Keeping in mind that U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will address IBTTA’s Legislative Conference on Monday, March 22, it might be useful for us to reflect back to him our thoughts on where innovation is coming from in transportation and the toll industry.
When you’re in a recession like the one we’ve been in for nearly two years, innovation and competitiveness take on major importance – especially if you want to get out of the recession and emerge stronger on the other side. In a recent New York Times op-ed column, Thomas Friedman uses a striking image to illustrate the innovation gap between the U.S. and another global powerhouse. “We are the United States of Deferred Maintenance. China is the People’s Republic of Deferred Gratification. They save, invest and build. We spend, borrow and patch.”
Friedman cites a recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) titled, “The Atlantic Century: Benchmarking EU and US Innovation and Competitiveness.” ITIF uses 16 indicators to assess the global innovation-based competitiveness of 36 countries and 4 regions. The 16 indicators fall into six broad categories called (1) human capital, (2) innovation capacity, (3) entrepreneurship, (4) IT infrastructure, (5) economic policy, and (6) economic performance.
The report finds that while the U.S. still leads the EU in innovation-based competitiveness, it ranks sixth overall. Moreover, the U.S. ranks last in progress toward the new knowledge-based innovation economy over the last decade. All of the other 39 countries and regions studied have made faster progress toward the new innovation-based knowledge economy in recent years than the U.S.
The EU-15 region has made some progress over the last decade, but slower than the overall average and as a result, ranks 29th among the 40 nations/regions. The country that ranks highest in the overall score for 2009 is Singapore. The country that ranks highest in the change score from 1999-2009 is China.
So, where does innovation come from in transportation? Where should it come from? What can we in the transportation sector do to raise the innovation score (and hence competitiveness) of our respective countries? Are we destined to spend, borrow, and patch? Or can we – once more – save, invest, and build?
Posts
Posted by Robert Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
ReplyDeleteInnovation is the key to driving change and progress not only in the U.S but in virtually all industries. Innovation is not, as many believe, the same as quality improvement. Quality improvement is about doing the same thing, only better. Innovation is about doing new things and creating new opportunities. Unfortunately, as ITIF has documented the U.S. has lagged behind in innovation in this decade, ranking dead last out of 40 nations or regions in progress on a range of innovation and competitiveness indicators.
Not only have we lagged overall in factors like growth in corporate and government R&D, venture capital, etc., we have lagged behind in transportation innovation. After WWII we led the world in innovation generally and in transportation specifically. But in the last three decades a failure to invest and innovate has meant that the U.S. now lags other nations. We are significantly behind in use of public-private partnerships and tolling. And as ITIF has shown we are woefully behind in the deployment of intelligent transportation systems.
If we are to make meaningful improvement in our nation's surface transportation system we will need to find ways to embed innovation in it. But to date, there has been strikingly little innovation in transportation. Stop lights, parking meters, roads and highways, buses, trains, etc., all look and generally operate the same as they did 25 years ago. Compare that with industries like banking, retail, telecommunications, and other sectors that have been transformed by globalization and IT.
The principal reason for the lack of innovation in the sector is that with surface transportation services mostly provided by government, there is little no competition and virtually no way for innovative companies with new ideas to get them into the marketplace. Companies that want to invest in innovative transportation infrastructure, services or business models they have little way to ensure that they will be able to sell their innovations and make a return on their investment. No wonder we just keep doing the same thing. And policy makes it worse. Policymakers at state and federal levels spend much of their time debating whether or not to raise taxes to pay for needed investments in the system, and devote much less time and energy to finding ways to enable innovation.
But this is in many ways shouldn’t surprise us. Innovation seldom comes from incumbents. IBM didn’t create the PC operating system, Microsoft did. Sears didn’t create Wal-Mart. AT&T didn’t develop Skype. And the current “transportation industrial complex” of the 1,000’s of small and mid-sized road builders and federal, state, local government transportation officials all too often defend their own interests, seeking more money, rather than more disruptive innovation. And unlike other industries, where new entrants with a good idea can enter markets and disrupt recalcitrant incumbents, in transportation new entry is difficult, precisely because the incumbents and their defenders in Congress and state legislators make it difficult.
If we want innovation in transportation it’s time to think outside the box. We could start by the federal government not only paving the way for public-private partnerships and tolling, but actually providing real incentives for states and local governments to embrace PPPs and tolling. We should hold states accountable for performance and reward the ones that do the most with least, as this will force state DOTs to innovate more. We should reallocate several billion dollars of existing federal highway funds from expensive highways to inexpensive, yet highly effective ITS projects. Without these kinds of change, it’s likely that a another decade from now, the U.S. will have fallen even farther behind in transportation, with the consequences being a less competitive economy and worse quality of life.
Posted by Emil Frankel, Bipartisan Policy Center
ReplyDeleteFor many years the surface transportation sector has been one of the least innovative sectors of the American economy. There are many reasons why this is the case, not the least of which is that highways, bridges, tunnels, and public transit and commuter rail systems are largely public monopolies. There is little, if any, competition, and both public procurement rules and public management practices (in which taking risks is rarely rewarded) do not provide an atmosphere that is conducive to innovation.
Adoption of the programmatic recommendations of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) would, we believe, establish an atmosphere that would be more welcoming to both institutional and process innovations in the transportation sector. The competitive programs that NTPP has proposed would not be possible in the absence of broad institutional reform and collaboration at the state, metropolitan, and local levels, and the flexibility that state and local governments and agencies would be afforded would allow -- indeed, demand -- that they design broad strategic programs across modes and jurisdictions. These circumstances should stimulate innovations in systems management and in infrastructure investments. The role of competition, in promoting such innovations, was demonstrated in both the Urban Partnership Program and, more recently, in the applications for TIGER grants.
I am not capable of predicting what future inventions might occur to revolutionize transportation, in the way that steam power and the internal combustion and jet engines fundamentally changed America's economy and way of life in the 19th and 20th centuries. Similarly, great civil projects -- canals, railroads, highways, airports -- changed where we lived and how we worked over the last 200 years. Although not a technology expert, myself, I believe that the great technological innovations that will occur in the transportation sector in the next several years will result from the application of information systems to transportation. I do not believe that we have scratched the surface, in using information to allow us to manage transportation systems more effectively and productively, and to make better choices in how and when we use those networks.
Current fiscal realities and the limitation of available public investment capital for the foreseeable future will require that we make better use of existing transportation systems to serve America's changing economic, energy, environmental, and safety challenges. How can we enhance the performance of existing assets? It is in answering that question that we have the greatest needs and the greatest opportunities for innovations.
As was stated in NTPP's June 2009 report, ". . . The transportation revolution before us in the 21st century primarily involves the application of new sensor, communications, and information technologies to existing transportation systems. These innovations offer the promise of reshaping how we use transportation facilities and networks. . . ."
The great question that we face is whether America's institutional structures will allow us to take advantage of these technological innovations and to promote their successful deployment.
Posted by Art Guzzetti, Vice President – Policy, American Public Transportation Association
ReplyDeleteTransportation Innovation Comes in Many Ways
In 2008 members of the American Public Transportation Association unveiled TransitVision 2050, an initiative to build a compelling, collaborative, transforming vision for public transportation and for America. While the final product was most impressive (check it out at www.apta.com), some commented that they “thought the vision might be more George Jetson-like.”
The fact is that innovation and technology will be front and center as transportation providers adapt to the needs of tech-savvy generations, though it will exist in many forms.
The innovations we are looking for now are in the areas of information systems and customer service, such as hand-held knowledge systems that provide real-time trip information about transit connections whenever they are on a given day. Such devices will provide easy-to-understand information on traffic conditions, incoming weather, and the full range of travel options needed to make travel plans taking into account speed, transfers, price and scenic values. All transit fares, road tolls, etc. would be charged to a common payment chip embedded in the phone, regardless of what city one is in or what transportation mode one is using. The knowledge system would let travelers know exactly where and when they could best connect with local transit when they arrive at an airport, train station, or bus terminal.
In TransitVision 2050, innovation extends to intermodal systems, sustainability, and new models for transportation service delivery. In the future, people will no longer think of themselves as auto users or transit users, and will use whatever best suits their needs for a particular trip. Integrating public transportation into road tolling, congestion pricing, and high occupancy toll (HOT) lane projects will help achieve maximum performance in travel corridors. Integration of transit services will give toll projects a broader public appeal by helping alleviate congestion and offering low coast travel options. Transit riders, meanwhile, benefit from express trips on high-performance toll lanes and from the overall revenues generated from tolls, congestion pricing, and distance-based fares.
So, transportation innovation comes in many ways. What do you see as the hot-button issues in transportation innovation?
Posted by Jack Opiola, Senior Partner, D’Artagnan Consulting (Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDelete“Transformation” – “Innovation” – “Change” are all linked in my way of thinking.
“Transformation” is the act or process of transforming somebody or something. It is a complete change, usually into something that is improved or greatly more useful that its predecessor.
“Innovation” is an improved, incremental or radical and revolutionary change in thinking, operating and “doing”. It is the act of introducing something new.
“Change” is a transitive and intransitive verb to become different, or make something or somebody different; to pass or make something pass from one state or stage to another; to replace something.
Why are they linked in my mind? It is because they are “actions”! It takes effort, work, sweat, discomfort, willingness, dissatisfaction, unfreezing heat, friction and anxiety to act, “change”, “innovate” or “transform”.
Kurt Lewin and Edgar Schein theorized a three-stage, comprehensive model of change called “cognitive redefinition.” Simply put, this change process begins with being motivated to change; moves into changing those elements that need to change; and, completes the process with internalizing the change and making it permanent (or, at the new state of being until change starts the process again.) After all, if there is one constant, it is change.
Against this backdrop we are asked ”Where is innovation coming from in transportation?”
I think it is becoming motivated to change (“unfreezing”). We are built on the theory that human & organizational behavior is established by past observational learning, cultural influences, repeated application of the same procedures, doing “it” the same way ‘we have always done something’, being afraid to change due to not know the impacts or effects of a change, habits, or just being too comfortable with the status quo. All of these speak to and describe the state of transportation in general in addition to our current state of tolling in this country.
Change requires adding new forces for transformation and innovation or removing some of the existing factors that are at play in perpetuating the morass of our organizational behavior. This “unfreezing” process may require “heat”, not only the passive thermal or caloric application of flames created by regulatory and legislative changes, but also the personal and organizational readiness and motivation to change in order to improve and make a difference.
We are living in a rapidly changing world of disconfirmation where present conditions lead to dissatisfaction. Environmental impacts of our actions, climate change, high and rising cost of fuel, congestion – all keep us or delay us from meeting both our personal & organizational goals. We believe that if we can better finance and charge for “usage” of roads, we can solve our environmental, congestion and revenue issues. However, the larger the gap between what is believed and what needs to be believed for change to occur, the more likely the new information will be ignored, especially by elected officials.
Posted by Jack Opiola, Senior Partner, D’Artagnan Consulting (Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteTechnology change and application in our sector and our lives are causing our previous beliefs to be seen as invalid and creating “survival anxiety.” Today we have greater integration and timesaving being employed around us. Customers are demanding it from all systems, including tolling. Everything from programming our DVR to cashless checkout by bank payment cards in stores is more integrated, faster and smarter. We have seen the same in our marketplace through demonstrations and pilot projects that DSRC 5.9 GHz communications technology with its improved range, throughput, processing, security, and payment systems enables transportation to employ better cashless-open road tolling systems, better HOT-lanes and transition to GPS-based distance charging necessary for VMT. However, anxiety over low-cost RFID sticker tags and bespoke investment in “yesterdays” technology may not be sufficient to prompt change if learning anxiety or fear to change the “status quo” are present. Customer demands having experienced free-flow tolling benefits elsewhere are also driving us to change, innovate and transform.
Learning anxiety, however, triggers defensiveness and resistance due to the pain of having to unlearn what had been previously accepted. It is interesting to see the response to customer demands and comparisons of DSRC 5.9 GHz technology versus 915 RFID technologies. The learning anxiety over the change to customer demands or an enabling technology response are denial; scapegoating & passing the buck; and maneuvering & bargaining in discussions over interoperability and open systems.
It will be necessary to move past the possible anxieties for change, innovation, and transformation to motivate progress. It could be accomplished by either having the survival anxiety be greater than the learning anxiety or, preferably, learning anxiety could be reduced by legislative changes at the Federal Level. This “heat” from above, may be what is needed to rationalize and motivate change (unfrozen and moving to a new state), cause us to innovate, or transform the industry. It certainly is one path to transformation.
Another is sufficient market and customer dissatisfaction with the current conditions coupled by the real desire to make change exist that we control as an industry. We have the power to change, innovate and transform from the bottom-up. While it is necessary to identify exactly what needs to be changed, we have started that process with addressing interoperability, standards for enforcement, cross-boundary business processes and open systems architecture. Three possible impacts from continuing to process these initiatives are: our thoughts, words and actions will take on new or expanded meaning; these concepts can be looked at and interpreted with a broader context applicable to State, Regional and National transformation; and there can be an adjustment in the scale used in evaluating new input that will lead the Federal Government to incorporate these initiatives on a broader front.
A concise view of the new state is required to clearly identify the gap between the present state and that being proposed. Strategic “Vision” is necessary, which is aided by activities that make change, innovation and transformation possible. Much of this vision has been presented by the previous congressional studies. Either the Administration or Secretary for Transportation can encapsulate this vision, or we can create it, so it can be imitated, copied and endorsed by others.
I prefer verbs to nouns. My mind set is action. Rather than wait for a vision or legislative mandates to change, innovate and transform, I think this industry can be the role model for the greater transportation market. We can lead, follow, or get out of the way. Change, innovation and transformation will happen.
Timothy McGuckin, Executive Director, OmniAir Consortium, Inc. (PART 1 OF 2)
ReplyDeleteI believe that innovation simply means new ways of doing things, and those things are often enabled by new technologies. It comes from outside influences that permeate the organization. How well they permeate depends on the organization. New ideas, approaches and technologies are well-nurtured, adapted and quickly applied if the entire culture of an organization is ‘about’ innovation AND that organization demands constant innovation in order to survive in the marketplace. I think of Google, General Electric, Netflix, HP, or Apple as examples.
For tolling, which has been around for a couple of thousand years, and for which most specific toll facilities don’t really face much market competition, innovation is different. But it is clearly still there. Electronic Toll Collection is an innovative adaptation of military RFID technology and rail-car management systems. ORT and AET are innovations of ETC. So, for me, it is not where innovation comes from, but whether the institution has the ability to adopt innovation and do so quickly enough to stay ‘ahead’ of the crowd. Private companies have a greater ability to adopt and our traditional public sector toll operators do not – but not because they don’t want to. Their institutional structures do not reward innovation’s associated requirements – tolerance for the unknown and risk-taking. Both the individual and his organization at many toll agencies are hampered by procurement guidelines that emphasize cost over value. Staff are beholden to an uninformed Board who themselves are slaves to an ignorant public. This in my opinion has hampered the consideration and adoption of new technologies like 5.9GHz DSRC, and may hamper the adoption of the EPSNIS.
Timothy McGuckin, Executive Director, OmniAir Consortium, Inc. (Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteWe simply don’t see this level of constraint in the private sector, including the toll operator’s version of the private sector – the concessionaire.
The challenge is how to create in the toll industry an institution that can be innovative and whose staff has less fear of failure. “The greatest barrier to success is the fear of failure,” someone famous said. But heck, that fear is real in the public sector. You can lose your job if you fail (or if some anti-toll idiot with a website or another vendor - the one whose technology you didn't choose - makes others believe you have failed). But innovation is a requirement today. It can help the toll industry maintain its leadership position in an interdependent transportation/technology community. To the extent that innovation cannot be integrated into the tolling culture, I would say the reason is anxiety over upsetting organizational stability. But such anxiety is a bad guide to the future.
At the risk of hurting my arguments above, I also believe that not all innovation is pure and good. Take Lehman Brothers – they ‘innovated’ in the financial world and look what happened. But I believe the toll industry has to be more innovative to survive and thrive and that this has to be balanced with deliberation – just not the paralyzing kind.
Posted by Martin Stone, Planning Director, The Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority
ReplyDeleteThe questions should not be "where is transportation innovation coming from" but "where MUST it come from?" And the answer has to be organizations like IBTTA! Unfortunately, our bureaucracies (both federal and state) often only give lip service to the "change" word while embracing "study" as the true action item. It is the nimble organizations like IBTTA that represent those of us who deliver to the customer and those who support us that must generate the new ideas. And, it should be IBTTA's role to help us discuss, formulate, refine, present and ultimately implement new concepts into the real world.
Maurizio Rotondo - Aiscat
ReplyDeleteFirst, what should transportation innovation mean? We board our cars as our parents did, we board trains and planes (the latter a bit more) as our parents did, we board ferries as our parents did,in Italy we use motorbikes much more than our parents did. The most evident change is that we are more frantic and we more often arrive late where we are supposed to be expected. Yes, we do have TomToms navigation systems on board, we do know from tv that stretch of road might be congested but, alas, we cannot afford alternatives and we eventually adapt our schedule by starting earlier the trip or arriving later. At least mobile phones permit us to warn about out delay. Basically we are stitching patches, on a worn out jacket that could fall apart anytime and does not fit our size anymore.
That's why all the people is reluctant to buy (glitter patches might sell for a while but it will not last) and ITS is so slow to catch on. Transportation needs to be re-articulated, and dealt with as a whole. Competition among transport modes is a false idol, every mode is congested, should they compete to get more congestion?
Coming to innovation, the first innovation would be to have transport modes talking to each other, offering a seamless and convenient door to door service, helping each other do its best according to its transport vocation; such a development would open the door for services and technologies (most of the latter available, but under-exploited).
Less personal interest, less company interest and more systemic view would translate in broader market for everyone, operators, manufacturers, service providers.
What could an entity such as IBTTA do on that? Talk to the others, open discussion fora involving other transportation stakeholders, offer a platform for discussion and interaction among transportation actors.
Innovation, Take Two
ReplyDeleteInnovation takes time. It doesn’t spring fully formed in an instant from one person’s mind. We’ve all heard the story of how Herb Kelleher and Rollin King came up with the idea for Southwest Airlines over drinks at a local bar. The two presumably framed the idea for a regional airline by drawing three dots on a cocktail napkin representing Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. As the story goes, Mr. King laid out his plan, and Mr. Kelleher supposedly responded: "Rollin, you're crazy. Let's do it." While inspiring as a story, in fact they never drew a route map on a napkin. But we do know that innovation does happen, usually with lots of fits and starts and, yes, failure.
In recognition of the fact that innovation takes time, we’re giving you another week to respond to last week’s question, “Where is innovation coming from in transportation?” There are already seven excellent responses. We invite you to add your perspective, which can be something new or a commentary on one of the earlier responses. If you like, you can even send it in on a cocktail napkin and we’ll be happy to post it on your behalf. Really.
Thanks for all you do to make this blog a source of thoughtful inspiration for our industry.
Pat
one way to rethink innovation in transportation is to define what transportation really entails regard society, economic trends and human needs in general. in the classic sense, transportation is one channel in the overall means of communication that a society uses and develops.
ReplyDeletetaking that historic perspective, innovation in transportation has to incorporate how we communicate and move information now and for the foreseeable future. this point of view makes technology an indisputable ally and integrative force for any perspective on transportation.
where are we heading as a society and an economy? clearly in the coming decades, one of the defining features of global economic life is that more and more work will be done virtually. that makes people more efficient while delivering higher quality of life to individuals. it also is a logical and appropriate technological answer to rising fuel costs, depleting petroleum resources and increased pollution. but as this virtual way of working gradually diminishes the amount of vehicle miles an average consumer will use, it means a possibly radical change to the distribution of who uses the transportation infrastructure of this nation (and others).
to put it simply, even if people work from home they still need to eat. the productivity growth of telecommuting will translate into a demand for more goods and services and that means that transportation infrastructure will become more highly dependent on and tied to the movement of goods and freight.
if this crystal balling is at all accurate, as transportation providers and planners, we have to address the needs of this increasingly important consumer base. that means, to me, building roadways that facilitate swift, safe trucking flows, ubiquitous intermodal connectivity, and deployment of the facilities and technical infrastructure that supports efficient transportation logistics. partnering with private logistics and transport firms and facilitating public sector deployment of appropriately engineered roadways, communication technology/networks and expanded customer service applications is a way to address this growing need.
as this thread makes clear, innovation is always driven by the "find a need and fill it" mindset. hopefully the policy debate and public/private planning strategies absorb this entrepreneurial spirit.
Michael Catolico - Illinois Tollway
Those who say that there has been no innovation in highway transportation are somehow overlooking the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Like it or not, in the last 25 years, any innovation seen in United States highway transportation has come from the partnership between the Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board. The BIG innovations of the past and present are federally funded demonstration projects, like the $300M Congestion Reduction Demonstration in Los Angeles going on right now. Dynamic pricing on freeways, HOT Lanes, European Style Active Traffic management (in Seattle), all have roots in the FHWA. With the trust fund drying up, FHWA has shifted its mission from road building to operations and maintenance. I can give 25 good examples of how TRB has captured an innovative idea from Academia, transmitted it to the Feds who have funded it, and voila, you have real innovation. Yes, I'm saying that the federal government, not private industry, is the number one innovation engine for highways in the US- they see it as their role. It is a popular misconception that the best innovations always come from private industry. It may be true in handheld electronics, but not in public works. Private companies in our industry have small, if any, R&D budgets.
ReplyDeleteWhere will innovations for toll roads come from?This is what the joint MOU between IBTTA and TRB is all about; finding innovative solutions to the common ground issues shared by Freeway and Tollway operators. The MOU is a way for IBTTA to tap into the innovations sprouting within TRB.
Dan Baxter, Stantec
Tom Bamonte, Illinois Tollway
ReplyDeletePt. I
Innovation works well when the public and private interests in an industry are both working together and challenging each other with innovations. This often takes the form of coordinated efforts to tap into federal dollars to fund research and development and by public authorities brave enough to bet their dollars on attractive new options offered by the private sector.
As commentators on the previous post on PPPs have observed, the private companies involved in PPPs have been the catalysts for some of the innovations in the tolling industry. As an earlier post in this thread has underscored, the public sector, most notably FHWA in recent years, has been a force for innovation by encouraging priced roads and supporting various intelligent transportation initiatives.
What is notable about the tolling industry when compared to other transportation sectors is the relative absence of private industry allies in the effort to lobby for more federal research dollars and programs that will encourage growth and innovativeness in the tolling industry. In the public transit sector, for example, the manufacturers of buses and other transit vehicles provide lobbying muscle. Likewise the public agency builders of "free" highways are backed by the road construction groups. The promise of federal stimulus dollars saw the coming together of rail car manufacturers and public authorities into a powerful lobbying effort for high speed rail.
The tolling industry lacks these natural allies. The manufacturers of tolling equipment and software are relatively small. They are seemingly more interested in tearing at each other than in helping the tolling industry improve the efficiency and interoperability of toll collection or make great leaps forward technologically. The declining cost and hence profit potential of transponder/reader technology may make tolling a relatively unattractive business for these firms going forward, further diminishing their ability to be effective partners with tolling authorities.
The road construction industry appears at first glance to be a natural ally of the tolling industry, but its attention is focused on maximizing the pot of tax dollars to fund work on "free" roads. In likely all but a very few states the free roads pot is much larger than the toll roads pot. Given the controversy still associated with tolled roads the road builders likely wish to shy away from association with the tolling industry and focus on free roads.
Tom Bamonte, Illinois Tollway
ReplyDeletePt. II
The ability of PPP concessionaires to jumpstart innovation is limited by the extent to which PPPs are restricted by state law. Indeed, the two public entities that are usually tasked with managing PPPs--state DOTs and tolling agencies--are the ones most threatened by PPPs. This inherent institutional tension, coupled with the need to remain at arms length to honor public procurement law requirements, weakens the alliance between public highway authorities and PPP concessionaires.
The most natural private sector allies for the tolling industry are the vehicle manufacturers and the companies that provide electronics for those vehicles. Onboard electronic equipment and services are effective ways for vehicle manufacturers to differentiate their products from their competitors' products. These items may even elevate profit margins.
Toll roads, with their electronic tolling and ITS enhancements such as incident information data streams, have the potential to help increase the value of these onboard electronic features. Thus, from the perspective of vehicle manufacturers the expansion of toll roads and making such roads "smarter" though ITS investments helps make their investment in "smart" cars truly smart.
A coalition of toll road authorities and vehicle manufacturers could be a potent lobbying force for R&D investments in both vehicle and highway technologies that will improve highway safety and increase system efficiency. If in a matter of months rail car manufacturers and public agencies could come together and snag billions in federal dollars why couldn't a coalition of toll road authorities and vehicle manufacturers do the same to fund investments in smart road/smart car technologies that will move more people more places than high speed rail ever will.
(Views expressed are those of the author alone.)