1. US DOT and State DOT Interaction on CICAS Gene McHale FHWA Office of Operations R&D September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

2. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis2 Outline  Role of state DOT’s in CICAS  Options for involvement  Discussion  Preferred options, other options  Role of local agencies and options for their involvement

3. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis3 Role of State DOT’s in CICAS  Partners – representing infrastructure owners, operators, and maintainers  Engaged in all phases of program  Concept develop, system design, prototype develop & testing, field testing, deployment  Responsibilities related to:  Technical expertise  Deployment feasibility  Policy issues

4. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis4 Options for Involvement

5. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis5 Option 1 – No Formal Agreements  State DOT reps participate in meetings, technical reviews, etc.  Travel expenses covered by Feds  Examples:  VII Working Group  511 Coalition  NGSIM Model Users Group

6. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis6 Option 1 – No Formal Agreements (continued)  Pros:  Little admin burden for all  Cons:  States have no financial stake  Feds fund 100% of work

7. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis7 Option 2 – Individual Cooperative Agreements  Feds send funds to states to conduct work  80/20 match requirement for ITS funds  Examples:  Current cooperative agreement with VDOT for IC work

8. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis8 Option 2 – Individual Cooperative Agreements (continued)  Pros:  Good if state DOT is conducting or subcontracting work  Individual agreements eliminate any lead state admin burden  Cons:  Fed admin burden if many states  Can’t guarantee work for all states  20% match requirement

9. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis9 Option 3 – Federally Led Pooled Fund Study  Interested states contribute funds  State Planning & Research (SP&R) “federal” funds can be contributed with matching requirement typically waived  States prioritize how funds are spent  FHWA handles contract administration

10. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis10 Option 3 – Federally Led Pooled Fund Study (continued)  Examples:  Traffic Management Center (TMC) PFS  Traffic Control Devices (TCD) PFS  Pros:  States have financial stake  States prioritize how funds are spent  Perception as a more formal group?

11. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis11 Option 3 – Federally Led Pooled Fund Study (continued)  Cons:  States need to contribute funds  May be difficult to reach consensus on how funds should be spent

12. September 28, 2004CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis12 Discussion Topics  Preferred option(s)?  Other options?  Options may not be mutually exclusive (e.g., PFS for all states involved, with cooperative agreements to states conducting work)  Role and engagement options for local agencies?