Welcome to the ITS Deployment Tracking Web Site

Skip Menu Home Results by Metropolitan Area View Survey Responses By Survey Type Search for Technology Create Summary Tables Compare Metropolitan Areas ITS Deployment Trends Download Documents View Blank Surveys 2002 ITS Deployment Results
  This site is best
  viewed with the
  latest version of:
Microsoft Internet Explorer
  OR
Netscape Navigator

  This software is
  necessary to access
  some of the
  information on
  this website!

get acrobat reader
 

This chart shows National progress in integrated metropolitan I.T.S. deployment. In 1997 there were 11 metropolitan areas with high integrated metropolitan I.T.S. deployment, 25 with medium and 39 with low. In 1999 there were 22 metropolitan areas with high integrated metropolitan I.T.S. deployment, 27 with medium and 26 with low. In 2000 there were 24 metropolitan areas with high integrated metropolitan I.T.S. deployment, 28 with medium and 23 with low. The goal for 2005 is for 50 metropolitan areas to have high integrated metropolitan I.T.S. deployment and 25 with medium.

The Department has made substantial progress toward achieving its goal of deploying ITS infrastructure in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas by 2005. Data on this site tracks progress by focusing on nine key infrastructure components, specifically deployment levels and the extent of integration between agencies that operate the infrastructure. Periodic surveys are taken of 78 metropolitan areas, the most recent being for the year 2000. This figure considers both levels of deployment and integration and shows steady progress from a low rating to medium and high. A complete report is available here.



This chart shows the rate of change in integrated deployment. It shows that to achieve a higher level of integrated deployment more time, money, and level of effort is necessary. Even though a high level of deployment may be reached there are still 'Miles to Go' to reach full integrated deployment.

Attainment of threshold values for deployment and integration is a great beginning and demonstrates a significant commitment on behalf of numerous stakeholders within a state and/or metropolitan area. Meeting or exceeding the survey's benchmarks indicates metropolitan areas are making great strides in ITS deployment and integration. These efforts are critical to both improving system performance and restoring a sense of control to our customers' traveling experiences. Clearly, however, the thresholds are not an end in themselves. Metropolitan areas deemed "high" still may require significant deployment and integration activities to achieve a level of performance that is satisfactory to customers within their respective areas. A sustained commitment of time and resources for ITS deployment and integration will undoubtedly support a system that meets or exceeds performance expectations from the traveling public.


ITS Deployment Indicators

Deployment is measured using a set of indicators tied to the major functions of each component. These indicators serve as estimators of the extent of technology deployment supporting critical functions. For each component, one indicator has been designated to serve as a summary for the whole component. The following figure presents the national summary indicators. Click here to view the 2000 National Summary Report.


Click component icon to view definition and indicator results This chart shows the national summary indictors for each of the metropolitan I.T.S. components for 1997, 1999, 2000, and the 2005 estimate. The indicator for freeway management for 1997 is 16%, for 1999 it is 22%, for 2000 it is 22%, and the 2005 estimate is 51%. The indicator for incident management for 1997 is 30%, for 1999 it is 35%, for 2000 it is 40%, and the 2005 estimate is 51%. The indicator for arterial management for 1997 is 46%, for 1999 it is 47%, for 2000 it is 49%, and the 2005 estimate is 70%. The indicator for electronic toll collection for 1997 is 36%, for 1999 it is 43%, for 2000 it is 73%, and the 2005 estimate is 81%. The indicator for transit management for 1997 is 23%, for 1999 it is 30%, for 2000 it is 31%, and the 2005 estimate is 85%. The indicator for electronic fare payment for 1997 is 30%, for 1999 it is 45%, for 2000 it is 49%, and the 2005 estimate is 58%. The indicator for highway rail intersections for 1997 is 5%, for 1999 it is 9%, for 2000 it is 16%, and the 2005 estimate is 22%. The indicator for emergency management for 1997 is 43%, for 1999 it is 66%, for 2000 it is 67%, and the 2005 estimate is 90%. The indicator for regional multi-modal traveler information for 1997 is 12%, for 1999 it is 22%, for 2000 it is 22%, and the 2005 estimate is 22%.
Freeway Management Incident Management Arterial Managment Electronic Toll Collection Transit Management Electronic Fare Payment Highway Rail Intersections Emergency Management Regional Multi-model Traveler Information

Metropolitan Area Results

All data collected from over 1,750 state and local agencies are available here. These include each agency’s survey response and ITS Deployment Tracking indicators for each metropolitan area. Click on a state to retrieve results for any of the 78 metropolitan areas. Use the menu on the left to make additional queries of the deployment tracking database.

Map of the United States of America
Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland District of Columbia West Virginia Virginia Ohio Michigan Indiana Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee South Caroloina Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi Wisconsin Illinois Minnesota Iowa Missouri Arkansas Louisiana North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Idaho Utah Arizona Nevada Washington Oregon California Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico
If you experience difficulty accessing information at this site, please contact Andrew Dixson at andrew.l.dixson@cpmx.saic.com or by phone at 865-481-2337.
This site is brought to you by the U.S. Department of Transportation's ITS Joint Program Office.
Comments and suggestions to: Steve Gordon, Andrew Dixson or Juan Noltenius