Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 128
128 APPENDIX C Validation Report
OCR for page 129
129 TABLE OF CONTENTS 130 Overview: Validation Report 130 Background 130 Objectives 130 Methodology 130 Validation Task Findings 131 Feedback on Navigating through the Wiki 131 Page-Specific Feedback 131 Front Page 131 Overview Page and Sub-pages 132 Guidance for Transit Managers 132 Approach to Business Case Methodology Pages 132 System Engineering 132 EA/EAP 133 About the Project/Survey Results 133 Glossary 133 Access and Control of Wiki Site 133 Other Feedback 134 Summary of the Validation Research and Recommendations for Improvements 134 Recommendations for Improvements 135 Recommendations for the Wiki Operations and Maintenance 135 Appendices 135 Appendix A: General Facilitation Guide 137 Appendix B: EA/EAP Focused Facilitation Guide 138 Appendix C: Validation Workshop Invitees and Attendees
OCR for page 130
130 Overview: Validation Report insights about the selected topics. The general facilitation guide is included in Appendix A and the EA/EAP focused Background guide is included in Appendix B. The Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework · Transit agencies were selected and invited to participate project seeks to provide transit agencies with a roadmap, based in the teleconference workshops. Some participants were on a Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) from transit agencies that currently have a very basic IT/ITS Framework, to successfully implement Information Technol- planning methodology and some participants were from ogy (IT) and ITS technologies that meet their business needs. agencies that are more experienced with formal planning The draft guidance on the Framework topics was incorporated processes and systems engineering practices. Some people into a wiki site. who were interviewed in prior tasks were invited to partic- The Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) ipate in these teleconferences. In addition, personnel who Framework wiki was developed to facilitate access to informa- were new to the project and the framework were also invited tion about the Framework elements, and their tools, references, and included in the Workshops. Appendix C contains tables examples, and relationships to other Framework elements. that list the transit agencies that were invited to participate Since the various elements of the Framework are related and in the workshops and the individuals who participated in inter-linked to maximize their benefits, the hyper-linked the workshops. structure of wiki is well suited for finding information quickly, · Three workshops were designed and conducted. The work- helping understand relationships among elements, and moving shops were conducted as teleconferences using the www.goto between topics efficiently. meeting.com meeting tools, which allowed the Facilitator The wiki is designed for transit industry managers and to guide the participants through the wiki. staff that are involved in planning, funding, implementing or · Two 75-minute workshops, conducted on June 16th and assessing IT/ITS projects. A subsection of the wiki is designed June 22nd, 2009, followed the general facilitation guide. specifically for transit managers. Project managers and staff will A 90-minute workshop, which focused on EA/EAP was also find useful information in the section for transit managers. conducted on June 24th, 2009. In addition, several transit This Task 8 research validation effort focused on obtaining agencies that were invited were later contacted for feedback, stakeholder feedback on multiple facets of the Framework after they called and apologized for not being able to attend and EA/EAP guidance and tool concept. the workshops. · Project team members debriefed on the workshops and Objectives developed key findings for improving the wiki, guidance and tool suite. The findings are incorporated into this The primary research goal for this research validation task Validation Report. was to obtain customer feedback on the TEAP Framework and guidance (Task 4 deliverable) and EA/EAP Guidebook and tool suite (Task 7 deliverable). In addition, the following Validation Task Findings Validation Workshop objectives were developed: Feedback from the webinars is included in the sections · Introduce the draft TCRP project content and the new draft below. The feedback falls into several categories: presentation format · Obtain feedback on the "wiki approach" for presenting the · Navigability and layout · Content of topics and pages information · Obtain feedback on the content and recommendations on · Access and control other materials to add · Other feedback · Obtain feedback on how the wiki content might be managed and how content might be "quality-controlled" (i.e., what Each section cites general statements and specific comments sections should be open to anyone to add/edit?) made by webinar participants. Although the general sentiment was positive, the comments varied by the level of technical expertise of the speaker. So when relevant, the feedback indi- Methodology cates the background of the commenter. The validation research methodology activities included In the invitation to participate, invitees were asked to spend the following: some time reviewing the site prior to the workshop. In half the cases, participants complied with the request. Some of the · Two facilitation guides, one general and one focused on differences in the feedback can be ascribed to the familiarity EA/EAP, were designed to trigger valuable discussion and of the participant with the site.
OCR for page 131
131 Feedback on Navigating through the Wiki wordy, and it needs to engage transit professionals more effectively. Participants made these comments: Several Workshop discussion questions elicited feedback on the presentation of the material. With respect to navigation, · The Front Page needs to establish credibility for the site. open ended questions were asked of the webinar participants · The Front Page needs to invite people into the wiki to solicit their initial experience with the various buttons and · It needs to make a good first impression and tell the reader, pages that were available for revealing the site's organization "Why should I be interested in this and what the main and links to different areas of the wiki's content. Following the topics are." The first page does say what the key topics are, questions, the Workshop facilitators showed the participants but parts of the page are too wordy. the links, training sections, and pages that help traverse the · Bring them in with leading questions. Use short questions wiki. The responses to these questions were mixed. Several to hook them . . . Would you build a house without plans? . . . participants thought the web site was laid out in a well orga- Are you tired of failed IT projects? . . . or Here is a method nized manner, others thought they needed more direction to to manage . . . get to topics of their interest. · Maybe say there are "Top ten transit" issues for transit executives · "The wiki is very intuitive to use, well laid out, clean. I like · Consider splitting the page into two pages or splitting the the Navigator, had no trouble finding stuff." (from a wiki bottom of the Front Page into two boxes, where one focuses user and CIO) on the benefits of the wiki to the reader and the other high- · Put the "How to navigate the wiki into the Navigator" lights the content areas [Note: We can't do this unless we make a special folder for · Words by themselves don't attract transit managers, add navigating through wiki] more pictures · A new user asked, "Where do I start if I have a project and · It can't start too technical I want to find information on it?" · Many participants agreed they would click the Overview · "The structure for organizing the material is good." link on the Front Page first. · "I really like that it is searchable." · An interviewee said, "It would be great if there was a graphic that was consistent throughout the site that showed where Overview Page and Sub-pages you were in the grand scheme of the wiki. Maybe use the Several questions were asked about the placement, content circle diagram and have the subarea in color or marked and presentation of the Overview and sub pages. The diagram differently." showing the TEAP Framework (Figure 2) was highlighted · Side Bar: Several reviewers mentioned that they prefer the to show how the different Enterprise Architecture and IT/ITS side bar on the left because the right hand side is generally Planning and Management elements inter-related. The name considered the area for advertising. of the Framework (e.g., TEAP) is still confusing to the major- ity of reviewers and there were some suggestions to change Page-Specific Feedback the name of the Framework to also emphasize the system management processes (BCM, Systems Engineering, post- Feedback was sought about each of the major sections of the implementation analysis) rather than exclusively on the enter- wiki, and targeted a diverse range of pages. Discussion focused prise architecture processes. particularly on the Front Page, the Guidance for Transit The comments that emerged from these sets of questions Managers, Overview, Business Case Methodology, EA/EAP included: Guidebook, and FAQ section that contains the Glossary/ Acronyms. The feedback as if they did not have a guide to · The group agreed on the placement of the Executive explain the purpose or content of the page. Then the parts Summary. of each section were described and additional feedback was · The level of detail and content seemed appropriate in the solicited. Executive Summary · One participant wanted to know "Why are those the five concepts in the TEAP?" because the name TEAP, Transit Front Page Enterprise Architecture and Planning, could lead a person The Front Page elicited the strongest reaction from most to believe that the project was only on transit EAP. They Workshop participants. As one respondent said, "The Front didn't understand why BCM and systems engineering, Page needs to establish credibility for the site." The page is too etc., were included, given the project name. (Note: maybe
OCR for page 132
132 the project should be named TEA-IP Framework for Transit System Engineering Enterprise Architecture and IT/ITS Planning Framework.) The System Engineering section was only briefly shown. · One individual wanted to make sure that the wiki says that It elicited very positive feedback; one person said, "I like how doing IT/ITS projects in an isolated or stove-piped manner activities are written out. It gives managers a step by step doesn't work for Transit any more. process to follow." We received an email from a transit pro- · Regarding Figure 2: Transit Enterprise Architecture and fessional (who was invited, but unable to attend) who said he Planning Framework, had already used the Systems Engineering section of the wiki Make items in the diagram clickable. to help him write a Concept of Operations. Provide definitions of the items in diagram. Provide explanation of the solid and dotted lines. Make sure reader doesn't think this is the EAP diagram EA/EAP for transit, it's a bigger Framework, with funding, BCM, An entire 75 minute workshop was devoted to review the SE, etc. added. Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Guidebook Looks at projects in the context of architecture and Tools section of the wiki. The workshop respondents · One comment was made about IT Governance, that the were very positive about the EA/EAP section, impressed with community of EAP practitioners often viewed it as a three- the details, examples, scope of topics, while simultaneously dis- legged stool (Project Management Office, Capital Planning appointed that it did not include more (prescriptive) guidance, and Investment, and EAP). The overview section has a examples, and detailed models. The comments included: discussion of IT Governance based on a model from the IT Governance Institute, which is not inconsistent with that · I want this section to say how to do the AS-IS viewpoint, but it uses somewhat different vocabulary at the · "I don't want to have to create my own EA for my agency higher levels. from scratch, when other agencies are working on theirs · Use of more graphics and pictures would be good. as well. Examples or a general template would be really helpful." Guidance for Transit Managers · "It's very good to see how other agencies do things." · "Would like to see some future or "to-be" enterprise archi- The content of Guidance for Transit Managers received very tectures to help people see where they want to go." positive feedback. Several senior transit managers who attended · Need to get business managers to the discussion table on the workshops or were interviewed gave the section high marks this topic. for clarity, organization and brevity. · EA and these disciplines are "complex and difficult work". The wiki helps point us to resources. However, it cannot · Level of detail looks about right do the work. People need to know that it is difficult to start; · "Checklist approach works for me" agencies are missing long range business planning. They · "It's very powerful to relate investments to goals." won't realize they need this until they fail and "then realize they need a process . . . don't get tied up in how to [help Approach to Business Case Methodology Pages people] adopt [use of] this until they need it." · Someone asked, "Where should Data Standardization The pages associated with the Business Case Methodology information be located?" were shown as a template for the five Framework elements. · Expand the information in the yellow highlighted areas Workshop respondents liked the content, structure of the · Who should be the authority on EA/EAP guidance? "A group material, and resources. In particular, they liked the worksheets of legitimate thought leaders need to go through a process and papers that were stored on the site. One participant indi- to build a model and guidance that works across transit. cated that the pages should further address: Then they need to agree to abide by it. Filling in the boxes is not as key as deciding what the boxes are." · "[W]ho should participate in BCM" to build a project · Schedule an open meeting of the community to refine the team, develop trust among the team members, visualize EA model. "People from the major transit agencies should what the project is about, create "organizational learning", get together to hammer out the hard questions" related to bring in diverse perspectives that will execute projects developing a transit EA model. (not just the financial perspective). Make sure it addresses "Need to determine the goal or purpose of a Transit EA. project management--who is in charge? Who is responsible? For the Federal Government, it was to eliminate over- (if it's not already described in the wiki). lap, which may not be the primary goal of transit."
OCR for page 133
133 "Tracking how things relate to each other in transit is · "Could be open to spam if it's not controlled" currently done ad hoc." · Need someone to closely manage the site if anyone can · "The Transit EA can be developed in slices." change the pages and control it closely for 6 months to see how usage occurs. · Don't know if it will become overwhelming with people About the Project/Survey Results adding more information Feedback from a follow-up interview indicated that it was · "I like the Add a Comment. Then have the comments edited not easy to find the survey results. by an administrator" Also, in the Survey Methodology section, it was sug- · Overall the group agreed items submitted should be mod- gested that the table be clear about the topic areas. They did erated in all areas of the site. not want to reader to think that the presence or absence of a check mark reflected on how well an agency did in that Site Credibility topic area. The access and control questions led to questions about how to ensure site credibility. Some respondents recommended Glossary that the sponsoring agency should brand the homepage. Others suggested that the site would speak for itself and that The glossary was cited as an important help-aid to the site. the site managers should not be listed. Specific comments included: · It was suggested that the Glossary link be put by the Site Site Committee Map link. The respondents of the workshops suggested that a group · Remove the extra lines in the Glossary [this was done soon of people need to manage the wiki. One person proposed a after the comment was made] group of three people. · Add a paragraph at the top of the page explaining how to add to the Glossary. Other Feedback Access and Control of Wiki Site Other feedback was collected that was related to next steps. The comments covered topics such as publicizing the wiki, A wiki allows any authorized user to add and modify any improving the site, completing the site, etc. The specific feed- page in the wiki. Each webinar included a question on whether back is grouped in the sections below. the wiki should be open to editing by anyone or should be restricted to experts only. The consensus during the three webinars was to control access to the wiki, particularly to How should we get this to the right people? control who was allowed to add or modify the wiki material. Many respondents brainstormed about how to publicize They suggested that individuals be allowed to comment on a the existence of the wiki. The comments included: page in the comment section, but restrict editing functions to only authorized "experts" in order to ensure the credibility of · ITSC Newsletter. the site. · Create a buzz about the TEAP with the managers/top level · One respondent said her IT staff would not go to the EA/EAP section on their own, unless she directed them, Access to Modifying Content because it's out of their area of expertise. But it's of great A question was asked in all the workshops about who value to her as the IT Director. should be given access to modify or add to the wiki content. Specifically, the project researchers wanted to know if the site could be self-managing. The unified agreement was Need to Clean-Up Some Typos that it needed to be managed by one or more persons with Specific typos and misspellings were identified. These will be experience and expert credentials. Respondent's comments cleaned up before the commencement of the Phase II project. included: Specific typos include: · "Control Management is necessary" · On Checklist page, EA/EAP, last bullet under section start- · [Only] approved individuals should be allowed to add ing with "Foster the mindset . . ."; change "addresses" to comments in the comment field of appropriate pages "addressed"
OCR for page 134
134 · On BCM pages see header #4--fix caps identify new content and the importance of the modified or · In Acronym list TCO, not TCP added content. · (we need to see if wiki provides a spell-check tool) Use and/or Recommend Wiki? Is this a viable alternative to finding material in a report? Finally, workshop respondents were asked if they would A key question for the Researchers was on the "tool" recommend the wiki to colleagues and co-workers. The approach. The collaborative, web-based tool was the approach unanimous recommendation was YES! used to present the information. We wanted to understand "Yes, . . . because the vendors tend to drive things for the whether it was a good, effective and successful approach for smaller agencies. This puts information, issues and concerns presenting the Framework material. in front of key people . . . so they can make better decisions Most respondents said they would use the Wiki more than and provide better guidance." they would the official Report. In answer to whether a report "Yes, much of is better than what we tried to develop would be an alternative approach, one person said he would in-house to help with projects and training. It would be great use the Wiki for day-to-day usage, and only use the Report to think about this with respect to training and how to link when he needed to make a formal reference to it. The general from these general wiki pages to our agency specific procedures. reactions to the wiki included: We may also have a project, depending on timing, which might use this to build a business case. We would like to be · They like using the wiki because of the search ability and considered for Phase II." that it's not intimidating. "I've already been using the wiki and the information. It's · Having the material easily locatable across the pages and in wonderful, I liked its flexibility and how quick it was to find a "questions" format made the material less daunting and information." He would direct his different transit stakeholders more accessible to different parts of this site (e.g., his high level administrators, · Beneficial in a different way than a paper document operations staff, and his IT Staff). It has information for all, would be from "high to low level." · The wiki allows interaction and discussion among peers. · Liked the wiki because it is more interactive. A reader can Summary of the Validation go back and find references more easily, which is worth- Research and Recommendations while. for Improvements Maturity Levels As shown in the prior section titled, "Use and/or Recom- One respondent indicated that the material presents the mend Wiki?" reviewers liked and would recommend the site. information without discussing the different IT "maturity In fact, some are already using it. levels" throughout the industry. This respondent recom- mended that the wiki should acknowledge that different Recommendations for Improvements transit agencies are at different maturity levels. Specifically, "it would be nice if [the content] provided tailored guidance There were very good comments provided for improvements for different maturity levels." and changes to the web site. Some of them are highlighted Where it is appropriate, indicate what is a "must have" below as Project Team priorities: versus a "nice to have." · Change the TEAP Framework name to differentiate Enter- prise Architecture from the IT/ITS System Management Address Updating/Upgrading IT/ITS Systems planning elements. One respondent thought it would be nice if the wiki Change from TEAP to TEA-IP Framework addressed issues associated with how best to upgrade or update · Fix the Front Page to engage the Transit Professionals and existing IT/ITS systems. They indicated that not everyone make it easier to read would have the budget for new systems. · Add directed questions so Transit Staff looking for specific information can find it more easily. Wiki Upgrades · Add the Glossary to the Side Bar Feedback on how the wiki will change over time was also · Separate the collaborative pages in the Enterprise Architec- gathered. One respondent wanted to ensure that users could ture Guidebook from the guidance pages
OCR for page 135
135 · Complete the yellow highlighted sections of the Enterprise The Project Team (Nancy, Polly, Edward, Susan, Bruce) Architecture Guidebook The initial need in the industry that lead to the project · Add more resources to the EA Guidebook (note: this was The project--TCRP TEAP Framework Project the intention of the Phase II Work Plan) The Workshop Objectives (indicate that they should be · The Project Team would like to look for ways to strengthen on the screen) the connections or linkages between the sections so the Objectives: value of an integrated approach is very clear. Introduce the draft TCRP project content and the · Several transit agencies said they would be very happy to new draft presentation format contribute more examples and tools to the wiki site. This Obtain feedback on the "wiki approach" for presenting would be an easy way for the Project Team to improve the the information content, if we followed-up with the agencies. Obtain feedback on the content and recommendations on other materials to add Obtain feedback on how the wiki content might Recommendations for the Wiki Operations be managed and content be "quality-controlled" and Maintenance (What sections are open to anyone to add/edit?) There were some recommendations on how to move for- Workshop Protocol ward on engaging the transit community in the collaborative ask us to slow down if needed web site. These included: ask questions · · Give "read only" access to individuals (so they can comment Can you quickly tell from the home page what the wiki on a page, but not modify it) for at least the first six months. is about and who should use it? · Engage a group of transit professionals who are expert in Who do you think it is for? Who do you think might be one or more areas of the EA and IT/ITS system management interested in it? methods. What do you think a new viewer would think the site is about? Appendices to Appendix C There are several ways to navigate through the wiki, which approach would you use? Appendix A: General Facilitation Guide What is clear? What is confusing? · Objective: Explore some aspects of the site Facilitation Guide: TCRP Research Validation Did you locate and use the Side Bar? Any suggestions on Facilitator Guidelines improving its value? · Use an obvious, easy to track cursor symbol Is a Site Map important to you? Did you find the Site · Tell the participants where you are going next on the page Map? Where would you go looking for it? · Don't move too quickly between locations Go to Any feedback for us on the Site Map? · First answer most questions, such as, "Where is the info Look at Box Did anyone explore this on xxx?" with one of our own, such as, "Where would you wiki option? Was it useful? Explain Purpose. look for it? Or what would you call it?" Did anyone go to How to Navigate and Use this Wiki? · Note: signifies what page of the wiki is under Where would you look for that information? discussion. Go to Any comments on the material or anything to add? Facilitator's Agenda · (Optional) Have the early attendees fill out the following poll: Note: If they haven't spent much time on the site before the How much time did you have to review the wiki before workshop, maybe here we could quickly review for them how this workshop? they can get to the content via the site map, the side bar or the None front page and do a quick demo, including how to get back to the Less than 30 minutes home page each time. 30 minutes to an hour More than an hour Return to · Discussion Objective: Obtain feedback on the content Welcome everyone (start with the wiki page on the objec- and what else to add tives of the workshop) and Introduce: Will first talk about the managers section
OCR for page 136
OCR for page 137
OCR for page 138
OCR for page 139
136 Go to Explain Go to
137 Go to Give a Walk through pages and obtain feedback on usefulness quick tour through the 4 pages and improvements · Workshop Protocol · Understanding the What, Why, and Benefits of Post- ask us to slow down if needed implementation Analysis ask questions whenever you have one · Learning about Post-implementation Analysis Best Practices · Locating Additional Resources on Post-Implementation Go to Analysis · There are several ways to navigate through the wiki and get Transit Involvement with Wiki to the EA/EAP pages. Discussion Objective: Obtain feedback on how the wiki · Show 4 ways to get to the EA/EAP pages content might be managed and content be "quality-controlled" · 1--navigation bar (What sections are open to anyone to add/edit?) · 2--cover · 3--side bar · If this becomes an open site, where should the general · 4--site map public be allowed to make changes to the content? · How should the content be "quality controlled"? Go to Value and Use of Wiki · Point out format similar to the other topics · The big question: Is this a viable alternative to finding the Understanding the What, Why, and Benefits of a EA/EAP material in a report? Trade-offs? Learning about EA/EAP Best Practices (EA Guidebook) · If this site were available on the web, would you go back to Locating Additional Resources Related to EA/EAP it, and if so, what would you look for? · Would you be inclined to contribute to the site? General Questions About · Would you recommend it? If so, under what circumstances and to what kind of people? · Can you tell from this page what this section is about and who should use it? Terminate Workshop · Who do you think it is for? · Thank them for their assistance. · Who do you think might be interested in it? · Identify ways they can further provide feedback (email, call, · What questions have you or your colleagues wanted comment on site) Survey? answered about EA/EAP? What answer or help would you like to find in this portion of the wiki about EA or EAP? · How should the benefits be organized or categorized Appendix B: EA/EAP Focused Facilitation Guide to best attract the reader and help them see the value of an EA? Facilitation Guide for Enterprise Architecture TCRP Research Validation Learning EA Questions About Show Guidebook and Guidebook Navigation pages Note: signifies what page of the wiki is under discussion. · I've shown you one of many ways to organize the informa- Welcome everyone (start with the wiki page on the objec- tion and materials on EA and EAP. What changes to the tives of the EAP Workshop) and Introduce: organization or the section headings would help you find the material you need more easily? · The Project Team · Again, what information would you be looking for on EA · The initial need in the industry that led to the project or EAP in this website? · The project--TCRP TEAP Framework Project · What questions about EA and EAP would you want · The Workshop Objectives answered here? · Objectives · If you wanted to learn about EA/EAP or recommend a site Introduce the Enterprise Architecture Guidebook content for a colleague to learn about EA/EAP and presentation format Would you recommend this wiki? Which sections Obtain feedback on organization of materials might you suggest?
138 In what ways is it useful for learning about EA/EAP? Appendix C: Validation Workshop Invitees In what ways could it be improved? and Attendees · If you wanted to do a EA/EAP Would you use this site? Table 1 lists the transit agencies invited to participate in the In what ways is this site useful? validation workshops. The first column indicates the agencies In what ways could it be improved? What should be that were newly introduced to the project with the workshop added? invitation (they had not been interviewed during the project task to explore the State of the Practice). For some of the Walk through problem agencies, more than one individual in the organization was Ask for a question and walk through resources to see if we invited. Invitations were made by a phone call and by email. can answer the question. Participants in the June 16, 22, and 24 Validation Workshops are listed in Tables 2 through 4. In addition, a number of other Field Survey agencies contacted the project team members to provide Phase II mandate to work with transit agency to work feedback on the wiki, because they were unable to attend the with site. workshops. Table 1. List of transit agencies invited to the validation workshops. N=New Agency N Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA; Ann Arbor, Michigan) Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART; San Francisco, California) N Capital Metro in Austin N Central Ohio Transit Authority (Columbus, Ohio) N CDTA -Albany Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-Tran) N Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, Texas) N Denver RTD Hampton Roads Transit (Norfolk, Virginia) King County Metro (Seattle, Washington) Mike, WW, John N Long Beach N Long Island Railroad (LIRR) N Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority LYNX (Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority) MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority N Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston, Texas) Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) N New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (New York City) N NFTA N NJ Transit N PACE Paducah N Phoenix Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority (RIPTA) Riverbend TriMet (Portland, OR) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, Utah) SEPTA Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA; Wash, D.C.) Wichita Falls Transit System Iowa State Department of Transportation (IA) Kansas State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
139 Table 2. Webinar participants in the June 16, Table 3. Webinar participants in the June 22, 2009 workshop. 2009 workshop. First Name Last Name Organization First Name Last Name Organization Bob McMahan C-TRAN Peter Anderson City of Fort Worth Bruce Eisenhart ConSysTec David Sullivan Hampton Roads Transit Sarah Kaufman New York City Transit Edward Thomas Aegir Systems, Inc. Dennis McHugh City of Wichita, KS Shirley Hsiao Long Beach Transit Thomas Guggisberg Capital District Transportation Authority Robin Stevens Robin Stevens Consulting Doug Jamison LYNX Katherine Keller Central Ohio Transit Authority Shelley Johnson Sharp and Company Bruce Eisenhart ConSysTec Table 4. Webinar participants in the June 24, 2009 workshop. First Name Last Name Organization Jamey Harvey WMATA Katherine Keller Central Ohio Transit Authority Shirley Hsiao Long Beach Transit Lawrence Harman GeoGraphics Laboratory, BSC Shelley Johnson Sharp and Company Nancy Neuerburg N-Squared Associates
OCR for page 137
OCR for page 138
OCR for page 139