3.3.3       Project Identification and Scoping

OBJECTIVES	·        Explore alternatives for major regional efforts prior to beginning actual project development. ·        Program projects for deployment
DESCRIPTION	Project Identification and Scoping covers two key activities.  The first, related to scoping of projects, is performing studies, sometimes referred to as feasibility studies, that consider alternatives for the development of major regional systems.   A business case is made for the system and technical feasibility is assessed, benefits and costs are estimated, and key system risks are identified. Alternative concepts for meeting the system’s purpose and need are explored and the superior concept is selected and justified using trade study techniques. The second key activity is the programming of transportation projects which identifies those transportation projects that will be funded in the short term in a region or a state.
CONTEXT
INPUT Sources of Information	·        Goals, objectives, and initial scoping of regionally significant Systems.  ·        Transportation planning documents such as a metropolitan transportation plan, TSMO plan, or regional ITS architecture
PROCESS Key Activities	·        Perform studies of regionally significant systems. ·        Program ITS projects as a part of overall regional (or statewide) transportation programming efforts.
OUTPUT Step Results	·        Study documentation that identifies alternative concepts and makes the business case for the project and the selected concept ·        Programming documentation (TIP or STIP)

 

Overview

This step addresses two key activities that occur between operations planning described in the past step and the steps for the development of a single project.  For major deployments in a region, project scoping studies, either as a feasibility study or concept exploration, may be needed in order to decide the type of projects to be developed.  These efforts analyze alternatives for a system so that the alternative can be selected that best meets the needs and/or requirements over the full system life cycle at the lowest “cost”. Considerations in this analysis can involve technology impacts, economic impacts and/or policy impacts.

The second key activity of this step is the programming of ITS projects.  Regional programming and agency capital planning (a.k.a. budgeting) involve identifying and prioritizing transportation projects, including ITS projects, resulting in funded projects. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a phased, multiyear, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Like the MTP, the TIP is the financially constrained mechanism that assigns federal funding to a prioritized list of specific projects to be constructed over a several-year period (federal regulations require a 4 year minimum for the TIP) after the program’s approval. The TIP is considered the near-term “project implementation” mechanism of the MTP. A TIP that covers a state, rather than a region, is called a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

Risks to be Managed

Risk of picking the wrong system approach. Systems may be deployed in different ways to satisfy the same objectives. But which way is best?  A wrong approach to the deployment of a system could result in higher deployment costs, life cycle costs, schedule impacts or other unintended economic or policy consequences. Depending on the type of system, this risk could be technical, institutional, scheduling, or funding related.

Risk of limited funds not addressing regional priorities. Programming defines what transportation projects will be funded in the near term. Because funding is limited, regions need to ensure that the highest priority projects are funded.  Programming uses a prioritization process to identify the set of projects to be funded, and without this process a region would run the risk of regional priorities not being properly addressed. 

Activities

Perform studies of regionally significant systems

Project scoping studies should identify alternative architectures, and identify the “best” architecture based on analyzing the full system life cycle and perhaps the impact of the alternative approaches on other existing or future systems in the region.

The subset of regional ITS architecture used as part of the ITS planning process can be used as input to any necessary project scoping activities, such as a feasibility study, since it identifies the current and expected future deployment of ITS in a region. A feasibility study is a tradeoff study between competing architectures that analyzes the predicted costs and benefits on one or more stakeholder needs by a proposed ITS investment. In this way alternatives can be objectively considered and ranked, and then the “best” system architecture chosen for the deployment of the system

The selected system concept or approach can then be fully documented in a project Concept of Operations report (see Section 3.3.5 ).

The scoping study process is an opportunity to analyze in more detail the options and associated implications for an ITS system. Because technologies (e.g. data processing and data communications options) are evolving so quickly, it makes sense to defer these analyses until as late as possible in the system development process.  Hence this process is distinct from the Regional ITS Operations Planning process, which might be conducted years before a specific ITS system is programmed and initiated through a specific project. Further, because of the large time lag that might separate the Regional ITS Operations Planning process and the individual ITS project development, the Regional process is generally technology neutral, and the project processes are technology specific. The scoping study process is where the suitable architecture is selected when there is a choice of competing technological approaches for a specific project.

For example, consider a system that involves using machine vision to read license plates in electronic toll collection. The machine vision algorithm receives the video image of the vehicle from a camera, and provides the most likely sequence of characters representing the vehicle license along with the state/province of the license tag or other image attributes useful in verifying the tag ID. A study might consider where to locate the machine vision algorithm. Should it be located in a conventional computer located at the customer service center supporting multiple lane cameras, or should it be located in the individual cameras themselves (i.e. “edge computing” technology). Both approaches have unique advantages and disadvantages (how much computing power you can affordably fit in a camera vs how much data you need to send from the camera to the Customer Service Center). Conducting an objective trade study might be used to select the technical approach that meets all the objectives at the lowest cost including consideration of risks and costs associated with each approach.

Other trade studies might consider different approaches in the context of relevant policy considerations (e.g. availability of right-of-way, availability of communications bandwidth, and performance capabilities to support future project functional requirements). For example, the service Transit Signal Priority (TSP) can be implemented in one of two ways:

1.       Vehicle-to-Signal (V2S) Communication Method:  Buses communicate directly with signal controllers over a short-range communications channel (could be an optical, infra-red, or a line-of-sight radio channel) when they approach an intersection to request a signal priority cycle for the turning movement the bus is planning. This method has been used for many decades, but requires special hardware in each bus and special hardware in each controller for each intersection to communicate directly with the busses.

2.       Center-To-Center (C2C) Method:  The transit management center is tracking the bus using an AVL (Automated Vehicle Location) service, and the transit management center notifies the traffic management center (using C2C communications) when a bus is approaching that is behind schedule. The traffic management center then can communicate with its signal to select the appropriate priority cycle for the bus’s expected turning movement.

The C2C method may have the advantage of requiring very little additional investment in field and vehicle hardware, IF a transit AVL system is already deployed AND if all the signals in the transit agency’s jurisdiction are already under central (e.g. “closed-loop”) signal control by the traffic management center. Also, the AVL and centrally managed signal control systems should be very reliable.

The V2S method might have the advantage if this TSP project is an extension of an existing V2S TSP system (for example, if the transit agency is adding a new Bus Rapid Transit line (BRT) to a system that already has three BRT lines using V2S based TSP. In this case there is a large legacy investment already in place using DSRC based TSP, and only a small number of intersections need to be additionally provisioned with the V2S TSP technology. Other benefits to consider are that the agencies involved may already know how to operate and maintain the legacy V2S based TSP technology.

In this example, the Operations Planning System Study would consider all the issues associated with the TSP options, and select the option that gives the objective benefits to the agency at the lowest cost.

Project scoping studies are examples of Trade Studies.  Section 3.4.5 provides additional information about the steps involved in these studies.

When a feasibility study is conducted, the feasibility study report should document:

• The alternatives considered.
• The criteria used to score the alternatives
• Any assumptions made about costs, other project investments, the environment, policies, etc.
• The ranking of the alternatives based on the results of the criteria analysis
• Identification of the selected alternative.

Programming ITS Projects

Programming is the identification of transportation projects that are funded in the near term and is the key planning activity that assigns funding to projects and authorizes these projects to commence, based on the year by year allocation of funding.  The TIP (or STIP) provides a listing of all the transportation projects that are approved in a region (or a state) that use funds either from the federal government or from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).  Some areas of transportation are funded through capital plans (e.g. tolling systems or public safety).  While their programming happens outside of the TIP/STIP process, a capital planning process at these agencies accomplishes a similar outcome of defining projects that are funded for development.

 

Each MPO/ state agency has its own process for the development of the TIP/STIP, which is guided by the FHWA regulations for Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming, 23 CFR 450 subpart C.  Section 450.326 defines the Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP:)  The MPO, in cooperation with the State(s) and any affected public transportation operator(s), shall develop a TIP for the metropolitan planning area. The TIP shall reflect the investment priorities established in the current metropolitan transportation plan and shall cover a period of no less than 4 years, be updated at least every 4 years, and be approved by the MPO and the Governor. However, if the TIP covers more than 4 years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years as informational.

 

ITS projects (those that are uniquely ITS and those that have some aspects which are ITS) are programmed along with non-ITS projects as a part of each region’s programming process.  A key aspect of the programming process is the prioritization of projects for funding.  Each region defines the specifics of this prioritization process.  In some regions, there are aspects of ITS projects (e.g. how they relate to the regional ITS architecture, how they address regional objectives) that impact the prioritization of the projects relative to other capital projects.  A suggestion is to review the regional (or statewide) prioritization process to understand how to define (or improve) the prioritization of ITS related projects. 

 

Tailoring this Step

For project scoping studies, the level of the activity should be appropriately scaled to the complexity of the system being studied.  On one hand, for small projects that have widely known capabilities [e.g., signal systems, CMS, and CCTV], a qualitative comparison with a limited number of alternatives might be appropriate. 

If the operational system will be significantly different from the one it replaces or it depends the following:

·        Significant operational changes

·        increased inter-agency coordination

·        a new set of unique needs

In these types of projects, alternatives analysis may need to be explored in more detail.

This activity may also be dictated by state or regional reporting requirements. For example, a Feasibility Study Report (FSR) must be approved by the State of California for ITS projects with IT components.

Regarding the programming activities, as mentioned above, a key aspect of tailoring is the requirements of the region (or state) for defining projects and for prioritizing projects relevant to their ITS components.  

Policy or standard for process step

The FHWA Regulation requires identifying the portion of the regional ITS architecture being implemented, identifying participating agencies, defining requirements, and analyzing alternatives.

Some states have documented requirements specifically for IT projects. In California, SAM 4819.35 [6/03] requires an FSR for all state IT projects except those with low costs or for acquiring microcomputer commodities.

Traceable Content

Some of the artifacts determined by the Operations Planning System Study process are identified in Table 2 with their backward and forward traceability. Forward traceability to project needs and requirements will be discussed in the next two sections.

Table 2: Project Identification and Scoping Traceability

Traceable Artifacts	Backward Traceability To:	Forward Traceability To:
System alternative selected.   TIP/STIP	Operational planning outputs	Project Planning

Checklist

The following checklist can help answer the question “Are all the bases covered?” once the activities above have been planned or performed.  The checklist is not sufficient by itself.

For project scoping studies:

R  Is there a validated statement of vision, goals, and objectives?

R  Have constraints been collected from all key stakeholders?

R  Have the evaluation criteria in comparing alternatives been selected, validated, and documented?

R  Is there a comprehensive list of candidate solutions, both technical and procedural?

R  Is there a comprehensive and varied list of alternative concepts?

R  Is the "Do Nothing" case one of the alternatives?

R  Has the comparison approach been documented and validated?

R  Has the selected concept, and the rationale for its selection, been documented; and has it been reviewed by the stakeholders?

R  Does the documentation satisfy relevant reporting standards, if any, for example, for a Study Report if required by the state?

R  Do the conclusions and recommendations flow in a clear and defensible manner from the needs, alternatives selection, and analysis?

 

For Programming (of ITS projects):

R  Are ITS projects identified in the TIP (or STIP) project list?

R  Have regional TIP requirements been addressed in creating the information for each project (including identification of ITS aspects of project if that is a part of the requirements)

R  Has relevant information from the regional ITS architecture been included in the project information in the TIP (if this is one of the regional requirements)?

R  Are capital projects that include ITS elements identified in the project list?