# Presentation: 792308

## Regional ITS Architecture Where We’ve Been & Where We’re Going:  Federal Perspective

- Jeff Lindley
- FHWA, Office of Transportation Management
- ITS America Annual Meeting – Phoenix, AZ
- May 2, 2005

## USDOT Federal Rule/Policy on Architecture and Standards Conformity 

- _Goal:_  Insure Federal funds are used to foster integration of ITS systems being deployed at the State and local level.
- _Requirements_:  State and local departments of transportation must develop a Regional ITS Architecture (RA) which conforms to the National Architecture, and use a systems engineering analysis for ITS project development
- _Implementation_:  FHWA Rule and FTA Policy effective April 8, 2005, although some project-level requirements became effective April 8, 2001.

**Notes:**
You’ve got a pretty good set of comments for this slide already, i.e. in 1998 in put a notice of proposed rulemaking out for comment, we had a 2 year time frame, should have been 5 years, etc.  Be clever and funny here.

## Slide 3

**Notes:**
Although the ultimate number changes, as of March 31, 2005, we were aware of 310 regional ITS architectures.  Of that number:

191 are ready for use

81 are still under development
55 are expected to be 
32 are to be completed after April 2005 with an understanding that no Federal funds can be used for ITS projects until their regional ITS architecture is ready for use
18 have not started yet

 There are a few areas that may have ITS programs impacted by not having their architectures complete by April.  We are working closely with those regions to make sure their architecture development continues smoothly.

## What We Have Learned So Far

- Federal regulations and policies can provide common definitions and goals for diverse regions
- Issues remain regarding implementation of 23 CFR 940 project requirements – we aren’t done!
- Technical elements of RAs are fairly complete
- Institutional elements of RAs still need more attention
- Institutional components are at heart of the Final Rule
- Documentation reflects an understanding of architecture content which has been focus of training and outreach over past 5 years

**Notes:**
We’ve attempted to make an institutional change through a technical regulation.  Although we still have some issues to resolve, we’ve shown that the architecture Final Rule has made an impact on ITS integration, and more importantly, how agencies think about ITS integration.  The same requirements are applicable to all agencies, regions, etc regardless of size or ITS implementation.  The difference being the level of detail needed.

Although we’ve made tremendous strides in developing regional ITS architecture, we aren’t done!  RA’s are only as valuable as they are useful, and if they aren’t used, then what have we done?  We still need to develop methods of use and ensure RA’s are kept up to date through a rigorous maintenance process.

In reviewing RA documents, we still find that the technical requirements, i.e. inventory, stakeholder descriptions, architecture flows, are fairly well documented.  We’ve also found that the institutional elements of the RA, i.e. the operational concept, agreements and project sequencing, are not as detailed as could be.  We anticipate that as the RA is used for ITS project developing and transportation planning purposes, the areas that need more detail to be fully useful will be enhanced through the RA maintenance process.

The documentation does however, reflect an understanding of the Final Rule, and its intent.  So we’ve deduced that our outreach and training over the past 5 years has been successful.  Again, we still have work to do, but we’re doing well. 

## Evidence of Success

- _Institutional_ – Baltimore, Maryland
- Regional ITS Architecture Stakeholder group became a permanent ITS Subcommittee, and considers other ITS deployment and improvements in the region
- _Planning_ – State of Florida
- The Department of Transportation has developed statewide “ITS Planning Guidelines” that clearly identify the Regional ITS Architecture process and products within traditional transportation planning
- _Project Development _– Phoenix, Arizona
- ITS projects identified in the RA successfully receive funding when compared to other traditional highway projects within the transportation planning process

**Notes:**
Some of the successes we’ve noted:

In Baltimore, the workgroup convened to develop the RA became a permanent ITS Subcommittee of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, the Baltimore MPO.  The stakeholder discussions were soon moving to other areas, not just architecture, and their usefulness convinced everyone to make the workgroup permanent.

Florida, understanding the full value of the RA, has incorporated it use in its statewide ITS planning guidelines.  For instance the guidelines recommend that MPOs add a step to consider ITS in all stages of the multi-modal transportation planning process; recognize and seize opportunities for including ITS as an integrated element with traditional infrastructure improvements; seek and encourage advocates for ITS; evaluate public involvement plans for application to disseminating ITS information; among other requirements.  

In Phoenix, a process was developed that evaluates ITS projects identified in the RA against traditional highway projects.  This process has been successful in in funding ITS projects, that may have not been funded in the past.

## Future of Regional ITS Architecture Implementation Program

- Change RA program focus from development to use and maintenance
- RA and the transportation planning process
- RA and ITS project development
- Systems engineering
- Continue direct technical assistance to public agency developers
- Support agencies developing RA
- Develop targeted “issue papers” i.e. RA and Work Zones; RA and Public Safety
- Collect and post best practices/examples
- Addressing RA “border” issues
- Addressing areas between RAs that weren’t previously covered

**Notes:**
For the past 5 years, the focus of the regional ITS architecture program has been on development.  Now that the Final Rule requirements are in effect, the focus of the RA program will be on RA use and maintenance.  While tools will still be available to those that need help developing their RA, most FHWA resources will be on using the RA in the planning process, using the RA in ITS project development, and an expanded systems engineering effort.

As part of the technical assistance program, we will be developing “issue papers” on targeted RA topics.  These will be short white paper type documents targeted by issue or audience.  For instance, we are looking for “RA and Work Zones,” and “RA and Public Safety” to be the first developed.  We will also continue to collect and share best practices and good examples and post them on the Architecture Implementation website.  

One of the new issues that has surfaced is the relationship between RA’s that “border” each other.  For instance, the relationship between statewide and regional ITS architectures, and nearby statewide architectures.  Also, needing to address areas that weren’t previously contained in RAs has developed into an issue that will be considered in the architecture implementation program. 

## Issues/Challenges

- Understanding Federal Field office expectations by State and local agencies
- Updating existing agreements/processes between Feds and State/locals
- Linking 23 CFR 940 with good SE processes
- Different level of capabilities at State/local level
- Lack of experience with RA use in project development
- Lack of experience with RA and transportation planning processes

**Notes:**
Now that the Final Rule has gone into effect, we’re seeing a whole new set of challenges and issues.  We’re hearing a concern from our State and local partners regarding what the FHWA Division offices are expecting from them to be compliant with the new regulation.  All I can say is that the requirements are spelled out in the Final Rule, and each Division office and the FTA, for that matter, will be working with their customers to interpret and provide guidance.  We all agree, however, that the first step in this process is to review the existing stewardship and operating agreements between the Feds and our customers to see what needs to be updated and/or revised.   Easier said than done, but we believe this is a necessary and vital first step.

In case you aren’t aware, the systems engineering analysis requirements of the Final Rule have been in effect since April 2001.  However, in our zeal to develop regional ITS architecture around the country, these requirements have not been a primary focus for either the State and locals or FHWA.  As I mentioned before, we will be expanding our systems engineering efforts in the future and linking 23 CFR 940 with good SE processes.  

We are also seeing differing levels of capabilities, i.e. comfort with both the architecture as well as systems engineering, at the State and local level.  Since the requirements of the Final Rule affect all agencies, regardless of current ITS investment, we need to be aware that not everyone is at the same comfort level.  We expect this to change as folks get more familiar with using their RA for planning purposes and ITS project development.

In the meantime, we will be working closely with our customers to gather their best practices and experiences and share them with others.

##      For More Information

- Architecture Conformity website: 	http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/its_arch_imp/index.htm
- National ITS Architecture website:  	http://www.its.dot.gov/arch/arch.htm

**Notes:**
The Architecture Conformity website has recently migrated to the Office of Operations website, and been updated with new material, including guidance and technical assistance.  You can access training, technical assistance and other resources you need through your Division office or this website.  Please visit often as we will be updating it frequently as we get information to share with you.  General information about the National ITS Architecture and the Turbo Architecture tool can be found at the National Architecture website also shown.

## Questions?