A La Modes

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) have moved into the mainstream. While recognized as ITS, applications such as electronic toll collection (ETC), adaptive signal control, real-time travel information and in-vehicle navigation and numerous other applications have moved beyond being associated with neat technology to where they are now generally seen as commonplace transportation tools. Technology no longer needs to be called out as something to consider, it has become integral to our everyday lives. No reasonable enterprise creates a business plan without it, and the transportation sector is no exception.

One of the next challenges facing ITS practitioners involves applications that work across modes. The customers of the transportation infrastructure, whether commuters, shippers, operators or commercial enterprises, want things to work seamlessly across modes. The only way to address congestion, reduce transit times, improve system efficiency and meet security needs involves solutions that work across the modes. In order for this to take place barriers have to come down. Solutions have to be implemented on a network level and funding needs to occur with multiple organizations (road, rail, transit, aviation and shipping) involved at a project level. A number of programs including Operation Safe Commerce, the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC), the new Department of Homeland Security Operations Center and the NAFTA Route, as a few examples, have begun working on this. In these applications technology and intelligent transportation systems have a key role to play.

Mass cooperation

As a resident of Cambridge, Mass., I witnessed the security concerns associated with the Democratic National Convention up close. It forced the security and transportation communities to consider all modes and stakeholders. The commuter rail station (North Station), an interstate highway (I-93), the transit system (MBTA), airport and seaport (MassPort, Coast Guard), the traffic operations center (Mass. Highway Department and MassPike), the state and federal emergency management agency (MEMA and FEMA), public safety (Boston Police Department, Mass. State Police and their federal counterparts), additional security operations and others all worked together to manage the network for maximum security. A clear message sent early and often made it work. There also existed the absolute recognition of the need to share information and to share it across modes.

Coordination among modes and stakeholders needs to take place not only when security levels go up or in response to incidents but as a basic premise for operation of the U.S. transportation network and it needs to be funded. I have written previously about the opportunities based on products coming into the marketplace to leverage the network infrastructure investment, to take advantage of available technologies that provide identification, privileges, control mechanisms and audit trail and to make use of standards in doing so. A compelling return on investment case can be made. Selecting interoperable technology platforms makes it easier for stakeholders to work together. However, none of this matters if the effort is not made at a policy level to work cooperatively across modes and organizations toward the goals of mobility and security.

You only need to look at one of the major conclusions of the 9/11 commission to see that information sharing centrally organized and managed provides a best-practice approach. I contend that this applies to any scenario in which multiple stakeholders are involved. I recognize the political difficulties; at the same time we can’t afford to accept dysfunctional silos duplicating effort and wasting time, money, efficiency, security and safety.

Bake it in

OK, so let’s turn this toward a constructive example. The movement of cargo remains critical to the operation of our economy, a concern for security, and necessarily involves multiple modes, sectors and regions. Besides Operation Safe Cargo, there have been a number of initiatives by the Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations and the Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group (IFTWG). Project areas include:

• Smart chassis/information highway;
• Electronic Supply Chain Manifest (ESCM)/air cargo security; and
• Freight Action Strategy (FAST)/Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN)/agricultural tracking.

Here are cases where the Federal Highway Administration has taken the initiative across modes, working in conjunction with other agencies and reaching out to the private sector.

Unfortunately the discussions in this area are often couched in terms such as “emerging technologies,” and “opportunities for collaboration.” This means that at present there is no compelling business case driving the cooperation. Federal funding makes for good neighbors but without sustained commitment it still occurs in fits and starts.

How do we leverage the investment being made to create a security infrastructure into one that can be used for commerce? I have talked about positive, or active, security. In this case there exists security for every transaction. Active security only works when all transactions across all modes are secure. And as a result they take place quickly, efficiently and securely, and commerce benefits from security because security gets “baked in” not added on. We have an opportunity to leverage our security investment to make intermodal transportation work better.

How is it the case that a particular seller and buyer can keep track of the movement of goods from origin to destination? They can do it because they have numbers on their side and have a single point of contact (each other) to deal with the status of the shipment at each step in the process.

This is fine for individuals but it doesn’t yet happen on a network level from a national security or transportation perspective. What happens from these perspectives? The number of people available for tracking or inspecting the product is greatly reduced. Simply the number of sellers and buyers maps one to one to the goods in transit, however the ratio of security personnel or transportation infrastructure operators necessarily has to be many (goods) to few (personnel).

A need-to-share basis

How do we get beyond this? By having information centrally organized and shared among the interested parties. The only problem here is that the information is not easily shared across modes, unless you have a monolithic cargo entity that operates across modes, such as a FedEx or UPS. In this case they have centralized information shared by their employees and customers.

How do you get to information sharing across modes? How does business and transportation switch from a need to know to a need to share? In order for this to take place users have to be managed and database privacy and security issues need to be addressed. If the information only goes to those you trust, is kept private and is secure, you meet the needs of both need to know and need to share.

It is not easy for this information to be shared among competitors. It becomes more likely that it can be shared with some trusted agent in either a clearinghouse or federated model.

There are some examples of this, such as the I-95 Corridor Coalition and E-ZPass, and commercial vehicle initiatives such as PrePass and NORPASS, but these are still within a single mode. A true information federation and transportation and security network infrastructure must work across all modes. “E Pluribus Unum,” out of many one, we have recognized the need for it since the founding of our country. It’s also a prerequisite of the information network for our transportation and security investments.

TME