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 R1
TCRP
TRANSIT
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
REPORT 84
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
e-Transit: Electronic Business
Strategies for Public Transportation
Volume 9
Transit Enterprise Architecture
and Planning Framework
OCR for page R2
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
SELECTION COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
Keith Parker
VIA Metropolitan Transit CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
VICE CHAIR: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
MEMBERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
John Bartosiewicz
McDonald Transit Associates
Michael Blaylock MEMBERS
Jacksonville Transportation Authority J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Linda J. Bohlinger
HNTB Corp. Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Raul Bravo Norfolk, VA
Raul V. Bravo & Associates William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Terry Garcia Crews Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
Metro Cincinnati
Carolyn Flowers James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Charlotte Area Transit System Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Angela Iannuzziello Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort
ENTRA Consultants Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
John Inglish
Utah Transit Authority
Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence
Paul Jablonski Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
Sherry Little Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA
Spartan Solutions, LLC Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Jonathan H. McDonald
HNTB Corporation Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Gary W. McNeil Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
GO Transit Atlanta, GA
Michael P. Melaniphy David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Motor Coach Industries
Bradford Miller Lawrence A. Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA
Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Frank Otero Lafayette, IN
PACO Technologies Thomas K. Sorel, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul
Peter Rogoff
FTA Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of
Jeffrey Rosenberg Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
Amalgamated Transit Union Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Richard Sarles Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Michael Scanlon
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
San Mateo County Transit District
James Stem EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
United Transportation Union
Gary Thomas
Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
Dallas Area Rapid Transit J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
Frank Tobey Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
First Transit Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Matthew O. Tucker LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.DOT
North County Transit District
Pam Ward John T. Gray, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads,
Ottumwa Transit Authority Washington, DC
Phillip Washington John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Denver Regional Transit District Officials, Washington, DC
Alice Wiggins-Tolbert
Parsons Brinckerhoff David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
William W. Millar
APTA
Tara O'Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Washington, DC
TRB Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
John C. Horsley Homeland Security, Washington, DC
AASHTO Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Victor Mendez
FHWA U.S.DOT
Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Louis Sanders
APTA Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT
SECRETARY Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
Christopher W. Jenks U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
TRB
Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA
*Membership as of June 2011. *Membership as of June 2011.
OCR for page R3
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 84
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
AND
Susan Sharp
SHARP & COMPANY
Rockville, MD
Subscriber Categories
Public Transportation
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2011
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 84, VOLUME 9
The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project J-09/Task 13
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current ISSN 1073-4872
systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand ISBN 978-0-309-21331-8
service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve Library of Congress Control Number 2002112858
these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
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 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
to meet demands placed on it. 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
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report
published or copyrighted material used herein.
213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- 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
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes from CRP.
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,
NOTICE
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research
administrative practices.
Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- Governing Board of the National Research Council.
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho-
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the
Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development 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
Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but they are considered essential to the object of the report.
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-
Published reports of the
nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-
sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from:
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at
address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
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
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
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.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Gwen Chisholm Smith
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
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
OCR for page R8
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.
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
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
OCR for page R10
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.
