PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 23, 2015
Intelligent Technologies Initiative Act of 2015
This bill directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish an Intelligent Technology Initiative to provide grants to up to six state and local governments to establish deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and return on investment.
DOT shall develop criteria for selecting grant recipients, including how the deployment of technology will enable the recipient to:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
reduce costs and improve return on investments;
deliver environmental benefits and reduce energy consumption by alleviating congestion and streamlining traffic flow;
measure and improve the operational performance of its transportation network;
reduce the number and severity of traffic collisions and increase driver, passenger, and pedestrian safety;
collect, disseminate, and utilize real-time traffic, transit, parking, and other transportation-related information to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and provide for more efficient and accessible transportation alternatives;
monitor transportation assets to improve infrastructure management, reduce maintenance costs, prioritize investment decisions, and ensure a state of good repair; and
deliver economic benefits by reducing delays, improving system performance, and providing for the efficient and reliable movement of goods and services.
A grant application must include:
a plan to deploy and provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of ITS to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and return on investment;
quantifiable system performance improvements;
quantifiable safety, mobility, and environmental benefit projections;
a plan for partnering with the private sector, public agencies, research institutions, organizations representing transportation and technology leaders, and other transportation stakeholders;
a plan to leverage and optimize existing local and regional ITS investments; and
a plan to ensure interoperability of deployed technologies with other tolling, traffic management, and ITS.
Recipient may use grant funds to deploy, operate, and maintain specified ITS and ITS-enabled operational strategies.
The bill requires DOT to report on the effectiveness of grant recipients in meeting their projected deployment plans.
People & committees
Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3825 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3825 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3825 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3825 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.