A Plan for Revitalizing the U.S. Auto Industry

It’s January 20, 2029. The new President, committed to revitalizing America’s once-dominant car and truck industry, requests a briefing on the current state of affairs. The news isn’t great. Global market share of the big American automakers has bottomed out at single digits, well below the nearly 25% it enjoyed in the 1990s. Factories that made cars for export are either closed or closing.

That’s because the rest of the world doesn’t really want American cars any more. Continued tension and uncertainty in the Middle East has kept gas prices high and underscored the security and economic vulnerabilities of overreliance on oil. Outside the United States, consumers are snapping up Chinese-made EVs that go hundreds of miles, charge in minutes, and sell for less than $10,000. Industry is similarly pivoting to electric freight. On the home front, Americans are angry that U.S. policy is preventing them from buying exciting cars hitting the streets in neighboring Canada and Mexico. Workers aren’t much happier, as trade disputes and tariff barriers cause the once-integrated North American auto industry to come apart at the seams. And the U.S. truck oligopoly still runs on diesel, adding cost to almost every consumer good.

The President sighs and asks their team for a plan. Fortunately, they have one.

The World is Jumping Ahead on Electric Vehicles, Whether the U.S. Likes It Or Not

The writing is on the wall: electric vehicles (EVs) are the future. Industry knows it. Workers know it. Investors know it. Politicians on the left and right know it. EVs are simply getting too good, too quickly, for even the most pro-fossil policy agenda to stop. That’s good news for our climate, and for consumers globally, who deserve access to the latest, greatest, and cheapest cars. But it’s bad news for Americans, who are going to suffer the long-term effects of short-sighted transportation policies that fail to acknowledge economic and technological reality.

Eventually, this reality is going to become impossible to ignore. EVs are already dominating in countries as diverse as China, Norway, Vietnam, and India, and the geographic spread is only accelerating. Sooner or later, the United States is going to need a plan to catch up. It’s clear that what the plan won’t be is a simple return to the outdated regulatory frameworks we used for decades to regulate vehicle emissions and fuel economy. We need to think more broadly and more creatively. 

Why Nixon-Era Statutes Won’t Catch Us Up On Their Own

Two statutes have historically governed vehicles. The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) structures the tailpipe emissions standards that the EPA and California enforce, while the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which charges DOT with setting separate (albeit overlapping) fuel economy standards. These laws, as we’ve previously written, were helpful for making gas-powered cars cleaner and more efficient, but they weren’t designed to guide a wholesale transition from fossil to electric technology with the pace and comprehensive scope needed.

There’s a case to be made for doing your best with old tools if those are the tools available. Indeed, that’s why the Biden administration’s vehicle regulatory regime was largely predicated on the CAA and EPCA. But these tools have become far less available in light of the second Trump administration’s actions. The Trump administration, in partnership with Congress, has dismantled the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles under the CAA, gutted the fuel economy program that EPCA sets up, and rolled back California’s EV rules (which traditionally set the most stringent, future-forward vehicle standards). It also fired lots of people from federal agencies who understood how federal vehicle regulations worked. Thus from both a legal and a capacity angle, CAA and EPCA have become significantly weaker policy levers. Compounding these issues is the fact that the Supreme Court (now and likely into the near future) is profoundly hostile to regulatory ambition, limiting the probable reach of new rules set under these statutes.

Even if one could magically snap Biden-era vehicle rules back in place, those rules would only cover one player in the auto market – automakers themselves. Telling automakers that they have to develop cleaner, more innovative vehicles is an important tactic, but it is not a comprehensive policy agenda. CAA and EPCA don’t cover worker pensions, factory refits, trade policy, or continental industrial strategy. They don’t deploy charging networks or build out the grid. They don’t help fossil-fuel-producing counties diversify their economies, don’t structure smart spending priorities for the transportation system, don’t thoughtfully manage refinery closures and other giant infrastructure shifts. And as we’ve seen, CAA and EPCA don’t put real pressure on giant incumbent companies to change, and to make affordable new products, rather than to lobby hard against rules they don’t like.

By 2029, many of these core economic and industrial policy areas will also be in shambles. And as we’ve learned from the partial repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, a party-line reconciliation bill won’t be a silver-bullet fix. Reconciliation bills are, as the Trump administration has made clear, no basis for stable investments. Fiscal policy is useful. Unstable budget policy will not draw in the billions in investment we’ll need to catch America back up.

These aren’t ancillary problems. Failing to manage the EV transition as the giant economic shift it actually is makes the policy and politics of the transition brittle and subject to reversal. 

And Neither Will Ad Hoc Dealmaking

We need approaches that both compel and encourage giant incumbent companies to change and make affordable new products, rather than lobby hard against rules they don’t like. We need approaches that take the lived experiences of people who can’t afford to finance a new car, who don’t have access to charging at home, or whose livelihoods depend on the fossil economy seriously.

Yet the United States has never had a clear, cohesive, and comprehensive electrification and innovation strategy for the auto sector. In the absence of a clear national program, we’ve cut a series of tenuous deals to structure nearly twenty years of U.S. vehicle policy.

President Obama, during the 2009 auto bailout, was able to use fiscal recovery funds to steer the auto industry into accepting a first round of emissions rules from the feds and California. This “car deal” set the template for several more. The first Trump administration (with tacit support from automakers looking to slow EV investment) blew it up. California stepped into the breach with another set of deals, persuading companies to keep making EVs in exchange for regulatory relief and by threatening to stop buying government cars from holdouts. Team Biden then used Inflation Reduction Act funds to provide EV rebates and support EV manufacturing, as a spoonful of sugar to help a new round of federal and California emissions rules go down. And then the second Trump administration blew up those deals, again with industry support as American companies pivoted back toward short-term profitable gas SUVs.

Same story with trucks. California made a deal with the truck makers to continue progress on clean trucks. Post-Trump 2, those same truckmakers sued California to blow up their own deal. They are now backing Trump on his effort to destroy the entire CAA greenhouse gas vehicle program.

These deals were crucial progress at the time – and it would have been rational for the industry to keep its word. But it didn’t – policymakers shouldn’t be fooled again, or lulled into thinking that even good deals are a long-term substitute for durable policy. Relying on ad hoc dealmaking is an absolutely wild way to run a major industrial sector.

No wonder Chinese companies, able to rely on consistent government policy, have surged ahead while American consumers struggle to navigate the increasingly byzantine and expensive world that is the American auto market. While American workers move their families to be near good-paying auto jobs only to see investment pulled back and factories shutter. And while auto companies, in the absence of a stable and dependable policy environment, almost inevitably engage in short-term profit chasing rather than longer-term innovation.

A Path Back to the Future for U.S. Auto Policy

What breaks this bad pattern? Green industrial policy, embedded in a bipartisan statute that can pass a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate, and that blends competition and innovation.

Because we need both. The U.S. auto industry is highly concentrated, with only a few companies dominating domestic sales of both cars and trucks. These companies are used to calling the shots and setting prices, which is terrible for everyone but CEOs. American auto CEOs are deathly afraid of real competition – witness how Tesla’s new affordable electric semi is sending major ripples through the entire freight sector. But it’s been decades since the United States seriously enforced antitrust laws. Rather, politicians from both parties have raced to erect steep tariffs shielding the American auto sector from essentially all real global competition. There’s a role for any government to play in supporting its domestic industries. But that role isn’t propping up failing legacy companies indefinitely, at the public’s expense.

A well-designed statute could strengthen market oversight and competition while also providing American companies with reasonable support. Don’t like the Chinese-backed EVs that are undercutting your market? Start making and selling better, cleaner, and cheaper vehicles – and we’ll help. This is the logic that motivated Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to welcome Chinese competition while bolstering their domestic industries. The U.S. can catch up with the same approach. For instance, government can readily provide loan funds and policy support for overseas companies that want to scale up in the United States, in partnership with domestic manufacturers. Such joint ventures are win-wins: the foreign company gets a new market and learns how to build for the U.S. market; the domestic company gains process knowledge and the IP it needs to modernize its products. That is exactly what Toyota and GM did a few decades ago, when the U.S. industry faced major competition from overseas autos (then, from Japan). The strategy can work again, for cars and trucks and batteries. Throw in better federal loan terms for union facilities, and you have a worker-friendly, industry-friendly, pro-competition, pro-consumer package. And this time the government can even explore taking an equity stake. Because why not re-shore profits, too?

Is comprehensive statutory reform ambitious? Certainly. But anything less consigns core national economic and industrial strategy to the vagaries of judicial interpretations of decades-old pollution statutes. Half-measures will, given the context above, be essentially useless. As with riding a bike, we can’t afford to pedal slow. The fate of a vast national industry warrants real national vision, rooted in a democratic vision for ordinary people. Democracy repair is climate repair is industrial reconstruction.

To deliver that vision when the policy window emerges – when the next President asks for it – we’ve got to start structuring it now. We suspect it will include some or all of the following elements:

What Needs to Happen Now

The comprehensive, statutorily based plan we envision is only so much wishful thinking today. But we can actually create the conditions to realize this plan in the future. That’s because states have very substantial economic development authority, complemented by the substantial financial muscle of large state-based green banks and infrastructure banks.

What if the next governor of California provided state-backed loans for any company seeking to expand an EV or battery firm with pro-union policies in the state? The governor might particularly encourage joint ventures, perhaps looking to the Chinese firm BYD’s existing facility outside of Los Angeles (which doesn’t make cars and semis now, but could be expanded to do so). This isn’t wishful thinking. California more or less created Tesla with over $3.2 billion in subsidies. It can now create a host of new competitors, but this time it can also be taking equity to ensure profits flow back into a “transition fund” in the budget that supports economic growth in counties facing declining oil production. It can simultaneously pass state laws strengthening oversight of the U.S. auto industry, forcing transparent prices and pro-competition market structures.

If California leads, it’s unlikely to stand alone. States like Michigan might well jump in, using its existing Office of Future Mobility and Electrification to draw in billions in investment in existing facilities and pairing public investment with scaled-up private capital in powerful capital stacks. So might Texas, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia – states that have made significant investments in EVs and batteries that they, and their constituents, are loath to lose. After a year or so, we might reasonably expect an MOU linking a growing state coalition that is working to develop the capital instruments and policies needed to grow industry.

With this policy certainty, investments start flowing at scale and a positive cycle begins. States continue to implement the panoply of policies in their control that otherwise support economic modernization, from clean air planning to freight system electrification rules and programs to policies that help vehicle batteries profitably support the grid by storing energy. They update building codes, deploy chargers, insist on durable and quality products using their consumer protection laws, and steer public money towards necessary infrastructure. Critically, they root all that work in expanded capacity to navigate the “messy middle” of the ongoing clean-technology transition, ensuring that neither workers nor communities will be left in the lurch.

At the same time, far-sighted public officials, backed up by civil society and foundation support, start bringing together the interests the new President will need for a major statutory play. They bring in counterparts from Canada and Mexico, recognizing that the continent has to either work together or lag together. Soon, the collaboration starts looking like an actual industrial strategy at the scale of East Asia’s behemoths.

In this scenario, when the next President calls for an auto modernization plan, Governors across the country back her. So do many major investors, donors, local officials, and federal electeds. After all, they’ve already seen the future in their states, and it is in their interest to scale up the national program. When the gavel falls in the first year of the 121st Congress, the conditions for change are in place, and twenty years of shaky rules and ad hoc deals give way to a new approach – a lasting one.

Clearing the Roadblocks to Transportation Innovation

Breakthrough technologies are emerging rapidly throughout U.S. transportation systems, from AI-enabled traffic management pilots by state DOTs to the continued expansion of automated vehicle (AV) testing and deployment. Yet the institutions responsible for researching, testing, and deploying these innovations were largely designed for a different era, with funding and governance structures organized around distinct transportation modes, limiting their ability to integrate cross-cutting, system-level technologies.

Over the past few years, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has engaged hundreds of local governments, researchers, industry leaders, and transportation experts to better understand where the most pressing transportation R&D gaps lie. These insights informed FAS’ recent recommendations  to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) as it shapes its Research and Development (R&D) Strategic Plan. 

Talking with hundreds of people, so many kept saying the same thing: the biggest barriers to transportation innovation are not purely technical – they are structural. Innovation is happening across the ecosystem, but it is often fragmented, slow to deploy, and poorly coordinated across jurisdictions. Addressing structural barriers will require a more coordinated national approach to transportation innovation, including fully funding the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I), strengthening DOT’s role as a national convener, and investing in regional research networks that can bridge the gap between research and real-world deployment.

Infrastructure & Innovation Are Moving at Different Speeds

Our national transportation infrastructure was designed for station wagons, not the innovations of today and those yet to come. Roadways, signals, and transit systems were built around relatively predictable patterns of vehicle ownership and travel behavior. However, today, cities are navigating shared mobility, micromobility devices, automated vehicles, and digitally connected transportation systems operating simultaneously. 

At the same time, many promising technologies already exist that could improve transportation systems. Advanced sensing tools, AI-enabled traffic management systems, and connected infrastructure platforms have the potential to improve safety, reduce congestion, and enhance system resilience. Advanced construction methods and materials are being developed to the point where efforts like ARPA-I’s eXceptional Bridges through Innovative Design and Groundbreaking Engineering (X-BRIDGE) program can realistically set out to answer the question: how can we deliver bridges at half the cost, in half the time, and with twice the lifespan?

The challenge? Deployment. Traditional procurement and financing models are often designed for long-term infrastructure projects rather than rapidly evolving digital technologies. Even when solutions are available, local governments may struggle to evaluate, pilot, and scale them. These challenges are particularly pronounced for smaller jurisdictions with limited technical capacity.

Emerging Technologies Raise New Research Questions

Innovation moves quickly, research and validation do not. 

Think of the automated vehicles piloted in a major metropolitan near you (we’ve seen them drop off some folks at FAS HQ). Demonstrating their safety relative to human drivers requires robust evaluation methods and standardized testing frameworks. Researchers must also better understand how automated systems will integrate with transit networks, emergency response operations, and existing road users.

Meanwhile, intangible data is becoming the backbone of modern transportation systems. Connected vehicles, smart infrastructure, and real-time mobility services all depend on the ability to collect and share large volumes of data. Sounds great, but transportation data ecosystems remain fragmented across jurisdictions and operators that limit interoperability and coordination.

Those we’ve spoken to have emphasized ensuring transportation innovation benefits communities of all sizes. Many emerging technologies are first piloted in large metropolitan areas, leaving smaller cities and rural communities with fewer opportunities to participate in early deployments. Accessibility considerations, including ensuring new mobility systems work for people with disabilities, must also remain central to transportation innovation efforts. 

Together, these challenges highlight the need for a more coordinated approach to transportation research, development, and deployment.

ARPA-I: Building a Stronger Transportation Innovation Ecosystem

Addressing these challenges will require a more integrated national transportation R&D strategy – one that combines breakthrough research, regional experimentation, and strong federal coordination.

How can we do it? Congress should fully fund and support ARPA-I. ARPA-I was designed to support high-risk, high-reward research capable of addressing systemic infrastructure challenges. Its milestone-driven model allows researchers to test ambitious ideas quickly and refine them through rapid iteration. This approach is particularly well suited to emerging areas such as digital twins for infrastructure systems, AI-enabled safety technologies, and advanced construction methods.

At the same time, DOT must continue strengthening its role as a national convener for transportation innovation. Federal leadership ensures that lessons learned from pilot programs are shared across jurisdictions, that data standards remain interoperable, and that research investments align with real-world operational needs.

Finally, investing in regional transportation research networks can help bridge the gap between research and deployment. Regional Centers of Excellence that connect universities, public agencies, industry partners, and nonprofit organizations can provide environments for collaborative experimentation, workforce development, and technology transfer. These networks would mean that small jurisdictions have opportunities to participate in innovation efforts.

Turning Research Insights into Action

The insights gathered from local governments, researchers, and industry leaders make one thing clear: the U.S. does not lack ideas for improving its transportation system. What it needs is a research ecosystem capable of turning those ideas into deployed solutions.

Fully funding ARPA-I, strengthening DOT’s innovation capacity, and investing in regional research networks would create a coordinated pipeline for transportation innovation. Congress can make this possible. Sustained appropriations for ARPA-I will ensure the agency can pursue high-risk, high-reward research programs that address systemic infrastructure challenges. Lawmakers can also support transportation innovation by directing resources toward regional research partnerships, Centers of Excellence, and workforce development initiatives that help state and local governments and manage emerging technologies.

Congress should also consider policies that modernize procurement and financing pathways for emerging transportation technologies, support interoperable data standards across jurisdictions, and provide targeted technical assistance to state and local agencies implementing advanced infrastructure systems. These steps would bridge the gap between research and deployment, particularly for smaller jurisdictions that often lack the resources to evaluate and implement new technologies.

Taken together, these actions would allow the U.S. to accelerate transportation breakthroughs while ensuring that innovations reach communities across the country. Building the transportation systems of the future will require more than new technologies, it will require building the institutions, partnerships, and policy frameworks needed to bring those technologies to life

FAS Launches the 2026 INRIX x MetroLab Challenge to Foster Data-Driven Mobility Solutions

Washington, D.C. – January 13, 2026 — INRIX, a leader in transportation analytics and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), one of the oldest science think tanks in the U.S., today announced the launch of the 2026 INRIX x MetroLab Challenge to enable data-driven transportation innovation.Announced at the National Academies’ annual Transportation Research Board meeting, the  partnership supports cutting-edge research that advances positive, human-centered outcomes in cities. This will be the third iteration of the challenge.

The 2026 Challenge officially opens today, Tuesday, January 13, and will accept applications from universities across the country through March 3, 2026. The program invites teams of researchers and local government collaborators to propose innovative projects addressing real-world transportation, safety, equity, and resilience challenges using mobility data.

At least five selected teams will participate in the public-private partnership and receive free access to a suite of INRIX APIs for up to one year, enabling applied research with direct relevance to communities and policymakers.

“Over the past two years, our partnership with MetroLab has demonstrated the value of working directly with universities and local governments to address complex transportation challenges,” said Ahmed Darrat, Chief Product Officer at INRIX. “By providing researchers with access to real-world mobility data, we have seen how academic insight can be translated into practical solutions that help cities improve safety, resilience, and quality of life.”

Last year’s selected projects investigated improvements to AI-driven traffic models, road safety, and access to healthcare, among other benefits. 

“Collaboration is essential to translating research into meaningful impact for cities,” said Kate Garman Burns, FAS Director for State and Local Innovation. “We are excited to once again partner with INRIX to give researchers and local governments access to powerful mobility data and to support projects that put people, safety, and equity at the center of community innovation.”

Highlights from the 2025 INRIX x MetroLab Challenge

During the 2025 Challenge, finalist teams used INRIX data to explore a wide range of pressing urban issues, including:

Complete information on eligibility, the application process, available datasets, and example research questions is available at fas.org/initiative/inrix.

Researchers and local government partners are encouraged to share the Challenge broadly and submit applications over the next seven weeks. For questions, contact metrolab@fas.org.

###

ABOUT INRIX

Founded in 2004, INRIX pioneered the practice of managing traffic by analyzing data not just from road sensors, but also from vehicles. This breakthrough approach enabled INRIX to become one of the leading providers of data and insight into how people move around the world. More information at inrix.com.

ABOUT FAS

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) works to advance progress on a broad suite of contemporary issues where science, technology, and innovation policy can deliver transformative impact, and seeks to ensure that scientific and technical expertise have a seat at the policymaking table. Established in 1945 by scientists in response to the atomic bomb, FAS continues to bring scientific rigor and analysis to address national challenges. More information about FAS work at fas.org.

ARPA-I National Listening Tour Report

The United States is in the midst of a once in a generation effort to rebuild its transportation and mobility systems. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, hundreds of billions of dollars of new investments are flowing into American highway, rail, transit, aviation, port, pipeline, and active transportation projects.

This transportation infrastructure will be tested by new and emerging threats ranging from increased risk of flooding and heatwaves to supply chain disruptions and cyberattacks. Citizens are also rightly demanding more from the transportation sector—enhanced safety, faster project delivery, lower costs, increased sustainability, efficiency, resiliency, and a more equitable system for all users.

Meeting this moment will require bold investments in new and emerging transportation technologies—new materials, construction techniques, operations systems, planning tools, advanced sensing, computation, and beyond. Authorized in the IIJA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Infrastructure (ARPA-I), a new agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is poised to catalyze the transportation innovation ecosystem and accelerate and commercialize essential technologies that solve persistent infrastructure problems.

To inform its research agenda, ARPA-I embarked on a National Listening Tour from September 2023 through June 2024 to gather insights from a wide range of stakeholders from across the transportation ecosystem. With convenings held in the Pacific Northwest, Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic, the tour provided several opportunities for ARPA-I to engage with 280 leading transportation experts. The goal was to ensure that ARPA-I heard both the priorities and capabilities of a broad range of transportation and infrastructure stakeholders from across the ecosystem. Of the 280 participants, 99 (35%) were from academia; 58 (21%) were from private corporations; 42 (15%) were from policy and nonprofit organizations; 38 (14%) were from federal, state, and local transportation agencies; 37 (13%) were from startups; and 6 (2%) were financial investors. The ideas shared by these participants will help shape ARPA-I’s future research agenda and will provide a framework for the Agency’s ambitions that will be achieved in part with the participation of and input from this broad ecosystem of stakeholders.

Purpose and Organization of this Report

This report summarizes the insights collected over the course of the ARPA-I National Listening Tour in 2023 and 2024 and the inaugural ARPA-I expert community convening in Washington, DC in December 2022. Insights were gathered from 280 participants in the form of written worksheets and transcribed notes from discussions during the Workshops. The insights summarized in sections 4-7 of this report are intended to inform potential areas for future innovative advanced research and development (R&D) programs to be funded and managed by ARPA–I.

This report is organized into the following sections:

  1. Laying the Groundwork for ARPA-I
  2. ARPA-I National Listening Tour Overview
  3. Promising Ideas for Future ARPA-I R&D Programs
  4. Challenges Facing U.S. Transportation Infrastructure
  5. Opportunities to Solve U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Challenges
  6. Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 Years
  7. Conclusion
  8. Acknowledgements

Laying the Groundwork for ARPA-I

In November 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), allocating $550 billion in new funding for various programs within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), including the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I). Modeled after highly successful agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), ARPA-I aims to address significant transportation infrastructure challenges through innovative technology solutions.

ARPA-I’s mission involves funding high-risk, high-reward next-generation innovative technologies with the potential to revolutionize U.S. transportation infrastructure. The agency aims to develop innovative solutions that reduce long-term infrastructure costs, minimize environmental impacts, enhance the safe and efficient movement of goods and people, and improve infrastructure resilience against physical and cyber threats.

To achieve its goals, ARPA-I will support projects that advance early-stage novel research with practical applications, translate conceptual technologies to prototype and testing stages, develop advanced manufacturing processes, and accelerate technological advancements in areas where industry may not invest due to technical and financial uncertainties.

ARPA-I continues a legacy of ARPAs that have delivered breakthrough innovations in a number of sectors. DARPA, established in 1958 in response to the Soviet Sputnik launch, has led to significant technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and mRNA vaccines. Inspired by DARPA’s success, the government created similar agencies for other critical sectors, including the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), ARPA-E, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health (ARPA-H). ARPA-I will adopt many of the core cultural traits and rigorous ideation processes honed by prior ARPAs to seek similar breakthroughs for the transportation infrastructure sector.

To lay the groundwork for ARPA-I’s future, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and DOT hosted an inaugural ARPA-I Summit in June 2023 during which a series of announcements were made on future ARPA-I activities. These announcements included:

Building upon the initiatives announced in June 2023, DOT has since undertaken additional efforts related to key transportation infrastructure areas. In January 2024, DOT announced the winners of the first phase of the U.S. DOT Intersection Safety Challenge, a call for opportunities “to transform roadway intersection safety by incentivizing new and emerging technologies that identify and address unsafe conditions involving vehicles, and vulnerable road users at intersections.” In February 2024, DOT announced an RFI about opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in transportation, along with the $15 million Complete Streets AI Initiative–a new opportunity for American small businesses to leverage advancements in AI to improve transportation. 

Since its authorization, ARPA-I has made steady progress to gather insights from across our country’s transportation infrastructure experts and is prepared for future ARPA-I projects that will be both appropriately ambitious and focused on our largest transportation problems.

ARPA-I National Listening Tour Overview

The ARPA-I National Listening Tour was the continuation and expansion of an inaugural ARPA-I expert community convening held at DOT headquarters in Washington, DC in December 2022 titled Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure. The National Listening Tour stops included:

The purpose of the ARPA-I National Listening Tour was to convene leading researchers, entrepreneurs, companies, and other transportation innovators and initiate a dialogue to ensure that ARPA-I reflects the priorities and capabilities of transportation and infrastructure R&D stakeholders across the ecosystem. 

Each Workshop followed a consistent format of plenary presentations from DOT leadership highlighting the opportunity and imperative of this community’s involvement, along with providing background on the unique cultural and structural components that set ARPA agencies up to seed breakthrough innovations, how ARPAs ideate advanced research program designs, and crucial roles that partners outside of government can participate in ARPA-I programs. 

Beyond the plenary presentations, the bulk of each Workshop consisted of breakout activities and discussions that focused on some combination of ideal future visions for what U.S. transportation infrastructure could look like in 10-20 years, the biggest problems facing U.S. transportation infrastructure, and novel technological breakthroughs and opportunities that have the potential to solve those fundamental problems.

In total, 280 transportation infrastructure experts participated in the four Workshops and the inaugural convening in Washington, DC. These experts included representatives from academia; corporations; policy and nonprofit organizations; federal, state, and local departments of transportation; venture capital (VC) and other investment firms; and startups.

Promising Ideas for Future ARPA-I R&D Programs

While the DOT continues to engage in strategy development and seek expert inputs to help shape ARPA-I’s initial set of research priorities once fully resourced, several promising ideas were uncovered during the ARPA-I National Listening Tour. Those ideas are described below in no particular order, along with the potential impact they could have on U.S. transportation infrastructure systems at scale. These ideas are not meant to serve as a current representation of priorities or research agendas of ARPA-I, but instead as a showcase of the creative and transformative solutions that the U.S. transportation infrastructure expert community is capable of envisioning.

AI-enabled efficiency throughout the infrastructure lifecycle

One of the most pervasive challenges in U.S. transportation infrastructure is the inefficiency of current project planning, design, and construction processes. Traditional methods often involve lengthy timelines, costly overruns, and frequent delays due to a lack of coordination and integration between stakeholders, planners, and contractors. These inefficiencies contribute to significant cost burdens on public funds and delay the delivery of much-needed transportation maintenance and improvements.

To address this challenge, one concept raised during the Workshops was that of a fully integrated, AI-enhanced project planning, design, scheduling, and construction schema. This idea leverages advancements in AI and “digital twin” technologies to streamline the entire lifecycle of transportation infrastructure projects—from conception to completion. By incorporating digital twins at all scales (geographic, structural, and temporal), the solution provides a powerful opportunity.

Implementing this AI-enhanced system would significantly accelerate the delivery of transportation infrastructure projects across the U.S., reducing both project completion times and overall costs. By enabling predictive analysis and continuous optimization, it would also lead to better resource allocation, reducing material waste and minimizing environmental impact. The result would be more efficient, resilient infrastructure systems that can adapt to future demands more effectively.

Priming physical road infrastructure for a digital future 

The rigidity of traditional road infrastructure design remains a key issue contributing to inefficient traffic management, safety concerns, and costly, timely physical infrastructure adaptations. Physical road infrastructure like bike lanes, vehicle lanes, and curbs are static and not reflective of the fluid nature of transportation needs, particularly in urban environments. A suite of technologies such as AI, drones, automated systems, and sensor-equipped barriers could be used to create smart lanes and barriers that adjust according to live traffic data, weather conditions, or sudden hazards, by rerouting traffic or narrowing lanes to optimize for current conditions.

If the U.S. could develop systems like this that have been piloted in other countries (e.g., Spain), the impact on transportation infrastructure would be transformative. City planners would have the ability to program infrastructure dynamically, creating safer, more adaptive environments for cyclists and other road users. The result would be fewer accidents, better traffic management, and more efficient use of space, with the additional benefit of reducing emissions by promoting cycling over car travel. The flexible nature of this infrastructure could also support emerging technologies such as connected vehicles and autonomous driving systems and allow the U.S. to design more sustainable, future-proof cities that prioritize adaptability, safety, and user-centric design.

Automated maintenance and on-site manufacturing

ARPA-I National Listening Tour Workshop participants repeatedly raised concerns around transportation construction and repair challenges, including labor shortages, inconsistent funding, slow project timelines, inefficiencies in traditional construction methods, and high carbon emissions to these methods.

Technologies including AI, robotics, and large-scale additive manufacturing, were noted for their potential to solve these challenges when applied at scale. AI-powered systems can monitor roads and bridges in real-time, predicting failures and enabling proactive repairs. Once detected, autonomous drones and robots can perform immediate repairs, reducing downtime and keeping workers safe by eliminating the need for human intervention in unsafe environments. Simultaneously, on-site manufacturing, using 3D printing and generative design, can produce infrastructure components directly at construction sites, reducing the need for long-distance transportation and reducing carbon emissions.

These solutions, especially if applied in tandem with one another, have the potential to make infrastructure maintenance autonomous, continuous, safer, and more cost-effective. On-site manufacturing would speed up construction projects and minimize logistical challenges while reducing the substantial impact the transportation sector currently has on carbon emissions.

New and emerging alternative PNT technologies

Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services are essential to the nation’s critical infrastructure, enabling the safe, secure, and efficient operation of transportation systems for federal, state, commercial, and private entities across the U.S., including tribal lands and territories. These services provide crucial data that supports air and maritime supply chains, freight logistics, efficient roadway operations, crash prevention, and shared road use among vehicles and pedestrians. PNT services also ensure the safety and efficiency of aviation operations. For decades, the Global Positioning System (GPS) has been the backbone of PNT, continually evolving to improve accuracy, integrity, and security while expanding its applications.

However, despite the emergence of technologies like inertial navigation systems and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) to improve the reliability of PNT data, these tools still have limitations. GPS, for example, relies on satellites, making it vulnerable to space weather disturbances and adversarial actions. Additionally, GPS systems can be compromised by threats such as jamming and spoofing.

Quantum sensors offer a promising solution, providing navigation capabilities in areas where GPS signals are weak or unavailable. These sensors use the principles of quantum mechanics to measure physical properties like time, acceleration, and magnetic fields with unprecedented accuracy. Quantum clocks, for instance, provide exceptional timekeeping precision, critical for synchronizing networks and systems. Quantum inertial sensors deliver highly accurate position and velocity measurements, making them invaluable during extended periods where GPS is unavailable. Meanwhile, quantum gravimeters and quantum magnetometers, which are passive systems, can operate under all weather conditions, at any time, and in featureless terrains such as oceans. These sensors enable gravitational anomaly-aided navigation (GravNav) and magnetic anomaly-aided navigation (MagNav). They collectively offer pathways to make our PNT systems more precise, more reliable and resilient.

Repurposing transportation rights-of-way for infrastructure of the future

Another critical challenge raised throughout the Workshops was that of meeting the growing demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and the integration of modern, sustainable technologies at scale. The current network, designed for traditional internal combustion engines, lacks the infrastructure to support widespread EV adoption and smart technologies like connected and autonomous vehicles. 

One solution posed during Workshops (and as part of the White House’s Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative) is to repurpose existing transportation rights-of-way (ROWs) along highways and railroads for dual use, enabling the development of EV charging infrastructure and clean energy transmission without the need for costly land acquisition or major structural changes. With 48,000 miles of interstate highways and 140,000 miles of freight railroads, the U.S. has a vast network of ROWs that can be leveraged for new infrastructure. These ROWs can host charging stations, and in some cases, technologies like inductive charging embedded within roadways, allowing vehicles to recharge as they drive. This would make long-distance EV travel more feasible, eliminating range anxiety and encouraging broader adoption of electric vehicles. 

Technological innovations like high-voltage underground cables and modular interconnection power electronics would help ensure grid stability while integrating energy and transportation infrastructure. These tools would allow the grid to balance the energy demands of electric vehicles in real time, creating a smarter, more resilient transportation network.

Challenges Facing U.S. Transportation Infrastructure

A portion of each Workshop breakout discussion focused on identifying the fundamental problems and challenges facing U.S. transportation infrastructure. Throughout these discussions, 353 individual responses were gathered. Themes that emerged consisted of problems related to safety, aging infrastructure and maintenance, data access and other data issues, environmental sustainability and resilience, financial constraints, operational inefficiencies related to existing structures and processes, equity and accessibility, technology adoption and scaling, energy and electrification, and community and planning challenges. Each of these broad themes that arose is broken down in further detail below.

Categories of Transportation Infrastructure Challenges 

Safety (66 mentions): Safety remains a paramount issue with transportation-related fatalities once again topping 40,000 in the U.S. during 2023. Factors raised by participants as contributing to safety risks include impaired driving, driver distractions, excessive speeds, and inadequate infrastructure accommodations for vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists. Unsafe street and intersection designs were also a critical concern, described as “the majority of intersections outside of urban centers are not designed to accommodate pedestrians safely.” The rise in the size and weight of vehicles, along with the general car-centric nature of much of U.S. transportation infrastructure, were frequently noted as an impediment to pedestrian safety. Multiple participants noted that current infrastructure prioritizes vehicle speed and efficiency over driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

Aging Infrastructure (56 mentions): Aging physical infrastructure continues to be a top concern for many experts. Challenges participants pointed to included failing bridges, deteriorating road conditions, and corrosion of materials, resulting in considerable maintenance backlogs. Participants also frequently pointed to outdated designs that do not accommodate modern transportation needs and struggle to adapt to contemporary demands, including electrification needs and the ability to withstand climate-related events.

Data Inadequacies (42 mentions): Many participants made reference to a significant lack of real-time and comprehensive data for the transportation planning the U.S. needs. For instance, data on pedestrian and bike activities to analyze crash risks effectively is often historic, segmented, inaccurate, and inaccessible. Data collection on vehicle collisions takes up to a year, delaying critical safety decisions. Digital infrastructure gaps were a frequent concern, noting “many areas lack the necessary digital infrastructure for modern transportation systems.” The need for better people-oriented data was also emphasized, referring specifically to data on pedestrian and cyclist movements to improve safety. 

Environmental Sustainability and Resilience (37 mentions): The transportation sector is the largest contributor (28%) to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, participants called out these emissions rates, the environmental impact of larger vehicles, the carbon intensive materials and processes currently used in infrastructure construction, and the need for influencing travel behavior towards low carbon trips. Alongside sustainability concerns, infrastructure resilience was another common challenge raised.

Financial Constraints (34 mentions): According to participants, high costs associated with constructing, repairing, and maintaining transportation infrastructure limit the scope and speed of improvements. Public agencies face difficulties in efficient procurement and funding allocation, exacerbated by a backlog in maintenance and capital improvements. There were also mentions of profit-driven interests in car infrastructure, limited revenue from fares, and the need for funding catalysts and public-private collaborations.

Operational Inefficiencies (34 mentions): Operational inefficiencies were a recurring theme among discussions, specifically fragmented management with comments like “the lack of coordination between agencies results in redundant efforts.” Inefficiencies in resource utilization were highlighted along with a lack of coordination across transportation modes.

Equity and Accessibility (25 mentions): Disparities in access to transportation infrastructure affect low-income and rural communities, as well as vulnerable populations. Car-centric infrastructure impacts and social inequities are major concerns. There are also challenges related to accessibility for people with disabilities, rural area connectivity, and access to reliable wireless connectivity for digital infrastructure advancements.

Technological Integration (21 mentions): Slow adoption of new technologies and integration with legacy systems are major hurdles, with participants asserting that there is resistance to adopting new technologies in the transportation sector. Challenges with autonomous vehicle integration, maritime and port digital integration, and procurement of new technologies are significant. There is also a need for improved cybersecurity alongside digital infrastructure buildout. 

Energy and Electrification (20 mentions): Grid limitations in rural areas and the need for improved electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure were common among discussions around our largest transportation infrastructure challenges. Specifically, there pointing to a mismatch between the transportation sector and the electric grid, as the current grid is not designed to handle the demands of electric transportation. 

Community and Planning Issues (18 mentions): Slow community engagement processes and the need for adaptable project designs were frequently cited issues. Encouraging transit ridership and the need for inclusive transportation planning are also mentioned.

Opportunities to Solve U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Challenges

Building upon ARPA-I National Listening Tour breakout discussion on U.S. transportation infrastructure’s biggest challenges, Workshop participants shifted their attention to solving these problems. In order to do so, they brainstormed and discussed current and coming opportunities upon which we must capitalize in order to solve our most pressing challenges highlighted in the section above. 

Throughout these discussions, 415 individual responses were gathered. Participant insights included policy suggestions, stakeholder engagement strategies, and infrastructure improvements, but the primary focus of these discussions–given ARPA-I’s scope–was on technological opportunities (accounting for 334 of the 415 responses). Key themes raised include the integration of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) AI, sensor technology, internet of things (IoT), digital twins, and edge computing to enhance data collection, processing, and real-time decision-making. Participants also emphasized the need for interoperable systems, standardization of data, and the creation of national repositories to streamline information sharing and improve infrastructure planning.

Technology Opportunities

Given ARPA-I’s focus on technology solutions, the primary opportunity types identified throughout National Listening Tour Workshops were cross-cutting technologies, described in detail below.

Sensors and Sensor-related Technologies (71 mentions): Sensors were the most frequently cited technology opportunity to address transportation infrastructure problems including real-time detection of hazards, infrastructure wear and tear, and the need for accurate, continuous data collection. Examples of specific sensor technologies or applications included:

AI and Machine Learning (AI/ML) (50 mentions): AI and ML were mentioned throughout the National Listening Tour Workshops as necessary pieces to solve complex problems related to traffic management, predictive maintenance, and autonomous vehicle operations. AI and ML can improve the accuracy of predictions, optimize system performance, and automate decision-making processes. Examples of specific types and applications include:

Data Standardization and Management (32 mentions): One opportunity that may not have one specific technology tool to point to, but is inherently a technological opportunity, is data standardization and management. This would tackle the issue of fragmented data systems, ensuring consistency and interoperability across various modes, networks, and stakeholders. This would facilitate better decision-making and more efficient infrastructure management. Examples of specific standardizations and management tools include:

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) (28 mentions): Participants pointed to advancement and widespread rollout of AV technology as perhaps the biggest transformation to come in U.S. transportation systems. Achieving this maturation and scale could address the problem of human error in driving, which is a leading cause of crashes. AVs could optimize traffic flow and reduce congestion, making transportation systems both safer and more efficient. Examples of AV applications and associated technologies include:

Internet of Things (IoT) (27 mentions): IoT technology can help solve the problem of disconnected systems by enabling communication between various elements of the transportation network. Participants assert it as a way to achieve real-time monitoring, improve safety, and increase efficiency. Examples of IoT applications include:

Digital Twins (23 mentions): Digital twins have the potential to address inefficient planning and maintenance by providing accurate virtual representations of physical infrastructure. This would allow for better simulation, monitoring, and optimization, leading to more informed decision-making. Examples of applications from Workshop participants include:

Edge Computing (19 mentions): According to many participants, edge computing could completely fix the issue of latency in data processing, which is critical for applications requiring immediate responses, such as AVs and real-time traffic management systems. Examples of edge computing applications include:

Electric Vehicles (EVs) (19 mentions): Participants pointed to the readily apparent opportunity that EVs represent if the technology, costs, and infrastructure can be achieved at scale. To get to scale, it was widely acknowledged that we need more efficient EV charging experience, with infrastructure that allows for rapid charging along service areas. Another challenge for EV adoption is the need to build a widespread, reliable charging network that can meet the demands of all users, including long-haul trucks.

Modeling-related Technologies(17 mentions): Modeling technologies are essential for predicting infrastructure performance, traffic patterns, and the impact of various interventions. Examples of modeling-related technologies raised by participants were:

5G/6G Communication (15 mentions): Advanced communication technologies like 5G and 6G were mentioned as crucial for enabling real-time data exchange between vehicles, infrastructure, and central systems. An example is the deployment of 6G to support point-to-point communications in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems. Examples  of applications include:

Carbon Capture Technologies (10 mentions): Carbon capture technologies are critical for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the transportation sector. Example mentioned by participants include: 

Drones and Related Technologies (10 mentions): Workshop discussions around drones noted that they offer innovative solutions for infrastructure monitoring, logistics, and transportation management. 

Low Carbon-related Innovations (9 mentions): Similar to carbon capture technologies, low carbon-related innovations will be important in reducing carbon emissions. Example of technologies raised during breakout discussions include:

Quantum Computing (4 mentions): Quantum computing was raised a few times throughout discussions as a means for quantum material sensor development and also quantum sensing for unprecedented precision in infrastructure monitoring.

Non-technology Opportunities

Policy suggestions: Policy-related opportunities focused on creating a supportive regulatory framework, aligning financial investments with long-term infrastructure goals, and ensuring that policies are inclusive and equitable. These policies were intended to address challenges in planning, funding, and implementing large-scale infrastructure projects. Specifically, participants discussed opportunities to craft policies to ensure that transportation investments prioritize underserved communities, addressing the problem of unequal access to transportation resources. 

Stakeholder engagement strategies: Participants emphasized the opportunity presented by involving diverse groups, particularly those traditionally underserved or impacted by infrastructure projects to raise the voices of all community members so that infrastructure development is responsive to their needs. 

Physical infrastructure improvements: Non-technology-specific infrastructure improvements highlighted throughout the Workshops included enhancing the physical aspects of transportation systems, such as road design and public transit accessibility. 

For instance, increasing the use of roundabouts can help solve the problem of high accident rates at traditional intersections. Additionally, developing complete streets infrastructure that supports all users, including pedestrians and cyclists, addresses the problem of limited accessibility and safety on roads designed primarily for vehicles.

Financial and economic strategies: Opportunities raised  centered on creating sustainable funding mechanisms for transportation infrastructure projects. These strategies address the challenges of securing adequate, long-term financing for both new projects and the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Ideas included alternative funding mechanisms such as value capture or tolling.

Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 Years

One of the key criteria for any good ARPA project is that it is appropriately ambitious. To set that level of ambition, ARPA-I National Listening Tour participants were asked to make a prediction for U.S. transportation infrastructure 10-20 years from now, taking an ambitious perspective and focusing on what could be. Throughout these discussions, 291 individual predictions were gathered. Despite the wide ranging and sometimes narrowly focused predictions, continuous themes emerged to help reveal a shared vision for what participants want to see in the transportation systems of tomorrow. 

Participants frequently emphasized the importance of widespread adoption and integration of advanced technologies such as autonomous vehicles, AI-driven traffic management, and real-time data communication to create a connected and efficient transportation network. Sustainability also emerged as a central theme, with many predicting a shift toward carbon-neutral transportation systems powered by renewable energy sources. Ideas included dynamic wireless charging for electric vehicles, infrastructure embedded with carbon sequestration capabilities, and the widespread adoption of alternative fuels like hydrogen. The focus on sustainability also extended to construction practices, with participants envisioning the use of self-healing and recyclable materials to build resilient infrastructure that can adapt to climate challenges.

Equity and accessibility were also frequently mentioned, with a strong emphasis on creating a transportation system that serves everyone, regardless of location or socioeconomic status. Visions included universal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, free public transportation, and the development of equity-based planning tools to ensure that investments benefit all communities. The overarching ambition is to build a transportation network that is not only technologically advanced and environmentally sustainable but also inclusive and equitable, providing reliable access to mobility for all.

Categories of Predictions for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure in 10-20 years

Automation and Autonomy (36 mentions): Participants imagined a future dominated by autonomous systems, including self-driving cars, autonomous shuttles, and urban air mobility. These systems would be interconnected, allowing for seamless operation and enhanced efficiency. Ideas included autonomous vehicle fleets, virtual “rails” for guiding autonomous vehicles, and the deployment of autonomous drones for transport. The overarching vision was a transportation ecosystem where human error is minimized, and transportation becomes more efficient and safer.

Connectivity (31 mentions): Connectivity was seen as the backbone of transportation infrastructure in the future, with participants envisioning a fully interconnected system where vehicles, infrastructure, and personal devices communicate seamlessly. Advanced technologies such as quantum sensing, AI-driven traffic management, and universal communication standards were proposed to create a hyperconnected network. This would enable real-time traffic management, reduce congestion, and optimize the flow of goods and people.

Sustainability and Environmental Impact (29 mentions): Participants proposed a wide range of ideas aimed at reducing the environmental impact of transportation in the future. These included self-healing materials that extend infrastructure life and reduced emissions associated with frequent maintenance and construction, carbon sequestration integrated into construction materials, and the development of energy-generating infrastructure such as smart trails to generate energy for electric bikes. Participants also discussed the potential of dynamic wireless charging for electric vehicles and the large-scale adoption of alternative fuels, ensuring that the transportation system is not only sustainable but actively contributes to environmental restoration.

Safety (28 mentions): Safety innovations were a frequent theme, with participants proposing strategies to achieve a near-zero fatality transportation system. Ideas included expanding Vision Zero strategies, integrating AI for real-time risk detection, and deploying automated enforcement systems to prevent unsafe driving behaviors. The reimagining of urban spaces to prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety was also highlighted, with infrastructure designed to protect the most vulnerable road users.

Climate Resilience (25 mentions): Participants emphasized the importance of building infrastructure that can withstand and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Ideas included the use of self-healing and self-sensing materials, modular designs for easier repairs and upgrades, and infrastructure that is resilient to extreme weather events. The vision was for transportation infrastructure that is not only durable but also adaptable to future climate challenges, contributing to overall climate resilience.

Equity and Accessibility (24 mentions): Ensuring equity and accessibility was a priority for participants when thinking about the future, with ideas like universal ADA compliance, free public transportation, and the development of equity-based asset management tools. The goal was to create a transportation system that serves all communities, including those that are traditionally underserved, such as rural areas and marginalized populations. 

Public Transit (22 mentions): Public transit was envisioned as a fully integrated, multimodal system that is easy to use and highly efficient. Participants proposed the elimination of car-centric roadways in urban areas, replacing them with dedicated lanes for public transit, cycling, and walking. High-speed rail development, particularly in key regions, and the expansion of micro-mobility options were also highlighted as ways to enhance last-mile connectivity and reduce reliance on personal vehicles.

Innovation and Technology Adoption (18 mentions): Participants predicted a future where technologies like AI, quantum computing, and digital twins have been adopted at scale to optimize infrastructure performance and maintenance. These technologies at scale would allow for real-time monitoring, predictive maintenance, and dynamic system adjustments, and contribute to transportation systems being more efficient, resilient, and future-proofed.

Data-driven Planning (17 mentions): Participants envisioned the use of AI for real-time data analysis, along with the establishment of national data standards to ensure seamless integration across different modes, organizations, and stakeholders. 

Policies and Partnerships (13 mentions): Despite not being the focus of ARPA-I policy and governance were mentioned as enablers for many of the ambitious future visions. Participants proposed establishing public-private partnerships to fund and manage infrastructure projects and allow for more flexible and innovative financing models. They also envisioned equity-based asset management tools and policies, increased cross-jurisdictional collaboration, and policies to set national guidelines for climate adaptation in infrastructure design and construction. 

Multimodal Mobility (11 mentions): The collective vision for mobility included creating a seamless multimodal transportation system that allows users to easily switch between different modes such as bikes, trains, and buses. Participants hope for the development of unified payment systems to enhance the user experience and reduce reliance on personal vehicles. 

Energy (10 mentions): Energy integration predictions centered on using renewable energy sources, bidirectional EV charging for grid stability, and dynamic load management systems. Overall, participants want a future where transportation systems are tightly integrated with energy networks, ensuring reliability while reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector.

Urban Planning (10 mentions): Urban planning-related visions included the removal of highways in cities, replacing them with green spaces, light rail, and pedestrian-friendly streets. Participants also predicted the development of high-speed rail corridors connecting major cities, reducing the need for air travel and long car journeys, and integrating land use with transportation planning for more sustainable urban growth.

Materials and Construction (10 mentions): Participants want to see increased use of self-healing and self-sensing materials to extend infrastructure lifespans by centuries. Modular construction techniques and adopting low-carbon materials were also noted as ways to reduce construction times, costs, and environmental impact.

Community and Health Impacts (7 mentions): Transportation infrastructure was envisioned by some as a tool for improving community health and well-being in the future. Ideas included designing infrastructure that supports physical and mental health, reducing the “pink tax” on transportation for women and families, and creating transportation systems that enhance social cohesion and community safety.

Conclusion

As ARPA-I continues its mission to revolutionize transportation infrastructure, it is essential to sustain and expand the support of the transportation expert community and stakeholders across the country. ARPA-I’s success will depend on the collective effort of researchers, innovators, policymakers, and industry leaders who recognize the agency’s potential to drive breakthrough solutions. To truly tackle our biggest transportation infrastructure challenges, we must deepen our commitment to collaboration, align resources strategically, and remain focused on innovative, high-impact outcomes. The expert community should continue to engage with DOT and ARPA-I, push the boundaries of what is possible in their own work, and seek to build the support necessary to turn ARPA-I’s ambitions into reality.

For a full list of organizers, facilitators, and participant organizations, please see the full PDF-version of the report here.

Collaboration for the Future of Public and Active Transportation

Summary

Public and active transportation are not equally accessible to all Americans. Due to a lack of sufficient infrastructure and reliable service for public transportation and active modes like biking, walking, and rolling, Americans must often depend on personal vehicles for travel to work, school, and other activities. During the past two years, Congress has allocated billions of dollars to equitable infrastructure, public transportation upgrades, and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution from transportation across the United States. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and its agencies should embrace innovation and partnerships to continue to increase active and public transportation across the country. The DOT should require grant applications for funding to discuss cross-agency collaborations, partner with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to organize prize competitions, encourage public-private partnerships (P3s), and work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant money for transit programs through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. 

Challenge and Opportunity

Historically, U.S. investment in transportation has focused on expanding and developing highways for personal vehicle travel. As a result, 45% of Americans do not have access to reliable and safe public transportation, perpetuating the need for single-use vehicles for almost half of the country. The EPA reports that transportation accounts for 29% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with 58% of those emissions coming from light-duty cars. This large share of nationwide emissions from personal vehicles has short- and long-term climate impacts. 

Investments in green public and active transit should be a priority for the DOT in transitioning away from a personal-vehicle-dominated society and meeting the Biden Administration’s “goals of a 100% clean electrical grid by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.” Public and active transportation infrastructure includes bus systems, light rail, bus rapid transit, bike lanes, and safe sidewalks. Investments in public and active transportation should go towards a combination of electrifying existing public transportation, such as buses; improving and expanding public transit to be more reliable and accessible for more users; constructing bike lanes; developing community-owned bike share programs; and creating safe walking corridors. 

In addition to reducing carbon emissions, improved public transportation that disincentivizes personal vehicle use has a variety of co-benefits. Prioritizing public and active transportation could limit congestion on roads and lower pollution. Fewer vehicles on the road result in less tailpipe emissions, which “can trigger health problems such as aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses, including pneumonia and bronchitis.” This is especially important for the millions of people who live near freeways and heavily congested roads. 

Congestion can also be financially costly for American households; the INRIZ Global Traffic Scorecard reports that traffic congestion cost the United States $81 billion in 2022. Those costs include vehicle maintenance, fuel cost, and “lost time,” all of which can be reduced with reliable and accessible public and active transportation. Additionally, the American Public Transportation Association reports that every $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in economic returns, measured by savings in time traveled, reduction in traffic congestion, and business productivity. Thus, by investing in public transportation, communities can see improvements in air quality, economy, and health.

Public transportation is primarily managed at the local and state level; currently, over  6000 local and state transportation agencies provide and oversee public transportation in their regions. Public transportation is funded through federal, state, and local sources, and transit agencies receive funding from “passenger fares and other operating receipts.” The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) distributes funding for transit through grants and loans and accounts for 15% of total income for transit agencies, including 31% of capital investments in transit infrastructure. Local and state entities often lack sufficient resources to improve public transportation systems because of the uncertainty of ridership and funding streams.

Public-private partnerships can help alleviate some of these resource constraints because contracts can allow the private partner to operate public transportation systems. Regional and national collaboration across multiple agencies from the federal to the municipal level can also help alleviate resource barriers to public transit development. Local and state agencies do not have to work alone to improve public and active transportation systems. 

The following recommendations provide a pathway for transportation agencies at all levels of government to increase public and active transportation, resulting in social, economic, and environmental benefits for the communities they serve. 

Plan of Action

Recommendation 1. The FTA should require grant applicants for programs such as the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) to define how they will work collaboratively with multiple federal agencies and conduct community engagement. 

Per the National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization, FTA staff should prioritize funding for grant applicants who successfully demonstrate partnerships and collaboration. This can be demonstrated, for example, with letters of support from community members and organizations for transit infrastructure projects. Collaboration can also be demonstrated by having applicants report clear goals, roles, and responsibilities for each agency involved in proposed projects. The FTA should: 

  1. Develop a rubric for evaluating partnerships’ efficiency and alignment with national transit decarbonization goals. 
  2. Create a tiered metrics system within the rubric that prioritizes grants for projects based on collaboration and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transit sector.
  3. Add a category to their Guidance Center on federal-state-local partnerships to provide insight on how they view successful collaboration. 

Recommendation 2. The DOT and HUD should collaborate on a prize competition to design active and/or public transportation projects to reduce traffic congestion. 

Housing and transportation costs are related and influence one another, which is why HUD is a natural partner. Funding can be sourced from the Highway Trust Fund, which the DOT has the authority to allocate up to “1% of the funds for research and development to carry out . . . prize competition program[s].”

This challenge should call on local agency partners to provide a design challenge or opportunity that impedes their ability to adopt transit-oriented infrastructure that could reduce traffic congestion. Three design challenges should be selected and publicly posted on the Challenge.gov website so that any individual or organization can participate. 

The goal of the prize competition is to identify challenges, collaborate, and share resources across agencies and communities to design transportation solutions. The competition would connect the DOT with local and regional planning and transportation agencies to solicit solutions from the public, whether from individuals, teams of individuals, or organizations. The DOT and HUD should work collaboratively to design the selection criteria for the challenge and select the winners. Each challenge winner would be provided with a financial prize of $250,000, and their idea would be housed on the DOT website as a case study that can be used for future planning decisions. The local agencies that provide the three design challenges would be welcome to implement the winning solutions.

Recommendation 3. Federal, state, and local government should increase opportunities for public-private partnerships (P3s). 

The financial investment required to develop active and public transportation infrastructure is a hurdle for many agencies. To address this issue, we make the following recommendations: 

Conclusion

The road to decarbonizing the transportation sector requires public and active transportation. Federal agencies can allocate funding for public and active transit more effectively through the recommendations above. It’s time for the government to recognize public and active transportation as the key to equitable decarbonization of the transportation sector throughout the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions
What are examples of transit public-private partnerships (P3s)?

Most P3s in the United States are for highways, bridges, and roads, but there have been a few successful public transit P3s. In 2018 the City of Los Angeles joined LAX and LAX Integrated Express Solutions in a $4.9 billion P3 to develop a train system within the airport. This project aims to launch in 2024 to “enhance the traveler experience” and will “result in 117,000 fewer vehicle miles traveled per day” to the airport. This project is a prime example of how P3s can help reduce traffic congestion and enable and encourage the use of public transportation.

How can P3s be further supported through federal policy beyond the recommendations in this memo?

In 2021, the Congressional Research Service released a report about public-private partnerships (3Ps) that highlights the role the federal government can play by making it easier for agencies to participate in P3s.

What are examples of existing green banks and infrastructure banks?

The state of Michigan has a long history with its Michigan Saves program, the nation’s first nonprofit green bank, which provides funding for projects like rooftop solar or energy efficiency programs.


In California the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority works “collaboratively with public and private partners to provide innovative and effective financing solutions” for renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and advanced transportation and manufacturing technologies.


The Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank provides funding to municipalities, businesses, and homeowners for projects “including water and wastewater, roads and bridges, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and brownfield remediation.”

Applying ARPA-I: A Proven Model for Transportation Infrastructure

Executive Summary

In November 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which included $550 billion in new funding for dozens of new programs across the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Alongside historic investments in America’s roads and bridges, the bill created the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I). Building on successful models like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Program-Energy (ARPA-E), ARPA-I’s mission is to bring the nation’s most innovative technology solutions to bear on our most significant transportation infrastructure challenges.

ARPA-I must navigate America’s uniquely complex infrastructure landscape, characterized by limited federal research and development funding compared to other sectors, public sector ownership and stewardship, and highly fragmented and often overlapping ownership structures that include cities, counties, states, federal agencies, the private sector, and quasi-public agencies. Moreover, the new agency needs to integrate the strong culture, structures, and rigorous ideation process that ARPAs across government have honed since the 1950s. This report is a primer on how ARPA-I, and its stakeholders, can leverage this unique opportunity to drive real, sustainable, and lasting change in America’s transportation infrastructure.

How to Use This Report

This report highlights the opportunity ARPA-I presents; orients those unfamiliar with the transportation infrastructure sector to the unique challenges it faces; provides a foundational understanding of the ARPA model and its early-stage program design; and empowers experts and stakeholders to get involved in program ideation. However, individual sections can be used as standalone tools depending on the reader’s prior knowledge of and intended involvement with ARPA-I.

An Opportunity for Transportation Infrastructure Innovation

In November 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) authorizing the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I), among other new programs. ARPA-I’s mission is to advance U.S. transportation infrastructure by developing innovative science and technology solutions that:

ARPA-I will achieve this goal by supporting research projects that:

ARPA-I is the newest addition to a long line of successful ARPAs that continue to deliver breakthrough innovations across the defense, intelligence, energy, and health sectors. The U.S. Department of Defense established the pioneering Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1958 in response to the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite to develop and demonstrate high-risk, high-reward technologies and capabilities to ensure U.S. military technological superiority and confront national security challenges. Throughout the years, DARPA programs have been responsible for significant technological advances with implications beyond defense and national security, such as the early stages of the internet, the creation of the global positioning system (GPS), and the development of mRNA vaccines critical to combating COVID-19. 

In light of the many successful advancements seeded through DARPA programs, the government replicated the ARPA model for other critical sectors, resulting in the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy within the Department of Energy, and, most recently, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health (ARPA-H) within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Now, there is the opportunity to bring that same spirit of untethered innovation to solve the most pressing transportation infrastructure challenges of our time. The United States has long faced a variety of transportation infrastructure-related challenges, due in part to low levels of federal research and development (R&D) spending in this area; the fragmentation of roles across federal, state, and local government; risk-averse procurement practices; and sluggish commercial markets. These challenges include:

The Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill awarded ARPA-I its initial appropriation in early 2023. Yet even before that, the Biden-Harris Administration saw the potential for ARPA-I-driven innovations to help meet its goal of net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, as articulated in its Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative. In particular, the Administration identified smart mobility, clean and efficient transportation systems, next-generation infrastructure construction, advanced electricity infrastructure, and clean fuel infrastructure as “net-zero game changers” that ARPA-I could play an outsize role in helping develop.

For ARPA-I programs to reach their full potential, agency stakeholders and partners need to understand not only how to effectively apply the ARPA model but how the unique circumstances and challenges within transportation infrastructure need to be considered in program design.

Unique Challenges of the Transportation Infrastructure Landscape

Using ARPA-I to advance transportation infrastructure breakthroughs requires an awareness of the most persistent challenges to prioritize and the unique set of circumstances within the sector that can hinder progress if ignored. Below are summaries of key challenges and considerations for ARPA-I to account for, followed by a deeper analysis of each challenge.

Lower Federal R&D Spending in Transportation Infrastructure 

Federal R&D expenditures in transportation infrastructure lag behind those in other sectors. This gap is particularly acute because, unlike for some other sectors, federal transportation R&D expenditures often fund studies and systems used to make regulatory decisions rather than technological innovation. The table below compares actual federal R&D spending and sector expenditures for 2019 across defense, healthcare, energy, and transportation as a percentage of each sector’s GDP. The federal government spends orders of magnitude less on transportation than other sectors: energy R&D spending as a percentage of sector GDP is nearly 15 times higher than transportation, while health is 13 times higher and defense is nearly 38 times higher.

Agency ^1Actual federal R&D spending, 2019Value added by industry and % of U.S. GDP, 20192019 federal R&D spending as % of sector GDP
Defense$54.69 billion$732 billion (3.4%)7.5%
Health and Human Services$38.51 billion$1,452 billion (6.8%) ^22.7%
Energy$18.27 billion$607 billion (2.8%) ^33.0%
Transportation$1.10 billion$610 billion (2.9%) ^40.2%
Expand Footnotes

1. The comparison of federal R&D spending and sector expenditures for 2019 is similar to those for the years 2020 and 2021.

2. Excludes GDP value-adds relating to Social Assistance

3. Includes GDP value-adds relating to oil and gas extraction, utilities, and petroleum and coal products

4. Excludes GDP value adds relating to Warehousing

Public Sector Dominance Limits Innovation Investment 

Since 1990, total investment in U.S. R&D has increased by roughly 9 times. When looking at the source of R&D investment over the same period, the private and public sectors invested approximately the same amount of R&D funding in 1982, but today the rate of R&D investment is nearly 4 times greater for the private industry than the government. 

While there are problems with the bulk of R&D coming from the private sector, such as innovations to promote long-term public goods being overlooked because of more lucrative market incentives, industries that receive considerable private R&D funding still see significant innovation breakthroughs. For example, the medical industry saw $161.8 billion in private R&D funding in 2020 compared to only $61.5 billion from federal funding. More than 75% of this private industry R&D occurred within the biopharmaceutical sector where corporations have profit incentives to be at the cutting edge of advancements in medicine.

The transportation sector has one robust domain for private R&D investment: vehicle and aircraft equipment manufacturing. In 2018, total private R&D was $52.6 billion. Private sector transportation R&D focuses on individual customers and end users, creating better vehicles, products, and efficiencies. The vast majority of that private sector R&D does not go toward infrastructure because the benefits are largely public rather than private. Put another way, the United States invests more than 50 times the amount of R&D into vehicles than the infrastructure systems upon which those vehicles operate. 

Market Fragmentation across Levels of Government

Despite opportunities within the public-dominated transportation infrastructure system, market fragmentation is a persistent obstacle to rapid progress. Each level of government has different actors with different objectives and responsibilities. For instance, at the federal level, USDOT provides national-level guidance, policy, and funding for transportation across aviation, highway, rail, transit, ports, and maritime modes. Meanwhile, the states set goals, develop transportation plans and projects, and manage transportation networks like the interstate highway system. Metropolitan planning organizations take on some of the planning functions at the regional level, and local governments often maintain much of their infrastructure. There are also local individual agencies that operate facilities like airports, ports, or tollways organized at the state, regional, or local level. Programs that can use partnerships to cut across this tapestry of systems are essential to driving impact at scale. 

Local agencies have limited access and capabilities to develop cross-sector technologies. They have access to limited pools of USDOT funding to pilot technologies and thus generally rely on commercially available technologies to increase the likelihood of pilot success. One shortcoming of this current process is that both USDOT and infrastructure owner-operators (IOOs) play a more passive role in developing innovative technologies, instead depending on merely deploying market-ready technologies. 

Multiple Modes, Customers, and Jurisdictions Create Difficulties in Efficiently Allocating R&D Resources

The transportation infrastructure sector is a multimodal environment split across many modes, including aviation, maritime, pipelines, railroads, roadways (which includes biking and walking), and transit. Each mode includes various customers and stakeholders to be considered. In addition, in the fragmented market landscape federal, state, and local departments of transportation have different—and sometimes competing—priorities and mandates. This dynamic creates difficulties in allocating R&D resources and considering access to innovation across these different modes.

Customer identification is not “one size fits all” across existing ARPAs. For example, DARPA has a laser focus on delivering efficient innovations for one customer: the Department of Defense. For ARPA-E, it is less clear; their customers range from utility companies to homeowners looking to benefit from lower energy costs. ARPA-I would occupy a space in between these two cases, understanding that its end users are IOOs—entities responsible for deploying infrastructure in many cases at the local or regional level. 

However, even with this more direct understanding of its customers, a shortcoming of a system focused on multiple modes is that transportation infrastructure is very broad, occupying everything from self-healing concrete to intersection safety to the deployment of electrified mobility and more. Further complicating matters is the rapid evolution of technologies and expectations across all modes, along with the rollout of entirely new modes of transportation. These developments raise questions about where new technologies and capabilities fit in existing modal frameworks, what actors in the transportation infrastructure market should lead their development, and who the ultimate “customers” or end users of innovation are.

Having a matrixed understanding of the rapid technological evolution across transportation modes and their potential customers is critical to investing in and building infrastructure for the future, given that transportation infrastructure investments not only alter a region’s movement of people and goods but also fundamentally impact its development. ARPA-I is poised to shape learnings across and in partnership with USDOT’s modes and various offices to ensure the development and refinement of underlying technologies and approaches that serve the needs of the entire transportation system and users across all modes.

Core Tenets of ARPA Success

Success using the ARPA model comes from demonstrating new innovative capabilities, building a community of people (an “ecosystem”) to carry the progress forward, and having the support of key decision-makers. Yet the ARPA model can only be successful if its program directors (PDs), fellows, stakeholders, and other partners understand the unique structure and inherent flexibility required when working to create a culture conducive to spurring breakthrough innovations. From a structural and cultural standpoint, the ARPA model is unlike any other agency model within the federal government, including all existing R&D agencies. Partners and other stakeholders should embrace the unique characteristics of an ARPA.

Cultural Components

ARPAs should take risks. 

An ARPA portfolio may be the closest thing to a venture capital portfolio in the federal government. They have a mandate to take big swings so should not be limited to projects that seem like safe bets. ARPAs will take on many projects throughout their existence, so they should balance quick wins with longer-term bets while embracing failure as a natural part of the process.

ARPAs should constantly evaluate and pivot when necessary.

An ARPA needs to be ruthless in its decision-making process because it has the ability to maneuver and shift without the restriction of initial plans or roadmaps. For example, projects around more nascent technology may require more patience, but if assessments indicate they are not achieving intended outcomes or milestones, PDs should not be afraid to terminate those projects and focus on other new ideas.

ARPAs should stay above the political fray. 

ARPAs can consider new and nontraditional ways to fund innovation, and thus should not be caught up in trends within their broader agency. As different administrations onboard, new offices get built and partisan priorities may shift, but ARPAs should limit external influence on their day-to-day operations.

ARPA team members should embrace an entrepreneurial mindset. 

PDs, partners, and other team members need to embrace the creative freedom required for success and operate much like entrepreneurs for their programs. Valued traits include a propensity toward action, flexibility, visionary leadership, self-motivation, and tenacity.

ARPA team members must move quickly and nimbly.

Trying to plan out the agency’s path for the next two years, five years, 10 years, or beyond is a futile effort and can be detrimental to progress. ARPAs require ultimate flexibility from day to day and year to year. Compared to other federal initiatives, ARPAs are far less bureaucratic by design, and forcing unnecessary planning and bureaucracy on the agency will slow progress.

Collegiality must be woven into the agency’s fabric.

With the rapidly shifting and entrepreneurial nature of ARPA work, the federal staff, contractors, and other agency partners need to rely on one another for support and assistance to seize opportunities and continue progressing as programs mature and shift. 

Outcomes matter more than following a process.

ARPA PDs must be free to explore potential program and project ideas without any predetermination. The agency should support them in pursuing big and unconventional ideas unrestricted by a particular process. While there is a process to turn their most unconventional and groundbreaking ideas into funded and functional projects, transformational ideas are more important than the process itself during idea generation.

ARPA team members welcome feedback.

Things move quickly in an ARPA, and decisions must match that pace, so individuals such as fellows and PDs must work together to offer as much feedback as possible. Constructive pushback helps avoid blind alleys and thus makes programs stronger.

Structural Components

The ARPA Director sets the vision.

The Director’s vision helps attract the right talent and appropriate levels of ambition and focus areas while garnering support from key decision-makers and luminaries. This vision will dictate the types and qualities of PDs an ARPA will attract to execute within that vision.

PDs can make or break an ARPA and set the technical direction.

Because the power of the agency lies within its people, ARPAs are typically flat organizations. An ARPA should seek to hire the best and most visionary thinkers and builders as PDs, enable them to determine and design good programs, and execute with limited hierarchical disruption. During this process, PDs should engage with decision-makers in the early stages of the program design to understand the needs and realities of implementers.

Contracting helps achieve goals.

The ARPA model allows PDs to connect with universities, companies, nonprofits, organizations, and other areas of government to contract necessary R&D. This allows the program to build relationships with individuals without needing to hire or provide facilities or research laboratories. 

Interactions improve outcomes. 

From past versions of ARPA that attempted remote and hybrid environments, it became evident that having organic collisions across an ARPA’s various roles and programs is important to achieving better outcomes. For example, ongoing in-person interactions between and among PDs and technical advisors are critical to idea generation and technical project and program management. 

Staff transitions must be well facilitated to retain institutional knowledge. 

One of ARPA’s most unique structural characteristics is its frequent turnover. PDs and fellows are term-limited, and ARPAs are designed to turn over those key positions every few years as markets and industries evolve, so having thoughtful transition processes in place is vital, including considering the role of systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) contractors in filling knowledge gaps, cultivating an active alumni network, and staggered hiring cycles so that large numbers of PDs and fellows are not all exiting their service at once.

Scaling should be built into the structure.

It cannot be assumed that if a project is successful, the private sector will pick that technology up and help it scale. Instead, an ARPA should create its own bridge to scaling in the form of programs dedicated to funding projects proven in a test environment to scale their technology for real-world application. 

Technology-to-market advisors play a pivotal role.

Similarly to the dedicated funding for scaling described above, technology-to-market advisors are responsible for thinking about how projects make it to the real world. They should work hand in hand with PDs even in the early stages of program development to provide perspectives on how projects might commercialize and become market-ready. Without this focus, technologies run the risk of dying on the vine—succeeding technically, but failing commercially. 

A Primer on ARPA Ideation

Tackling grand challenges in transportation infrastructure through ARPA-I requires understanding what is unique about its program design. This process begins with considering the problem worth solving, the opportunity that makes it a ripe problem to solve, a high-level idea of an ARPA program’s fit in solving it, and a visualization of the future once this problem has been solved. This process of early-stage program ideation requires a shift in one’s thinking to find ideas for innovative programs that fit the ARPA model in terms of appropriate ambition level and suitability for ARPA structure and objectives. It is also an inherently iterative process, so while creating a “wireframe” outlining the problem, opportunity, program objectives, and future vision may seem straightforward, it can take months of refining. 

Common Challenges

No clear diagnosis of the problem

Many challenges facing our transportation infrastructure system are not defined by a single problem; rather, they are a conglomeration of issues that simultaneously need addressing. An effective program will not only isolate a single problem to tackle, but it will approach it at a level where something can be done to solve it through root cause analysis.

Thinking small and narrow

On the other hand, problems being considered for ARPA programs can be isolated down to the point that solving them will not drive transformational change. In this situation, narrow problems would not cater to a series of progressive and complementary projects that would fit an ARPA.

Incorrect framing of opportunities:

When doing early-stage program design, opportunities are sometimes framed as “an opportunity to tackle a problem.” Rather, an opportunity should reflect a promising method, technology, or approach already in existence but which would benefit from funding and resources through an advanced research agency program.

Approaching solutions solely from a regulatory or policy angle

While regulations and policy changes are a necessary and important component of tackling challenges in transportation infrastructure, approaching issues through this lens is not the mandate of an ARPA. ARPAs focus on supporting breakthrough innovations in developing new methods, technologies, capabilities, and approaches. Additionally, regulatory approaches to problem-solving can often be subject to lengthy policy processes.

No explicit ARPA role

An ARPA should pursue opportunities to solve problems where, without its intervention, breakthroughs may not happen within a reasonable timeframe. If the public or private sector already has significant interest in solving a problem, and they are well on their way to developing a transformational solution in a few years or less, then ARPA funding and support might provide a higher value-add elsewhere.

Lack of throughline

The problems identified for ARPA program consideration should be present as themes throughout the opportunities chosen to solve them as well as how programs are ultimately structured. Otherwise, a program may lack a targeted approach to solving a particular challenge.

Forgetting about end users

Human-centered design should be at the heart of how ARPA programs are scoped, especially when considering the scale at which designers need to think about how solving a problem will provide transformational change for everyday users.

Being solutions-oriented

Research programs should not be built with predetermined solutions in mind; they should be oriented around a specific problem to ensure that any solutions put forward are targeted and effective.

Not being realistic about direct outcomes of the program

Program objectives should not simply restate the opportunity, nor should they jump to where the world will be many years after the program has run its course. They should separate the tactical elements of a program and what impact they will ultimately drive. Designers should consider their program as one key step in a long arc of commercialization and adoption, with a firm sense of who needs to act and what needs to happen to make a program objective a reality.

Keeping these common mistakes in mind throughout the design process ensures that programs are properly scoped, appropriately ambitious, and in line with the agency’s goals. With these guideposts in mind, idea generators should begin their program design in the form of a wireframe.

Wireframe Development 

The first phase in ARPA program development is creating a program wireframe, which is an outline of a potential program that captures key components for consideration to assess the program’s fit and potential impact. The template below shows the components characteristic of a program wireframe.

Wireframe template

To create a fully fleshed-out wireframe, program directors work backward by first envisioning a future state that would be truly transformational for society and across sectors if it were to be realized. Then, they identify a clearly-articulated problem that needs solving and is hindering progress toward this transformational future state. During this process, PDs need to conduct extensive root cause analysis to consider whether the problem they’ve identified is exacerbated by policy, regulatory, or environmental complications—as opposed to those that technology can already solve. This will inform whether a problem is something that ARPA-I has the opportunity to impact fundamentally. 

Next, program directors identify a promising opportunity—such as a method, approach, or technology—that, if developed, scaled, and implemented, would solve the problem they articulated and help achieve their proposed future state. When considering a promising opportunity, PDs must assess whether it front-runs other potential technologies that would also need developing to support it and whether it is feasible to achieve concrete results within three to five years and with an average program budget. Additionally, it is useful to think about whether an opportunity considered for program development is part of a larger cohort of potential programs that lie within an ARPA-I focus area that could all be run in parallel.

Most importantly, before diving into how to solve the problem, PDs need to articulate what has prevented this opportunity from already being solved, scaled, and implemented, and what explicit role or need there is for a federal R&D agency to step in and lead the development of technologies, methods, or approaches to incentivize private sector deployment and scaling. For example, if the private sector is already incentivized to, and capable of, taking the lead on developing a particular technology and it will achieve market readiness within a few years, then there is less justification for an ARPA intervention in that particular case. On the other hand, the prescribed solution to the identified problem may be so nascent that what is needed is more early-stage foundational R&D, in which case an ARPA program would not be a good fit. This area should be reserved as the domain of more fundamental science-based federal R&D agencies and offices.

One example to illustrate this maturity fit is DARPA investment in mRNA. While the National Institutes of Health contributed significantly to initial basic research, DARPA recognized the technological gap in being able to quickly scale and manufacture therapeutics, prompting the agency to launch the Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics (ADEPT) program to develop technologies to respond to infectious disease threats. Through ADEPT, in 2011 DARPA awarded a fledgling Moderna Therapeutics with $25 million to research and develop its messenger RNA therapeutics platform. Nine years later, Moderna became the second company after Pfizer-BioNTech to receive an Emergency Use Authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine.

Another example is DARPA’s role in developing the internet as we know it, which was not originally about realizing the unprecedented concept of a ubiquitous, global communications network. What began as researching technologies for interlinking packet networks led to the development of ARPANET, a pioneering network for sharing information among geographically separated computers. DARPA then contracted BBN Technologies to build the first routers before becoming operational in 1969. This research laid the foundation for the internet. The commercial sector has since adopted ARPANET’s groundbreaking results and used them to revolutionize communication and information sharing across the globe.

Wireframe Refinement and Iteration

To guide program directors through successful program development, George H. Heilmeier, who served as the director of DARPA from 1975 to 1977, used to require that all PDs answer the following questions, known as the Heilmeier Catechism, as part of their pitch for a new program. These questions should be used to refine the wireframe and envision what the program could look like. In particular, wireframe refinement should examine the first three questions before expanding to the remaining questions.

Alongside the Heilmeier Catechism, a series of assessments and lines of questioning should be completed to pressure test and iterate once the wireframe has been drafted. This refinement process is not one-size-fits-all but consistently grounded in research, discussions with experts, and constant questioning to ensure program fit. The objective is to thoroughly analyze whether the problem we are seeking to solve is the right one and whether the full space of opportunities around that problem is ripe for ARPA intervention.

One way to think about determining whether a wireframe could be a program is by asking, “Is this wireframe science or is this science fiction?” In other words, is the proposed technology solution at the right maturity level for an ARPA to make it a reality? There is a relatively broad range in the middle of the technological maturity spectrum that could be an ARPA program fit, but the extreme ends of that spectrum would not be a good fit, and thus those wireframes would need further iteration or rejection. On the far left end of the spectrum would be basic research that only yields published papers or possibly a prototype. On the other extreme would be a technology that is already developed to the point that only full-scale implementation is needed. Everything that falls between could be suitable for an ARPA program topic area.  

Once a high-impact program has been designed, the next step is to rigorously pressure test and develop a program until it resembles an executable ARPA program.

Applying ARPA Frameworks to Transportation Infrastructure Challenges

By using this framework, any problem or opportunity within transportation infrastructure can be evaluated for its fit as an ARPA-level idea. Expert and stakeholder idea generation is essential to creating an effective portfolio of ARPA-I programs, so idea generators must be armed with this framework and a defined set of focus areas to develop promising program wireframes. An initial set of focus areas for ARPA-I includes safety, climate and resilience, and digitalization, with equity and accessibility as underlying considerations within each focus area. 

There are hundreds of potential topic areas that ARPA-I could tackle; the two wireframes below represent examples of early-stage program ideas that would benefit from further pressure testing through the program design iteration cycle.

Note: The following wireframes are samples intended to illustrate ARPA ideation and the wireframing process, and do not represent potential research programs or topics under consideration by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Next-Generation Resilient Infrastructure Management

A Digital Inventory of Physical Infrastructure and Its Uses

Wireframe Development Next Steps

After initial wireframe development, further exploration is needed to pressure test an idea and ensure that it can be developed into a viable program to achieve “moonshot” ambitions. Wireframe authors should consider the following factors when iterating:

Wireframes are intended to be a summary communicative of a larger plan to follow. After further iteration and exploration of the factors outlined above, what was first just a raw program wireframe should develop into more detailed documents. These should include an incisive diagnosis of the problem and evidence and citations validating opportunities to solve it. Together, these components should lead to a plausible program objective as an outcome.

Conclusion

The newly authorized and appropriated ARPA-I presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to apply a model that has been proven successful in developing breakthrough innovations in other sectors to the persistent challenges facing transportation infrastructure.

Individuals and organizations that would work within the ARPA-I network need to have a clear understanding of the unique circumstances, challenges, and opportunities of this sector, as well as how to apply this context and the unique ARPA program ideation model to build high-impact future innovation programs. This community’s engagement is critical to ARPA-I’s success, and the FAS is looking for big thinkers who are willing to take on this challenge by developing bold, innovative ideas.

To sign up for future updates on events, convenings, and other opportunities for you to work in support of ARPA-I programs and partners, click here.

To submit an advanced research program idea, click here.

Advanced Research Priorities in Transportation

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has identified several domains in the transportation and infrastructure space that retain a plethora of unsolved opportunities ripe for breakthrough innovation.

Transportation is not traditionally viewed as a research- and development-led field, with less than 0.7% of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) annual budget dedicated to R&D activities. The majority of DOT’s R&D funds are disbursed by modal operating administrators mandated to execute on distinct funding priorities rather than a collective, integrated vision of transforming the nation’s infrastructure across 50 states and localities. 

Historically, a small percentage of these R&D funds have supported and developed promising, cross-cutting initiatives, such as the Federal Highway Administration’s Exploratory Advanced Research programs deploying artificial intelligence to better understand driver behavior and applying novel data integration techniques to enhance freight logistics. Yet, the scope of these programs has not been designed to scale discoveries into broad deployment, limiting the impact of innovation and technology in transforming transportation and infrastructure in the United States. 

As a result, transportation and infrastructure retain a plethora of unaddressed opportunities – from reducing the 40,000 annual vehicle-related fatalities, to improving freight logistics through ports, highways, and rail, to achieving a net zero carbon transportation system, to building infrastructure resilient to the impacts of climate change and severe weather. The reasons for these persistent challenges are numerous: low levels of federal R&D spending, fragmentation across state and local government, risk-averse procurement practices, sluggish commercial markets, and more. When innovations do emerge in this field, they suffer from two valleys of death: one to bring new ideas out of the lab into commercialization, and the second to bring successful deployments of those technologies to scale.

The United States needs a concerted national innovation pipeline designed to fill this gap, exploring early-stage, moonshot research while nurturing  breakthroughs from concept to deployment. An Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure would deliver on this mission. Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I) will operate nimbly and with rigorous program management and deep technical expertise to tackle the biggest infrastructure  challenges and overcome entrenched market failures. Solutions would cut across traditional transportation modes (e.g. highways, rail, aviation, maritime, pipelines etc) and would include innovative new infrastructure technologies, materials, systems, capabilities, or processes. 

The list of domain areas below reflects priorities for DOT as well as areas where there is significant opportunity for breakthrough innovation:

Key Domain Areas

Metropolitan Safety

Despite progress made since 1975, dramatic reductions in roadway fatalities remain a core, persistent challenge. In 2021, an estimated 42,915 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, with an estimated 31,785 people killed in the first nine months of 2022. The magnitude of this challenge is articulated in DOT’s most recent National Roadway Safety Strategy, a document that begins with a statement from Secretary Buttigieg: “The status quo is unacceptable, and it is preventable… Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths and serious injuries on our roadways.” 

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: urban roadway safety; advanced vehicle driver assistance systems; driver alcohol detection systems; vehicle design; street design; speeding and speed limits; and V2X (vehicle-to-everything) communications and networking technology.

Key Questions for Consideration:

Rural Safety

Rural communities possess their own unique safety challenges stemming from road design and signage, speed limits, and other factors; and data from the Federal Highway Administration shows that “while only 19% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, 43% of all roadway fatalities occur on rural roads, and the fatality rate on rural roads is almost 2 times higher than on urban roads.”

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: improved information collection and management systems; design and evaluation tools for two-lane highways and other geometric design decisions; augmented visibility; mitigating or anti-rollover crash solutions; and enhanced emergency response. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Resilient & Climate Prepared Infrastructure

Modern roads, bridges, and transportation are designed to withstand storms that, at the time of their construction, had a probability of occurring once in 100 years; today, climate change has made extreme weather events commonplace. In 2020 alone, the U.S. suffered 22 high-impact weather disasters that each cost over $1 billion in damages. When Hurricane Sandy hit New York City and New Jersey subways with a 14-foot storm surge, millions were left without their primary mode of transportation for a week. Meanwhile, rising sea levels are likely to impact both marine and air transportation, as 13 of the 47 largest U.S. airports have at least one runway within 12 feet of the current sea level. Additionally, the persistent presence of wildfires–which are burning an average of 7 million acres annually across the United States, more than double the average in the 1990s–dramatically reshapes the transportation network in acute ways and causes downstream damage through landslides, flooding, and other natural events.

These trends are likely to continue as climate change exacerbates the intensity and scope of these events. The Department of Transportation is well-positioned to introduce systems-level improvements to the resilience of our nation’s infrastructure.

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: High-performance long-life, advanced materials that increase resiliency and reduce maintenance and reconstruction needs, especially materials for roads, rail, and ports; nature-based protective strategies such as constructed marshes; novel designs for multi-modal hubs or other logistics/supply chain redundancy; efficient and dynamic mechanisms to optimize the relocation of transportation assets; intensive maintenance, preservation, prediction, and degradation analysis methods; and intelligent disaster-resilient infrastructure countermeasures. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Digital Infrastructure

Advancing the systems, tools, and capabilities for digital infrastructure to reflect and manage the built environment has the power to enable improved asset maintenance and operations across all levels of government, at scale. Advancements in this field would make using our infrastructure more seamless for transit, freight, pedestrians, and more. Increased data collection from or about vehicle movements, for example, enables user-friendly and demand-responsive traffic management, dynamic curb management for personal vehicles, transit and delivery transportation modes, congestion pricing, safety mapping and targeted interventions, and rail and port logistics. When data is accessible by local departments of transportation and municipalities, it can be harnessed to improve transportation operations and public safety through crash detection as well as to develop Smart Cities and Communities that utilize user-focused mobility services; connected and automated vehicles; electrification across transportation modes, and intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure to measure and manage age-old problems like potholes, air pollution, traffic, parking, and safety.

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: traffic management; curb management; congestion pricing; accessibility; mapping for safety; rail management; port logistics; and transportation system/electric grid coordination.

Key Questions for Consideration:

Expediting and Upgrading Construction Methods

Infrastructure projects are fraught with expensive delays and overrun budgets. In the United States, fewer than 1 in 3 contractors report finishing projects on time and within budgets, with 70% citing coordination at the site of construction as the primary reason. In the words of one industry executive, “all [of the nation’s] major projects have cost and schedule issues … the truth is these are very high-risk and difficult projects. Conditions change. It is impossible to estimate it accurately.” But can process improvements and other innovations make construction cheaper, better, faster, and easier?

Example topical areas include but are not limited to: augmented forecasting and modeling techniques; prefabricated or advanced robotic fabrication, modular, and adaptable structures and systems such as bridge sub- and superstructures; real-time quality control and assurance technologies for accelerated construction, materials innovation; new pavement technologies; bioretention; tunneling; underground infrastructure mapping; novel methods for bridge engineering, building information modeling (BIM), coastal, wind, and offshore engineering; stormwater systems; and computational methods in structural engineering, structural sensing, control, and asset management. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

Logistics

Our national economic strength and quality of life depend on the safe and efficient movement of goods throughout our nation’s borders and beyond. Logistic systems—the interconnected webs of businesses, workers, infrastructure processes, and practices that underlie the sorting, transportation, and distribution of goods must operate with efficiency and resilience. . When logistics systems are disrupted by events such as public health crises, extreme weather, workforce challenges, or cyberattacks, goods are delayed, costs increase, and Americans’ daily lives are affected. The Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14017 calling for a review of the transportation and logistics industrial base. DOT released the Freight and Logistics Supply Chain Assessment in February 2022, spotlighting a range of actions that DOT envisions to support a resilient 21st-century freight and logistics supply chain for America.

Topical areas include but are not limited to: freight infrastructure, including ports, roads, airports, and railroads; data and research; rules and regulations; coordination across public and private sectors; and supply chain electrification and intersections with resilient infrastructure. 

Key Questions for Consideration:

ARPA-I: Get Involved

FAS is seeking to engage experts from across the transportation infrastructure community who are the right kind of big thinkers to get involved in developing solutions to transportation moonshots.

Widespread engagement of this diverse network is critical to ensuring ARPA-I’s success. So whether you are an academic researcher, startup CEO, safe streets activist, or have experience with federal R&D programs–we are looking for your insights and expertise.

To be considered for opportunities to support future efforts around transportation infrastructure moonshots, please fill out this form and a member of our team will be in touch as opportunities to get involved arise.

ARPA-I: Share an Idea

Do you have ideas that could inform an ambitious Advanced Research Projects Agency-Infrastructure (ARPA-I) portfolio at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)? We’re looking for your boldest infrastructure moonshots.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is seeking to engage experts across the transportation policy space who can leverage their expertise to help FAS identify a set of grand solutions around transportation infrastructure challenges and advanced research priorities for DOT to consider. Priority topic areas include but are not limited to metropolitan safety, rural safety, resilient and climate-prepared infrastructure, digital infrastructure, expediting “mega projects,” and logistics. You can read more about these topic areas in depth here.

What We’re Looking For and How to Submit

We are looking for experts to develop and submit an initial program design in the form of a wireframe that could inform a future advanced research portfolio at DOT. A wireframe is an outline of a potential program that captures key components that need to be considered in order to assess the program’s fit and potential impact. The template below reflects the components of a program wireframe. Wireframes can be submitted by email here. Please include all four sections of the wireframe shown in the template below in the body of your email submission.

Program Design Wireframe

When writing your wireframe, we ask you aim to avoid the following common challenges to ensure that ideas are properly scoped, appropriately ambitious, and are in line with the agency’s goals:

For a more detailed primer on ARPA program ideation, please read our publication, “Applying ARPA-I: A Proven Model for Transportation.”

Sample Idea

Informed by input from non-federal subject matter experts

Problem

Urban and suburban environments are complex, with competing uses for public space across modes and functions – drivers, transit users, cyclists, pedestrians, diners, etc.    Humans are prone to erratic, unpredictable, and distracted driving behavior, and when coupled with speed, vehicle size, and infrastructure design, such behaviors can cause injury, death, property damage, and transportation system disruption. A decade-old study from NHTSA – at a time when roadway fatalities were approximately 25% lower than current levels – found that the total value of societal harm from crashes in 2010 was $836 billion. 

Opportunity

What if the relationships between the driver, the environment (including pedestrians), and the vehicle could be personalized?

Program Objective 

Future 

Digital transportation networks can communicate personalized information with drivers through their cars in a uniform medium and with a goal of augmenting safety in each of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.

USDOT Workshop: Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure

On December 8th, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation hosted a workshop, “Transportation, Mobility, and the Future of Infrastructure,” in collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists. 

The goal for this event was to bring together innovative thinkers from various sectors of infrastructure and transportation to scope ideas where research, technology, and innovation could drive meaningful change for the Department of Transportation’s strategic priorities.

To provide framing for the day, participants heard from Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology Robert Hampshire, who both underscored the potential for a new agency – The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Infrastructure (ARPA-I) to accelerate transformative solutions for the transportation sector. Then, a panel featuring Kei Koizumi, Jennifer Gerbi, and Erwin Gianchandani focused on Federal Research and Development (R&D) explored federal advanced research models that drive innovation in complex sectors and explored how such approaches may accelerate solutions to key priorities in the transportation system.

Workshop participants listening to remarks from U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Participants then participated in separate breakout sessions organized around: 1) safety; 2) digitalization; and 3) climate and resilience. During the breakouts sessions, participants were asked to build on pre-work they had completed before the Workshop by brainstorming future vision statements and using them as the foundation to come up with innovative federal R&D program designs. Participants then regrouped and ended the day by discussing the most promising ideas from their respective breakout sessions, and where their ideas could go next.

The Workshop inspired participants to dig deep to surface meaningful challenges and innovative solutions for USDOT to tackle, whether through ARPA-I or other federal R&D mechanisms, and represents an initial step of a broader process to identify topics and domains in which stakeholders can drive transformational progress for our infrastructure and transportation system. Such an effort will require continued engagement and buy-in from a diverse community of experts.

As such, FAS is seeking to engage experts from across the transportation infrastructure community who are willing to “think big” and creatively about solutions to transportation moonshots. If you’re interested in supporting future efforts around transportation infrastructure moonshots, please visit our “Get Involved” page; if you’re ready to submit an initial program design in the form of a wireframe that could inform a future advanced research portfolio at DOT, please visit our “Share an Idea” page.

Steering Innovation for Autonomous Vehicles Towards Societally Beneficial Outcomes

Summary

Vehicle automation, coupled with simultaneous mobility revolutions of vehicle electrification and ridesharing, is set to have major impacts on society—perhaps the biggest impacts of any development in transportation since the introduction of cars over 100 years ago. But whether those impacts will be positive or not is still unknown. For example, widespread deployment of AVs could slash U.S. energy consumption by as much as 40% due to improved driving efficiency; alternatively, it could double U.S. energy consumption due to increased availability of cheap transport options. Similar uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of AVs on physical safety, transportation access for disabled communities, overall traffic efficiency, and long-term greenhouse-gas emissions. Guiding the evolution of AVs towards the future we want requires evaluating AVs using metrics that prioritize societally beneficial outcomes. The Biden-Harris administration should create an Evaluation Innovation Engine at the Department of Transportation (DOT) to propose, refine, and standardize public-interest metrics for AVs.

The Evaluation Innovation Engine (EIE) would do for AV metrics what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Grand Challenge did for AV development: ignite productive competition among companies to achieve state-of-the-art performance. The EIE should have two main tasks (1) convening stakeholders to discuss potential metrics and providing opportunities for public comment on how proposed metrics should be prioritized, and (2) administering annual funding rounds of ~$72 million each for private firms and other entities to create, test, and optimize algorithms for publicly beneficial AV outcomes. The EIE should be overseen by the Secretary of Transportation and staffed by representatives from pertinent DOT offices (Office of Civil Rights, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Office of Public Affairs) and administrations (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA)), as well as a broad coalition of civil-society advocates.

Integrating Automated Vehicles with 5G Networks to Realize the Future of Transportation

Summary

Widespread deployment of fully automated or “autonomous” vehicles (AVs) that can operate without human interaction would make travel easier, cheaper, and safer. Reaching this highest level of automation requires AVs to be connected to 5G networks, which in turn allows AVs to communicate with “smart”, 5G-connected roadway infrastructure. The federal government can support progress towards this goal through a three-part initiative. Part 1 would establish Transportation Infrastructure Pilot Zones to field-test the integration of AV technology with 5G networks in settings across the country. Part 2 would create a National Connected AV Research Consortium to pursue connected-vehicle research achieving massive scale. Part 3 would launch a targeted research initiative focused on ensuring safety in a connected AV era, and Part 4 would create a new U.S. Corps of Engineers and Computer Scientists for Technology to embed technically skilled experts into government. With primary support from the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Defense (DOD), this initiative would also help develop a basic framework for achieving a 90% reduction in vehicle crashes nationwide, deliver new transportation services, and establish national standards for AV technology. Initiative outcomes would promote U.S. global leadership in AVs, create new jobs and economic opportunities, and prepare the U.S. workforce to integrate technology of the future into systems of the present.