Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations (2020)

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.

128 APPENDIX C: CONNECTED VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENT COST SHARES FROM SELECT PILOTS AND PROJECTS Table C.1 presents the data from the 10 pilot, test bed, and project sites examined for cost information by cost category. Like the expert judgment analysis, the table presents the cost information as estimated percentages of each cost component to an overall V2I deployment project, particularly to examine the cost share of components with the most investment risk (such as RSUs), and the share of those with the least risk or that can provide benefits in other ways.

129 Table C.1. Cost Allocations for CV Deployment Pilots and Projects

130 Notes for Table C.1. Note 1: RSUs Georgia: Includes: Pilot Phase = 54 intersections, Phase 2 (initial) = 600 intersections; does not include Phase 2 (remainder) = 1,050 intersections; Planning and design costs cover the full 1,700- intersection deployment Marysville: Hardware only; does not include design, deployment, integration, and testing. Note 2: Other ITS Equipment Marysville: Includes thermal cameras; does not include CCTV equipment. Note 3: Backhaul Network Ann Arbor: Does not include fiber ring upgrade performed by the City, not related to CV deployment; does not include previous cost of 3-year Safety Pilot Model Deployment or upgrade costs. Columbus: IPv6 upgrade provided as a monthly cost; SCMS cost under NDA. Maricopa County: Does not include IPv6 upgrade and SCMS identified as future upgrades. Marysville: Hardware only; does not include design, deployment, integration, and testing. Wyoming: No fiber backhaul along I-80; communication includes WYOLINK (radio), WiFi, cellular, satellite. Note 4: Back Office / TMC Columbus: Included in CV platform cost. Note 5: CV Platform and App Ann Arbor: Does not include investment in prior 3-year pilot. Columbus: Platform cost is 3-year contract value for city-wide data management platform for all Smart Columbus; transportation projects (does not include CV analytics). Maricopa County: Prior shared investment in development of MMITSS through CV Pooled Fund Study ($3.5 million) not included. Marysville: Cost not reported; estimated by research team. Note 6: Other Costs Ann Arbor: Includes fees paid to pilot participants and management costs. Marysville: Costs covered at the state level and not included. Note 7 Ann Arbor: Cost are for a 3-year pilot; $1.2 million per year O&M not included.

131 A comparison of the existing deployments’ cost shares and the expert judgment presented in Table 12 finds some agreement between the two. The following conclusions can be drawn. • The cost of RSUs is a comparatively small portion of observed early investments and is in line with the expert judgment’s figure of 15 percent. This agreement is roughly indicated by the Ann Arbor Connected Vehicle Environment, Columbus’s Connected Vehicle Environment once accounting for prior investments in fiber backhaul, Minnesota’s Connected Corridor, and by several other projects that are within 50 percent of the 15 percent metric. • Existing deployments are in relative agreement with expert judgment for CV platform and application development. Expert judgment estimated this cost share to be 25 percent, and approximate agreement is seen with the Smart Columbus Connected Vehicle Environment, Georgia’s SPaT deployment in Atlanta, Marysville Smart Mobility Corridor, Minnesota’s Connected Corridor, and Utah’s second investment in TSP when accounting for prior investments. • Inclusion of the (sometimes substantial) cost of OBUs is an area of divergence. Because of their pilot nature, many of the select early projects require outfitting agency fleet or public participant vehicles with this equipment because they are not yet standard OEM equipment. The expert judgment cost allocation, however, does not account for OBU equipment because it is assumed to be an external project cost, i.e., vehicles come equipped separately. Among near term CV infrastructure deployments beyond the pilot setting, equipping public agency fleet vehicles will still be an expected cost, but not public participant vehicles. The inclusion of OBU costs naturally reduces the cost share of other project components, especially for projects with significant OBU deployment, such as Smart Columbus, the Marysville Smart Mobility Corridor, and the Wyoming I-80 CV Pilot. • This OBU cost share for many of the pilot projects may help explain the relatively lower values for other investments like signal controller upgrades, other ITS equipment, and back office/TMC upgrades, which expert judgment placed at 10 percent, 10 percent, and 14 percent, respectively. Most pilots indicated signal controller upgrade cost shares of less than 10 percent. Other ITS equipment and back office upgrades were often not indicated as a cost component of pilot projects, perhaps because of a combination of the unique nature of pilot projects not requiring or accounting for such upgrades and the difficulty of isolating and accounting for those costs. • The cost of upgrades to backhaul networks diverges between expert judgment and examination of pilot projects. While expert judgment estimates this cost share to be 10 percent, this number can vary considerably. The cost may be near zero where a backhaul communication network already exists (especially in urban areas) and any connections to CV infrastructure and other newly installed ITS equipment is a comparatively small cost or accounted for elsewhere in a cost allocation. On the other hand, new backhaul installation costs can be significant and vary widely depending on geography and ROW availability and access. Newly installed fiber at the Anthem CV Test Bed in Maricopa

132 County and a prior investment in the urban environments of Columbus and Salt Lake City are large cost shares. Therefore, a wide cost range for backhaul upgrades must be considered. Nonetheless, investments in wireline communications (fiber or copper) have low financial risk because they are not directly affected by communication technology and market penetration, and several other services can capitalize on fiber investments.