Click to edit Master text styles

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

Fifth level

Define the problem from JPO perspective – Need to move from early adoption of ITS to future connected vehicle environment.

The purpose of the study is to answer the question, what are the barriers to successful ITS deployment and how do we overcome them?

Point out diversity of perspectives in the audience: state/local transportation agencies, automotive manufacturers, device and data vendors, consultants, researchers.

Introduction to Study of Implementation and Vaishali Shah

The 15 month study started in spring of 2012.

It is composed of 4 main stages of work, as shown here on the slide. The first activity, the Literature Review, is complete. The Stakeholder Interviews included a webinar in June 2012 with extensive polling. Short phone interviews with 25 public sector individuals, and over 40+ in-person interviews with public stakeholders as well as with the trucking industry and OEM manufacturers. Current activities include a post-Hoc Data Analysis, and this workshop. This workshop is an opportunity for to share your thoughts and insight on promoting ITS implementation as we move to adopt Connected vehicle technologies.

The report will wrap up with recommendations on how JPO can accelerate implementation among the current suite of ITS technologies and moving toward connected vehicle programs.

As a part of the stakeholder interview process, we visited five regions: Boise, Idaho, Atlanta, Georgia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Tucson as well as Scottsdale/Phoenix Arizona. Recurring themes heard from these regional discussions are highlighted here.

The designation of peers is very different and reflects size and congestion levels.

In reviewing ITS deployment stories, many agencies described how they pendulate between being innovators and early adopters for some technologies while being the late majority for other technologies. A law enforcement agency recounted how the disappointments with one technology for which they were innovators soured upper management for more than a decade on other ITS innovations. The pendulum is now swinging back toward the early majority for ITS adoption.

The literature review served to uncover and categorize four sets of factors that influence implementation decisions. ITS Implementation decisions span from adopting a technology, maintain operations, expanding to additional deployments, or sometimes contracting, cancelling or replacing technologies.

We did a significant amount of polling during the webinar asking individual to select a ‘most important’ factor among each set. We went beyond the polling to ratings of information to test the relative importance of each factor during the in-person surveys. Today, I don’t have time to go over all of the findings, but will share highlights from this effort.

In evaluating the importance of specific factors for ITS Implementation, we delved a little deeper for looking at the steps in the implementation process. Based on existing research, we define implementation as having an initiation, development, and deployment phase. and solicited feedback fo

Demonstrable benefits was the biggest factor cited by state/local agencies. As funding tightens, high benefit-to-cost ratios on ‘affordable’ projects have higher chance for consideration. Performance monitoring a must.

The webinar held during June 2012 parallels this finding with demonstration of benefits as the most critical to ITS initiation. Approximately 58 individuals replied to the webinar.

•Training

•Peer exchanges

•Best Practices

•ITS incorporated into state guidance documents

•

•Training, peer exchanges via technology, best practices, ITS learning xxxx

•

Some regions have successfully secured atypical funding sources for ITS through local vehicle registration fees or transportation sales taxes. Effectively presenting ITS line items from the lens of transportation safety, schools zone/bussing and mobility is an effective means for secure steady funding through taxes or fees. Most organizations however, are facing a challenging environment for funding. From the broader set of interviews multiple stories emerge on reprioritization of funds.

Source: FHWA Office of Operations, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/511/

This map shows us today’s deployment picture…..but How did we get here?

1.FCC standardization of 511. (July 2000)

July 21, 2000 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) designated 511 as the single travel information telephone number to be made available to states & local jurisdictions across the country. The FCC ruling leaves nearly all implementation issues & schedules to state & local agencies & telecommunications carriers. There are no Federal requirements or mandates to implement 511.

2.FHWA deployment planning assistance grants – up to 100k (beginning 2001)

3.511 deployment coalition –

Mindful of both the opportunity & challenge 511 presents, the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in conjunction with many other organizations including the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America), with support from the U.S. Department of Transportation, established the 511 Deployment Coalition. The goal of the 511 Deployment Coalition is "the timely establishment of a national 511 traveler information service that is sustainable and provides value to users." The intent is to implement 511 nationally using a bottom-up approach facilitated by information sharing and a cooperative dialogue through the national associations represented on the Policy Committee, the governing body of the program

Financial assistance through Planning Assistance Program

4.other technical assistance -- Early Adopter Case Study Reports, technical guidance, marketing and outreach assistance, evaluation guidelines, etc.

5.Organic growth … neighboring states influence (demo)

James: Thank you, Vaishali. We have time for a question or two. We will do a full Q&A after the two case studies.

The cost of conduit and fiber for the last mile increases with the shorter the length. The bandwidth requirements may not decrease. Who else will want to be on the network?

Your partners today may be different five years from now. Don’t forget Police and Fire, IT Departments, 911 Operators, Project Managers, and many others that would like to have access to video or just bandwidth that you have available.

We convened the panel to listen to these different perspective and engage in a dialog with them.

Bill Ball is President of Merriweather Advisors LLC, a consulting firm specializing in automotive policy issues. He retired from General Motors as OnStar's Vice President for Public Policy and has over 25 years of legislative and regulatory policy experience in the cellular and automotive industries including leading efforts to support intelligent transportation systems and connected vehicle technology.

Dan Murray, is VP of research for the American Transportation Research Institute. Dan has been active in numerous ITS-CVO initiatives including:

1) Core team member of the DOT-sponsored "Smart Roadside Initiative"

2) Advisory Committee member of the NY State Commercial VII program

3) ATRI lead for the DOT-sponsored Trucking Industry Technology & Mobility Coalition (TIMTC)

4) Immediate past chair of ITS America's Commercial Vehicle & Freight Mobility Forum

Jim Wright is the Program Manager of the Connected Vehicle Programs for the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Prior to 2008 he was an on loan executive from the Minnesota Department of transportation serving seven years as Program Director for 511 and the Connected Vehicle. Before joining AASHTO he managed the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program called Minnesota Guidestar. From 1991 - 2001 he directed $100 million in ITS work, including a regionally integrated ITS system.

Taso Zografos has over 25 years of experience in program management and IT solution development, specifically focused on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), DSRC, and Automatic Vehicle Identification/Location (AVI/AVL). He specializes in the transformation and change management of R&D projects or concepts and mainstreaming them into commercial services. He has served as PM for the USDOT V2V & V2I Technology Test Bed, and is currently the PM for the NCHRP Connected Vehicle Benefit Cost Analysis Project.