Evaluation of the ITS Planning Process

About the report:

Planning for the deployment of ITS in regions throughout the United States has been underway since the development of the Early Deployment Program by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1992. In 1993, the FHWA released Version 1.0 of the 1TS Planning Process, a systems planning process provided as a guide to those undertaking regional ITS planning efforts. The FHWA asked the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) to evaluate and revise Version 1.0 of the 1TS Planning Process as part of the early deployment planning project, COMPARE, in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The study team, which included researchers from the VTRC and Old Dominion University, carried out the following four tasks: (1) comparison of the 1TS Planning Process with other large scale systems planning processes; (2) interviews of participants in other early deployment planning projects in the United States; (3) participation in the COMPARE project; and (4) evaluation of the deliverables from COMPARE. The researchers recommended several revisions to the ITS Planning Process. The revisions reflect that fact that ITS planning needs to be integrated into the traditional regional transportation planning framework. The main emphasis of the revised process, Version 2.0, is that planning result in implementation. The major changes include the following: Replace the inventory with a "current assessment" element. Stress the need for a vision of the future regional transportation system. Insert steps to conduct an environmental scan and SWOT analysis. Emphasize the importance of beginning the process with a strong coalition that is constantly expanding. Add a step defining regional transportation goals. Map ITS user services into the regional transportation goals. Establish relatively simple measures for success for each prioritized user service. Stress the importance of defining system interface standards. Dedicate a large proportion of the work to the creation of the Strategic Deployment Plan, which should include alternative product packages based on various levels of funding and different partnership alternatives.

Authors