Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 84 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subscriber Categories Public Transportation e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public Transportation Volume 9 Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework Paula Okunieff Bruce Eisenhart CONSENSUS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION Shenorock, NY Nancy Neuerburg N-SQUARED ASSOCIATES Seattle, WA Edward Thomas AEGIR Ventura, CA A N D Susan Sharp SHARP & COMPANY Rockville, MD

TCRP REPORT 84, VOLUME 9 Project J-09/Task 13 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-21331-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2002112858 © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 84, VOLUME 9 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer Megha Khadka, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natassja Linzau, Editor TCRP PROJECT J-09 PANEL Field of Special Projects Paul A. Toliver, New Age Industries, Seattle, WA (Chair) Peter Anderson, Fort Worth City Government, Fort Worth, TX Robin Cody, SunRise Consulting, Concord, CA Raymond H. Ellis, AECOM, Arlington, VA Lawrence J. Harman, Harman Consulting, Boston, MA Jamey Harvey, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC Rosie Perez, Overtown Village Transit Center, Miami, FL Michael Shiffer, Translink (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority), Burnaby, BC Robin C. Stevens, Robin Stevens Consulting, Ltd., New York, NY Nigel H. M. Wilson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Mokhtee Ahmad, FTA Liaison Michael Baltes, FTA Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project J-09 Task 13 by Consensus Systems Technologies (ConSysTec), N-Squared Associates, AEGIR, and Sharp & Company. ConSysTec was the contractor for this project. Ms. Paula Okunieff of ConSysTec was the Project Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Nancy Neuerburg of N-Squared Associates, Bruce Eisenhart of ConSysTec, Edward Thomas of AEGIR, and Susan Sharp of Sharp & Company. As a project team, we can say with gratitude that without WMATA’s staff contribution and resources, this effort would be far smaller in scope, with fewer, less well-developed deliverables. WMATA, particu- larly Jamey Harvey, not only contributed their Enterprise Architecture Process (EAP) for reference, they also contributed their IT governance model, additional guidance, and the time and effort of both in-house staff and contractors to update and support the workshops. In large part, the benefits of the end product are due to their contribution. C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

TCRP Report 84: e-Transit: Electronic Business Strategies for Public Transportation docu- ments principles, techniques, strategies, and processes that are used in electronic business strategies for public transportation. TCRP Report 84 is being published in multiple volumes; Volume 9: Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework presents multi-faceted methods, tools and examples within a framework to help agencies successfully implement technologies. It helps show the connections between their business and the technology, assists with building the business case for specific investments, highlights different financing options, provides guidance on an enterprise-wide approach to create more efficient and effective system deployments, and provides a method to show the benefits of a technology investment. The report provides a framework that incorporates five systems management dis- ciplines: Enterprise Architecture Planning, Business Case Methodology, Systems Engineering, Financial Implementation Methods, and Post-Implementation Assessment. The Transit Enter- prise Architecture Planning (TEAP) Framework incorporates best practices in applying these disciplines from the transit industry practices as well as from other commercial and govern- ment sectors into an integrated approach to assist agencies in implementing information technologies (IT) and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies to better meet their business goals and objectives and operational needs. This report describes and provides guidance on how to implement the Framework. New information and communication technologies are revolutionizing the way services are delivered and organizations are structured. Electronic business processes change the ways organizations operate and conduct business. Opportunities to lower operations and mainte- nance costs and improve efficiency have changed relationships between transit agencies and their suppliers and customers, and electronic business processes are likely to change industry structures in the long term. The declining costs of communications, data storage, and data retrieval are accelerating the opportunities spawned by the Internet and other information and communications tech- nologies. Choosing and sequencing investments in technologies, processes, and people to reduce costs and increase productivity present challenges to the transit manager, who must weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of changing the ways services are delivered. To assist in meeting such challenges, TCRP Project J-09 produces a multiple-volume series under TCRP Report 84. The research program identifies, develops, and provides flexible, ongoing, quick- response research designed to bring electronic business strategies to public transportation and mobility management. Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning Framework is the ninth volume in the TCRP Report 84 multiple-volume series. In this volume, the authors from Consensus Systems F O R E W O R D By Gwen Chisholm Smith Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

Technologies, N-Squared Associates, AEGIR and Sharp & Co. describe the TEAP Frame- work. They drew from transit agencies and other government and commercial businesses that employ best practices, to develop this Framework that is applicable to transit agencies, large or small, and of different modes. The research team synthesized the information collected from a state of the practice scan, and developed a model for an effective and consistent approach to transit enterprise architecture planning (TEAP) that may be used by transit agencies to assist with many aspects of implementing technology projects. The report provides practical guidance, models, templates, and examples for large and small projects, simplifying the complex procedures related to the multiple stages of the tech- nology investment. The report includes materials targeted to different audiences including information that can be readily used by transit executives, senior managers and program managers in their IT and ITS planning and decision making. Volumes issued under TCRP Report 84 may be found on the TRB website at http://www. trb.org/Publications/PubsTCRPProjectReportsAll.aspx.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 1 Project Overview 2 Phase I Results 4 Phase II Results: Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit 7 Chapter 1 Introduction 7 Project Objectives 7 Transit Enterprise Architecture and Planning (TEAP) Framework Objectives 8 Final Report Scope 9 Chapter 2 Research Approach—Methodology 9 Phase I: Development of the TEAP Framework 10 Phase II: Reference Transit Enterprise Architecture Process 11 Chapter 3 State of the Practice 11 Summary of Results 11 Enterprise Architecture and Enterprise Architecture Planning (EA/EAP) 11 Business Case Methodology (BCM) 14 IT/ITS Funding Implementation 14 Systems Engineering (SE) 15 Post-Implementation Analysis (PIA) 17 Chapter 4 Development of the TEAP Framework 17 TEAP Framework Overview 20 TEAP Framework Wiki Overview 21 TEAP Guidebook 24 Chapter 5 Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit 24 Purpose of a Transit Enterprise Architecture Process Reference Model 24 Methodology Used to Develop the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit 25 What Is in the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit? 25 TEAP Metamodel Overview 25 Overview of the Reference Enterprise Architecture for Transit 28 TEAP Solutions for Fare Management 30 Chapter 6 Evaluation and Next Steps 30 Evaluation Phase Goal 35 Summary and Key Findings 36 Conclusion and Final Comments 37 References 38 Abbreviations and Acronyms

40 Appendix A Guidance for Transit Managers 49 Appendix B State of the Practice Synthesis 128 Appendix C Validation Report Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.