1 / 12

US DOT and State DOT Interaction on CICAS

US DOT and State DOT Interaction on CICAS. Gene McHale FHWA Office of Operations R&D. September 28, 2004 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis. Outline. Role of state DOT’s in CICAS Options for involvement Discussion Preferred options, other options

Rita
Download Presentation

US DOT and State DOT Interaction on CICAS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  3. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  4. Options for Involvement CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  5. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

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

  7. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  8. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  9. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  10. 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? CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  11. 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 CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

  12. 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? CICAS Meeting - Minneapolis

More Related