the parameters for incident data? Actually, no specific law enforcement comes to mind from the 2006 request for information. Indeed, part of the purpose of having this briefing through the NTOC is to reach to some of those communities who deal directly with. I am aware that information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking has been furnished to them. Ultimately, it is up to them to review the NPRM and regulatory benefit cost analysis and provide a comment. This is Bob, again. With the original request for information we brief to the Public Safety Advisory Group on it. Some of the members were concerned with the response to and management on scene of the incident. Since this program, the proposal is more, if you want to think about it as a confirmed incident rather than income from side of it probably did not offer any comments at that point that. As dimension we want everyone to comment on this proposal, as appropriate. The comment from [ indiscernible ], with respect to reporting weather conditions, are there any specifics on what must be reported? For example, Nev. It does not report road conditions, covered, packed snow, ice, etc.. We report whether or not chains are required. Is this adequate? Although the notice of proposed rulemaking it does not go into specifics into the type of information that should be provided, the proposed regulation is pretty clear on providing broad information about weather Information. As an example, in the proposed regulation itself, toward the end of the NPRM, there is a paragraph four roadway weather Options. Currently reads the time and as far roadway weather--From observation locations along Highway sevens will be 20 minutes or less from the observation time for highs within metropolitan areas and also for hybrids outside of metropolitan highway areas. The specifics of that kind of weather information are not detailed in the proposed regulation, the proposed regulation is looking more towards a provision of a observation, it sells. --It self. Steve, can you expand on the definition of non-interstate highways, or at least point to where in the NPRM for the definition might be provided? The definition for non-interstate highways is described under-primarily under the metropolitan area and real-time information program supplement. There is a paragraph called routes of significant. To read this allowed, States shall designate metropolitan areas, and on interstate-areas with roots that are significant that merit topic and travel condition reporting. State what shall apply the existing practices and procedures that are used for compliance with--Which many recall as the architecture role and Web--states del select routes of significance based on various factors plan related to ropeways safety, for example crash rates, routes affected by and our mental affects, public safety, routes for evaluation, economic productivity, severity of the intestine, frequency of contestant and utility of the highway to serve as divergent routes for congested locations. Stake at shall consider that consultation with the Federal Highway an illustration routes that are federally funded, state and locally funded and privately funded when designating routes of significance proposed shop--other facilities that apply and user pricing mechanisms when designating routes of the significance. Arterial byes and other hybrid plans that serve as version routes for contestants all be considered for designating routes of significance. Establishment of the real-time information program for traffic and trouble reporting along the state of the designated metropolitan area routes of significance all be completed no later than four years after the date of publication of the final rule. A question from Willie. The roadway weather observation requirement has nothing to do with the condition of the roadway, for example, snow-covered, is covered, clear? I, actually, did not say that. If that is part of the observation, itself, then that is part of the observation. Again, I think that the amounts of detail that is identified for each of the intermission items that are proposed that this notice of proposed rulemaking, certainly, are items that I would invite the community to comment on. So, if there is interest in the community for greater detail to be specified as to what a roadway observation is, I would invite the community to provide that as an a comment. One more question. Woodson and attracted updates from a FM Rita station meet the requirement? In short, no. The time limits for delivery is from the moment that the event is actually observed and from some automated mechanism or from some person to making that information available. It could involve a FM radio station, or it can be out to a at DMS. The information dissemination mechanism is outside of what this proposed regulation is looking to do.