Earlier this month Rep. Cardenas (D,CA) introduced HR 3261,
the Less Traffic with Smart Stop Lights Act of 2019. The bill would require DOT
to establish the Smart Technology Traffic Signals Grant Program. Funding would
come from existing DOT grant programs.
Grant Program
The new grant program would provide monies to State, local and
Tribal governments to improve the functioning of traffic signal in a way that
would {§2(a)}:
• Reduce traffic congestion;
• Improve the safety and effectiveness of roadways;
• Reduce fuel costs for drivers; and
• Reduce air pollution.
The monies would be used to improve traffic signals through
the implementation of innovative technology, including {§2(c)}:
• Adaptive signal control technology; and
• Real-time data measurement technology
Funding would come from two existing DOT grant programs; the
surface transportation block grant program (23
USC 133) and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program
(23
USC 149).
Moving Forward
Cardenas is a member of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, one of the two committees to which this bill was assigned for consideration.
Rep. Espaillat (D,CA), a cosponsor of the bill is a member of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the other committee to which the
bill was assigned. This means that the bill could be considered by both
relevant committees.
There is nothing in the bill that would drive any
ideological opposition to its passage. The funding provisions help to overcome
the added spending issue, but it will effectively reduce the funding available
for grants in the other programs by some undetermined amount.
Commentary
The biggest shortfall in the language in the bill is that it
contains no provisions for requiring grantees to address cybersecurity issues
with these innovative technology solutions. With that lack of cybersecurity language
in mind, I would like to suggest the following two modifications to the
language in the bill.
First, I would add a new clause to §2(c) that would specifically allow grants to be used
for improving cybersecurity of existing traffic control systems:
(3) defensive measures (as
defined in 6 USC 1501) to protect new or existing traffic control systems from
cybersecurity threats (as defined in 6 USC 1501).
Second, I would rewrite §2(f) to read:
(f) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible
for a grant under the Program, a State, local, or Tribal government entity
shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such form, and
containing:
(1) An analysis of the
cybersecurity threats (as defined in 6 USC 1501) that would affect the traffic
control systems to be funded by the grant being requested;
(2) A description of the
defensive measures that would be used to address the potential threats
described in (1); and
(3) Any other information as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
NOTE: The definitions in §1501 use the control system inclusive definition of ‘information
system’.
Posts
