Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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.