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.

6 2 SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR CV INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BUSINESS CASE ANALYSES It is highly likely that vehicle connectivity may be ubiquitous in 20 years (NASEM, 2019). To address the evolving transportation landscape, DOTs must consider infrastructure investments to capitalize on the opportunities that CVs offer, while at the same time, changing the status quo with regard to the safety and mobility performance of their transportation networks. V2I applications enabled by CV infrastructure provide new tools in the toolbox for DOTs to consider in pursuit of their performance goals and objectives. Many such applications have been conceived and developed in literature and promise significant benefits to both DOT customers and internal DOT functions. After their initial experience with some of these applications in CV pilot and test beds activities, some DOTs are considering larger scale deployments. However, the path to larger scale investments must address a fundamental question: do public agencies need to make any investments in CV infrastructure to develop and implement V2I applications given the substantial role the private sector plays in the CV ecosystem (e.g., the private sector provides the CVs and roadside wireless communications infrastructure)? If such investments are warranted, which emerging candidate V2I applications must be prioritized and planned for in the next 5 to 10 years, what scale of investments is needed, and which of these investments should be advanced to a formal business case analysis? This chapter addresses V2I applications of potential interest to DOTs and the type and nature of public investments to be made in the next 5 to 10 years to operationalize them, their readiness for deployment, and the process to advance investment options to a business case analysis. Chapter 3 discusses how to construct business cases for candidate investment proposals. 2.1 V2I APPLICATIONS THAT MAY REQUIRE CV INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS The Connected Vehicle Reference Implementation Architecture (CVRIA) published by the USDOT ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) provides a comprehensive listing, a common language basis, and an architectural framework for several V2I and V2X connected vehicle applications (ITS-JPO, 2016). Several other literature sources including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Footprint Analysis (Wright et al., 2014), NCHRP 03-101 (Evans et al., 2014), Parikh et al. (2019), and the CAT Coalition (NOCoE, 2019) also discuss V2I and V2X applications that are of general interest to DOTs. V2I applications in literature are categorized into four primary areas of benefit: safety, mobility, environmental and operations support (e.g., infrastructure management, system monitoring). Table 2-1 lists more than 30 V2I and V2X applications identified from literature and maps their potential benefits to DOTs (and their customers), noting whether they are primary (P) or secondary (S). Two of these applications—Multi-Modal Intelligent Traffic Signal Systems (MMITSS) and Intelligent Network Flow Optimization (INFLO)—are “bundled” applications developed by the USDOT ITS JPO, which package more than one V2I application so the net benefit of the bundled application is greater than that of the individual application included in the bundle. Table 2-1 is not an exhaustive list of all possible V2I applications; it can be a considered an adequately representative list for the purposes of this guide. Observations regarding the data presented in the table are provided after the table.

7 Table 2-1. V2I Applications Requiring CV Infrastructure Investment V2I Applications External Benefits Internal Benefits Benefit Type Criticality of Wireless Communi -cations Mobility Safety Enviro. User Cost Avoid Agency Cost Avoid Improved Asset/ Fleet Mgt Revenue Source Curve Speed Warning P S Loc Safety Eco-Ramp Metering P P S Net Time Eco-Traffic Signal Timing P P S Net Time Electronic Toll Collection P P Loc - Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) P Net - Freight Drayage Optimization P S S Net - Freight Signal Priority (FSP; also eco-app) P P S Net - Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers (INC-ZONE) P S S Loc Safety Intelligent Traffic Signal System (I-SIG) P S S Net Time Intermittent Bus Lanes P Net Time In-vehicle Signage P Loc Time Low Emissions Zone Management P Net - Mobile Accessible Pedestrian Signal System (PED-SIG) P Net Safety Oversize Vehicle Warning S P S Loc - Pedestrian in Signalized Crosswalk Warning (PSCW) P Loc Safety Probe-based Vehicle Data for Traffic Operations S P Net - Queue Warning (Q-WARN) P S S Loc - Railroad Crossing Violation Warning (RCVW) P S Loc Safety

8 V2I Applications External Benefits Internal Benefits Benefit Type Criticality of Wireless Communi -cations Mobility Safety Enviro. User Cost Avoid Agency Cost Avoid Improved Asset/ Fleet Mgt Revenue Source Red Light Violation Warning (RLVW) P S Loc Safety Reduced Speed Zone Warning (RSZW) S P S Loc - Restricted Lane Warnings P S S Loc - Road Use Charging S P Loc - Road Weather Motorist Alert and Warning (and freight) P S Loc - Roadside Lighting P S S S Net - Smart Parking (travel info, eco application, park- and-ride) P P S Loc - Smart Roadside Initiative (electronic safety screening) P P S Loc - Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) P S S Net Time Stop Sign Gap Assist P Loc Safety Transit Signal Priority (TSP; also eco-app) P P S S S S Net - Transit Stop Request P Loc - Transit Vehicle at Station/Stop Warning P Loc Safety V2I Application DMA Bundles* Intelligent Network Flow Optimization (INFLO) P S S S Net Time Multi-Modal Intelligent Traffic Signal Systems (MMITSS) P P P S S S S Net Both P = Primary Benefit; S = Secondary Benefit Enviro. = Environmental Mitigation| User Cost Avoid = User Cost Avoidance | Agency Cost Avoid = Agency Cost Avoidance | Improved Asset/Fleet Mgt = Improved Asset/Fleet Management | Benefit Type refers to location-specific (Loc) or network-wide benefits (Net) | DMA = USDOT ITS JPO Dynamic Mobility Applications Program |* INFLO includes Q-WARN, SPD-HARM, and cooperative adaptive cruise control, which depends on a high-level of equipped vehicles | MMITSS includes EVP, FSP, I-SIG, PED-SIG, and TSP

9 • At the most basic level, benefits from the V2I applications listed in Table 2-1 can be categorized as external or internal to the DOT. o External or societal benefits result when improved service is directly provided to transportation system users in terms of safety, mobility (to include congestion relief), and asset condition. External or societal benefits also include environmental mitigation through sustainable strategy applications (e.g., Eco-Traffic Signal Timing). o Internal or agency benefits result from improvements in agency efficiencies related to infrastructure avoidable costs and improved agency asset and fleet management. These benefits also include revenue generation—directly from select applications such as road use charging, or indirectly such as transit signal priority (TSP) that improves transit service and increases ridership and fare box revenue. • As shown Table 2-1, benefits from V2I applications can also be categorized as location-specific or network-wide. o Applications providing location-specific benefits depend on installing CV infrastructure in specific locations and at scale based on the number of equipped system users who receive the information communicated from that location (e.g., often a warning message that could be related to a sharp curve, a stop sign, or an icy road condition). V2I applications that provide location-specific benefits focus on safety, mobility, and environmental benefits. o V2I applications providing network-wide benefits largely offer mobility (e.g., non- recurring congestion relief) and environmental benefits. These applications require a threshold number of CV infrastructure installation locations along a corridor (e.g., a set of signals), along a set of interconnected corridors, or across a region. Often a critical number of equipped system users (CVs or AVs) is also necessary for these V2I applications to deliver benefits. In addition, network benefits depend on combining information about the connected vehicle (speed, heading, and location) with other network information in DOT control (e.g., signal phase and timing, traffic probes, or work zone or special event information). Information collected from and transmitted to CVs passes through a centralized or regional hub (e.g., a Transportation Management Center or TMC) that aggregates and processes information from multiple systems in real-time (for time-critical applications) or near real-time. Network benefits contrast with location-specific benefits that accrue to individually equipped vehicles and do not require information about other vehicles’ performance characteristics. V2I applications primarily focus on improving safety or relieving congestion issues at specific locations (e.g., signalized intersections, work zones) and on arterials/arterial networks and freeways. Applications providing network-wide benefits are designed to combine information from CVs and other DOT-provisioned network information collected through roadside devices and sensors to deliver the benefits. They depend on DOT data to deliver the benefits; hence, DOTs interested in these benefits have a motivation to invest in them.

10 • As indicated in the last column of Table 2-1, more than half of the listed V2I applications depend on safety-critical or time-critical wireless communications. The criticality of communications refers to the speed with which information is exchanged between CVs or AVs and RSUs integrated with traffic control systems (e.g., signal controllers) and backhaul connections to TMCs. Some of the safety-critical V2I applications require high-speed, reliable, low-latency communications such as those provided by DSRC or C-V2X. Time-critical applications also need high-speed communications, but the latency requirements are less stringent (by at least an order of magnitude). These safety- and time-critical V2I applications strongly depend on CV infrastructure investment from DOTs as it relates to RSUs, central hub, network data management, and telecommunications infrastructure. They are some of the more expensive applications to deploy but, in return, offer the greatest benefit by saving lives and time. While V2I applications that are not time- or safety-critical (e.g., TSP) do not need high- speed, low-latency information exchanges, they will also benefit from such communications infrastructure and the supporting CV environment, if available. • Table 2-1 also indicates that most of the benefits accrued from V2I are network-wide mobility benefits (and the accrued secondary safety benefits from those). A European study (Asselin- Miller et al., 2016) concluded that reduced travel times as a result of increased network efficiency was the dominant contributor to the overall benefits accrued from V2I (or C-ITS as it is referred to in Europe) deployments. According to this study, network mobility benefits outweigh the safety-related benefits from V2I deployments by 3:1. Therefore, it follows that an important subset of V2I applications provide safety and mobility benefits to transportation system users, require DOT-provided network information to enable, and rely on time- or safety-critical communication infrastructure. DOTs interested in availing these benefits can shortlist and prioritize the applications of interest and examine the CV infrastructure needs to support them. 2.2 V2I APPLICATION DEPLOYMENT READINESS A precursor to shortlisting and prioritizing V2I applications of interest is to examine their readiness for real-world deployment. This section assesses readiness by examining the key CV infrastructure components required for any given V2I application and examining a current set of DOT pilot projects, test bed activities, and plans. 2.2.1 Assessing Readiness by CV Infrastructure Component Deployment readiness of an application depends on the availability of various components of the CV infrastructure environment required to support them. Figure 2-2 depicts typical CV infrastructure components and their relationships (CAT Coalition, 2020). Table 2-2 presents the key CV infrastructure components necessary to enable V2I applications, their current state of readiness, and their impact on CV infrastructure investment decision-making within the 5 to 10-year time frame of this report. Safety-critical and time-critical V2I applications depend on DOT investments in providing wireless communications technology in roadside infrastructure, central hub information technology infrastructure upgrades, and robust telecommunications infrastructure to provide safety and mobility benefits. The same infrastructure can support other V2I applications that do not require high speed, low latency information exchanges.

11 Source: CAT Coalition, 2020 Figure 2-1. Connected Vehicle Deployment Environment

12 Table 2-2. CV Infrastructure Components, Their Readiness Assessment and Impact on CV Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Key CV Infrastructure Component Readiness Level Observations Assessment of Impact on CV Infrastructure Decision-making in a 5- to 10-year Time frame Roadside Systems RSU radio transceiver technology for wireless communications with vehicles • DSRC-based RSUs that are brought into vehicles (as opposed to natively installed in vehicles by original equipment manufacturers [OEMs]), field-tested, and ready for deployment. • Dual channel RSUs that support DSRC and C-V2X are emerging but not fully tested. Safety- and time-critical V2I applications can be designed and implemented using DSRC technology today. Any investments made in RSUs using DSRC technology may be at risk and will need to be replaced. ASSESSMENT: A reasonable path forward would be to understand the cost impacts of DSRC-based RSU depreciation based on an expected time frame for market penetration of equipped vehicles with alternate technologies. These costs can then be considered as part of the financial analysis. A 10-year lifetime for RSUs is reasonable to assume. Another important consideration is to ensure that the deployed radio technology of today can be cost effectively swapped as alternate technology emerges. Traffic signal controllers (for signalized intersection applications) • Commercial equipment available to support the necessary information exchanges—signal phase and timing messages and storing the intersection geometry information. • Message sets exist based on DSRC technology. Allows signalized intersection applications to be considered for CV infrastructure investments. Network interface devices to receive and transmit information via backhaul communications to TMCs and back office systems • Generally ready, however, IP version 6 (IPv6) upgrades to the backhaul network might alleviate challenges related to implementing a SCMS. • Systemwide analysis and upgrades may be needed to improve performance and support of CV related features. Permits connections between roadside systems and other ITS network and TMC support systems. ASSESSMENT: An investment to modernize and upgrade related infrastructure will improve performance of network interface devices and must be considered as part of the costs of CV deployments. CV information message sets, i.e., the standard messages that must be • The message sets, their data frames, and data elements are defined by the SAE J2735 standard intended to be used with DSRC deployments. Examples of relevant V2I messages Data exchanges are defined adequately for V2I applications in current or planned use. Wireless

13 Table 2-2. CV Infrastructure Components, Their Readiness Assessment and Impact on CV Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Key CV Infrastructure Component Readiness Level Observations Assessment of Impact on CV Infrastructure Decision-making in a 5- to 10-year Time frame exchanged between vehicles and between vehicles and infrastructure include, the Basic Safety Message (BSM), Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT), Intersection Geometry (MAP), Traveler Information Message (TIM), Signal Request Message (SRM), and Signal Status Message (SSM). • Equivalent C-V2X standards are also emerging but are not yet available. communication technology choice is not expected to have an impact on this component. In-Vehicle Systems OBUs (integrated or brought in) and aftermarket safety devices (ASD) • In-vehicle OBUs that are built-in by OEMs do not exist in private autos today except for a few purpose-built vehicles. • ASDs or OBUs brought into the vehicle are available. • Standards for information exchange do not exist except for the BSM. The lack of suitably equipped vehicles from OEMs delay DOT investment decisions. OBUs that can be brought into the vehicle or ASDs can be used on a limited basis for V2I applications that support fleet operations, but they are expensive. ASSESSMENT: A reasonable path forward could include focusing on time-critical mobility applications involving DOT fleet vehicles into which OBUs can be installed. If technology changes over time, these costs will need to be replaced and depreciated as part of a financial plan. Communications Backhaul communications that fulfill the bidirectional broadband communications between RSUs and vehicles OBUs and from the TMC to the roadside, using wired (e.g., optical fiber) or wireless communication technologies (e.g., satellite) • The backhaul communication network to support a SCMS needs to be IPv6 compatible. • For a large number of wireless devices to connect to the backhaul network, IPv6 will eventually be needed because IPv4 will not be able to handle addressing demand at a certain point. Significant investments may be needed to install and/or upgrade backhaul networks to IPv6 at least in areas or regions where V2I time-critical applications are being deployed. This is a large upfront cost to agencies. Support Systems SCMS that ensures that messages from OBUs and RSUs can be trusted • Proof of concept SCMS solutions exist today that are operating in coordination with USDOT for implementation. More guidance will need to be developed on how vehicles will be enrolled by a SCMS certification authority.

14 Table 2-2. CV Infrastructure Components, Their Readiness Assessment and Impact on CV Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Key CV Infrastructure Component Readiness Level Observations Assessment of Impact on CV Infrastructure Decision-making in a 5- to 10-year Time frame ASSESSMENT: National SCMS guidance is near and is not expected to affect short-term CV investments. CV back office system, which as part of the set of TMC ITS Systems, supports CVs and related applications by accessing data from DOT sources, generating and signing messages for security purposes, and accepting and managing data received from CVs and related processes like over-the-air download management. Its functions can also include data management to support information message sets and CV roadside infrastructure management. • This key system is still being perfected at early deployment agencies. The level of readiness required for field operations is low because few large-scale deployments exist. Significant investments need to be made in this area by DOTs and their regions to prepare for a CV future. The architectures for security and data management and processes will need to be developed. These costs need to be considered in investment decision-making. Availability of open-source software for V2I applications • Open-source software support exists for the following commonly deployed V2I applications: railroad crossing violation warning, curve speed warning, red light violation warning, eco- approach and departure at signalized intersection, queue warning, speed harmonization, spot weather impact warning, MMITSS (TSP, FSP, EVP, PED-SIG). DOTs can begin leveraging open-source software to deploy applications for which software exists. Investments will need to be made by applications that are unsupported. ASSESSMENT: DOTs can prioritize time- and safety- critical applications for which software exists but will have to consider further development to adapt the software to their systems.

15 Key observations and decision-making rationale derived from the Table 2-2 readiness assessment include the following: • Uncertainty about the wireless radio communication technology that will prevail will have a major impact on the market penetration of private autos that come with integrated, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)-installed OBUs. Therefore, V2I safety-critical applications that depend on sufficient rates of market penetration will have to take a lower priority for deployment within the next 10 years because of a lack of sufficient CVs or connected AVs. However, the wireless technology debate may be settled in the next 10 years, and adequate numbers of suitably equipped vehicles, a necessary pre-condition for the accrual of safety benefits, may enter the traffic stream in sufficient numbers in the next 20 years to leverage any CV infrastructure investments made by public agencies in the intervening period. • Given this situation, DOTs may choose to: 1. Adopt a Wait and See Approach until the technology debate settles and then reevaluate the need for CV infrastructure investments. 2. Take a more Cautious Approach to investments that pose the least risk while capitalizing on near term opportunities including those to learn and build organizational capacities. • Agencies that choose the Cautious Approach have a few different investment pathways as discussed below. These pathways are not mutually exclusive and can be considered in combination when developing investment options. o Identify and invest in V2I applications with high opportunity costs where the risks of maintaining the status quo over the planning period might be higher than the risks of investments. For example, DOTs could prioritize, as early deployment targets, V2I mobility-related applications with low dependence on market penetration of suitably equipped private autos. In this case, DOTs could prioritize V2I mobility-related applications (singly or in bundles) involving public fleet vehicles (e.g., bus transit, emergency response, and winter maintenance) using DSRC technology on select facilities with known safety or congestion problems. These investments, while offering some Day 1 benefits, could be planned to allow the introduction of “add- on” applications (e.g., safety applications) as market conditions allow. Given the risk of technology obsolescence related to the use CAUTIOUS APPROACH, INVESTMENT CONSIDERATION 1—BEGIN WITH CONTROLLED DEPLOYMENTS Initial CV investments could target arterial roadways and V2I mobility applications that are time-critical. They could focus on benefits to some aspect of DOT operations, e.g., transit buses, maintenance vehicles, or emergency response vehicles that can be equipped with readily available wireless communications technology, e.g., DSRC. Systems should be engineered to add safety- critical applications as the market situation permits at the lowest cost. An example of such a chronological sequence for signalized arterials in an urban area is as follows: • SPaT • TSP/EVP/Snowplow Priority • FSP (partner with freight interests that would equip their vehicles) • PSCW

16 of DSRC in the event C-V2X becomes the industry standard, agencies must plan the investments to limit financial impacts and be prepared to adopt new technologies at the lowest possible cost. o Where the DOT may not wish to commit to DSRC, it can invest in other technology- agnostic options (e.g., DSRC and C-V2X compatible RSUs) or mandatory CV infrastructure components to enable future CV and AV applications that will benefit from networked information such as:  Upgrading backhaul communications infrastructure including fiber installation, where necessary.  Preparing CV back office systems and data hubs for future V2I deployment.  Installing roadside ITS cabinets, signal controller hardware, and other ITS sensors (e.g., traffic or pedestrian detectors).  Developing application software.  Investing in personnel upskilling and training. Such investments in technology-agnostic or and mandatory CV infrastructure components are termed "no regrets" investments and are useful in helping agencies prepare for a future where CVs and AVs may become a routine part of the traffic stream and will strengthen their capacity to enhance existingDOT functions such as TSMO strategies and asset management. o Make CV infrastructure investments to enhance V2I applications that are not safety- or time-critical but can leverage current wireless communications technologies such as 4G LTE and satellite communications. CAUTIOUS APPROACH, INVESTMENT COSIDERATION 2—MAKE “NO REGRETS” INVESTMENTS Information from the literature and applied expert judgment indicate that the cost of RSUs are on the order of 15% for a V2I application deployment beyond the pilot stage. Other technology-agnostic and mandatory CV infrastructure cost share estimates are: – Backhaul communications (IPv6 upgrade): 10% – CV Back Office: 15% – Signal controllers, cabinets, and other ITS equipment: 20% – Application software: 25% – Training: 1% Other (non-technical) costs include program management. Some V2I applications have additional costs, such as OBUs for public fleets. See Appendix A for further details. CAUTIOUS APPROACH, INVESTMENT CONSIDERATION 3—MAKE CV INVESTMENTS THAT SUPPORT CONVENTIONAL CELLULAR-BASED TSMO STRATEGIES Other potential V2I applications that are not safety- or time-critical (e.g., oversize vehicle warning, reduced speed zone warning, and road weather motorist alert and warning) can be implemented with current wireless communication technologies and ITS devices. TSP, EVP, and FSP can also be implemented without time-critical communications.

17 2.2.2 Assessing Readiness of V2I Applications based on DOT Pilot and Test Bed Activities and Plans This section assesses the readiness of V2I applications by examining the existing set of DOT pilot, test bed, and early deployment activities. It augments observations from these DOT activities with select statements of intent made in several DOT CV planning documents. Together, this information indicates which applications DOTs consider ready today (pilots, test beds, and early deployments) and which applications they see being ready in the near future (planning documents). The planning documents also indicate a commitment to invest in CV infrastructure and provide evidence that such investments are not only ready to be made, but are worthwhile—and if large enough, in need of business case support. Table 2-3 lists 30 of the most advanced and extensive CV infrastructure investment pilots, test beds, and projects among DOTs across the country. Figure 2-2 orders the totals of each V2I application deployed, in active deployment, or seriously contemplated for implementation in the near term using the existing or stated CV infrastructure investment represented in these DOT activities. This graph indicates current priorities and perceived readiness of V2I applications among those agencies currently investing in CV infrastructure. Table 2-3. Existing V2I Applications – Deployed or Deploying Pilot, Test Bed, or Project Scope of CV Infrastructure AZ Anthem Test Bed, Maricopa County 11 intersections (expanding to I-17 planned) AZ ADOT/MCDOT MC-85 19 intersections AZ ADOT Loop 101 Mobility Project (ATCMTD) 61-mile loop CA Palo Alto Test Bed 7-mile corridor, 31 intersections CO CDOT I-70 Mtn. Cor. 100 RSUs CO Denver Smart City (ATCMTD) Connected TMC - 1,500 city vehicles, “Connected Freight” and “Connected Citizens” FL Tampa THEA USDOT CV Pilot 40 RSUs, 1,600 cars, 20 transit vehicles, 500 pedestrians FL FDOT US 90 Tallahassee 21 intersections, 4 OBUs FL FDOT Gainesville SPaT Trapezium 50 RSUs, 7-mile corridor FL FDOT I-75 FRAME 75-mile corridor, 93 intersections, 35 ITS locations FL FDOT SR 434 CV Deployment 8 RSUs GA Atlanta Region CV Deployment 654 RSUs (1,700 planned), 53 OBUs MD MDSHA US1 Howard County 20 intersections MI SE Michigan Test Bed 125-mile corridor, 115 RSUs MI Ann Arbor Test Env. (AACVTE) (UMTRI) City-wide, 74 RSUs, 2,650 OBUs MI MDOT RSUs in Southeast Michigan Various deployments (I-275, I-94, M-53, M-43) MN MN Connected Corridor (Hwy 55) 22 signals NV Las Vegas Innovation District 6 intersections NC NCDOT NC 55 20+ intersections

18 Pilot, Test Bed, or Project Scope of CV Infrastructure NY NYCDOT USDOT CV Pilot 3 city regions, 8,000 vehicles, 100 pedestrians OH Columbus USDOT Smart City 100 RSUs, 1,800 OBUs OH ODOT US-33 Smart Mobility + Connected Marysville 27 intersections in Marysville (94 RSUs total including US 33), fiber, 500 OBUs UT UDOT/UTA MMITSS - Redwood Rd bus 11-mile corridor with 24 intersections, 10 buses UT UDOT/UTA MMITSS - Provo-Orem UVX BRT 47 intersections, 25 buses UT UDOT snowplow priority 5 corridors, 55 intersections, 46 snowplows UT UDOT-Panasonic CV expansion 200 RSUs, 2,000 OBUs (5-year plan) VA VDOT NoVa Test Bed 65 RSUs, 72 OBUs, 50 light vehicles, 5 safety service patrol vehicles WA WSDOT (US 2 Spokane, SR 522 cor., SR 305, SR 500) 24 intersections WI Madison Park Street Connected Corridor 20-30 intersections WY WYDOT USDOT CV Pilot 400-mile corridor, 75 RSUs, 400 OBUs TSP = Transit Signal Priority; PED-SIG = Mobile Accessible Pedestrian Signal System; RLVW = Red Light Violation Warning; FSP = Freight Signal Priority; EVP = Emergency Vehicle Preemption; RSZW = Reduced Speed Zone Warning; I-SIG = Intelligent Traffic Signal System; CSW = Curve Speed Warning; SWIW = Spot Weather Impact Warning; Q-WARN = Queue Warning; INC-ZONE = Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers; ATIS = Advanced Traveler Information System; PSCW = Pedestrian in Signalized Crosswalk Warning; RW alert = Road Weather Motorist Alert and Warning; SPP = Snowplow Priority; SPD-HARM = Speed Harmonization; VDTO = Vehicle Data for Traffic Operations; RCVW = Railroad Crossing Violation Warning; Eco-App/Dep = Eco-Approach and Departure at Signalized Intersections; IBL = Intermittent Bus Lane; RZW = Restricted Zone Warning; IVS = In- vehicle Signage; Eco-TST = Eco-Traffic Signal Timing Figure 2-2. Existing V2I Applications Deployed or Deploying, by Number 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 TSP RLVW EVP I-SIG SWIW INC-ZONE PSCW SPP VDTO Eco App/Dep RZW Eco TST No. of Deployments

19 While the popularity of an application does not mean it is ready to be deployed at scale immediately, it does indicate the level of interest among DOTs to study it and document its benefits. From this standpoint, the applications in Figure 2-2 illustrate the viability of certain priority V2I applications. Key observations from Figure 2-3 related to V2I priority applications are: • The top five applications in terms of popularity target signalized intersections; TSP is the application with the most interest. • Seven of the top 10 popular applications use DOT provisioned network data (signal phase and timing, weather, work zones, traffic volumes of non-CVs) to deliver benefits. • Only four of the top 10 popular applications require safety-critical communications provided by DSRC; the remainder of the applications are mobility focused and do not need DSRC equipment. However, DOTs are testing these mobility applications in a DSRC CV environment. • An overwhelming majority of the applications are focused on mobility-related benefits. These observations align with the assessment of CV infrastructure decision-making presented in Table 2- 2. The focus on applications for signalized intersections reflects the availability of traffic signal controllers that support the necessary information exchanges (SPaT and MAP messages) to enable mobility-related applications that prioritize certain vehicles’ use or increase the efficiency of signalized intersections. Many of these applications also benefit public fleets, such as transit and maintenance vehicles, that can be retrofitted with the necessary onboard technology absent any OEM-supplied equipment. Deployed applications also have largely taken advantage of the availability of open-source software. Nonetheless, DOTs are also exploring safety- and time-critical applications that either depend on a significant number of equipped private vehicles or the future development of V2I application software to build on initial investments and deployment outcomes and eventual increases in market penetration. Indeed, a number of applications are active and are providing benefits to the agency or system users, or at the very least are demonstrating the feasibility of the application and the likelihood of benefit given broader infrastructure deployment, further V2I application development, or a greater threshold number of equipped users. This observation is supported by looking more closely at the status of several deployments in Table 2-3. Table 2-4 provides additional details. These pilot projects indicate V2I applications of interest to DOTs that may be targeted for widespread implementation and investment in CV infrastructure. Over the 5- to 10-year planning horizon of this guidance, some agencies have committed to CV infrastructure investment or to taking immediate actions that support such investment as shown in agency strategic or program plans that focus on CV. Table 2-5 summarizes three examples.

20 Table 2-4. Select Active V2I Application Deployments Agency Deployed Project and V2I Applications Utah DOT • 11-mile Redwood Road bus corridor, 24 intersections and 10 buses equipped with TSP • Active since November 2017 • Providing up to a 6 percent improvement in schedule reliability • Provo-Orem UVX BRT corridor, 47 intersections and 25 buses equipped with TSP • Active since December 2018 • Benefit study underway • 5 Salt Lake Valley corridors, 55 intersections, and 46 snowplows equipped with snowplow priority • Active since March 2019 • Benefit study underway Maricopa County DOT • 11-intersection test bed in Anthem, Arizona, with implementation of the full suite of MMITSS applications • Successful pilot tests of pilot test EVP, TSP, FSP, and pedestrian signal priority with equipped school buses, transit buses, and emergency vehicles • Expansion to the adjacent I-17 and to equipping Anthem residents’ vehicles and public agency vehicles with on-board units FDOT • SPaT equipment (SPaT and MAP broadcasts) installed at 21 signalized intersections along US 90 in Tallahassee, along with integration with CV and AV-ready traffic controllers • FDOT fleet vehicles equipped with portable OBUs • Active since March 2018 • Gainesville SPaT Trapezium installed SPaT equipment at 27 signalized intersections Deploying pedestrian and bicyclist safety applications for both web-based and/or Smartphone-based applications • Active since September 2019 • Integrated Corridor Management solution along I-75 and state highways between Gainesville and Ocala, incorporating TSP, FSP, INC-ZONE, RCVW • In design as of May 2020

21 Table 2-5. Example State DOT CV Strategic and Program Plan Statements Supporting Investment Example State DOT Plan and Content Statements of Intent to Make CV Infrastructure Investment Florida’s Connected and Automated Vehicle Business Plan Lays out principles and specific investment objective “aggressively supporting the deployment of the Connected and Automated Vehicle Program to achieve near term and sustainable safety, mobility, and economic development (SME) benefits” by “… [moving] from planning to full-scale Connected and Automated Vehicle deployment and implementation using various applications” (FDOT, 2019). • “Provide network connectivity and types of connections from field locations to the Regional TMCs and central TMC.” • “Upgrade traffic signal controllers and evaluate upgrade options so that signal controllers can interface with an RSU for extraction of SPaT basic safety messages.” • “Develop MAP data for pilot locations.” • “Conduct pilot projects with applications in smart work zones, autonomous truck mounted attenuators (ATMA), truck platooning, pedestrian safety applications, multimodal applications including transit and freight, and aging driver mobility applications.” • “Implement connected and automated vehicle projects in all Florida DOT Districts to achieve the SME goals. This shall be accomplished with input from the Districts and the TSMO Leadership Team.” MDOT Connected and Automated Vehicle Program Strategic Plan Identifies a series of program strategies to achieve its connected and automated vehicle goals. Notable goals that indicate a commitment to CV investment include serving as a national model to catalyze CV and AV deployment and establishing foundational systems to support wide-scale CV and AV deployment (MDOT, 2017). • Institutionalizing CV and AV among MDOT initiatives: “Connected and Automated Vehicles will be integral to a wide range of MDOT programs and initiatives, including [TSMO], Towards Zero Deaths, … and the top-level business and strategic planning for the broader ITS program.” • Institutionalizing information technology and security for CV and AV: “[developing] best practices and standards to secure the system, address installations, and [creating] the required outside connections to reach security certificate and data management systems off the State network.” • Addressing CV related design: “establishing approved design standards and specifications for CV related equipment, addressing requirements to support CV as part of traffic signal controller standards.” • Incorporating CV considerations into other infrastructure projects: “CV systems will greatly increase needs for communications infrastructure throughout the MDOT roadway network. This includes both conduit for fiber optic/wired communications, as well as physical cabinet space at ITS and traffic signal installations to house additional equipment. Michigan DOT will build provision of this infrastructure into all projects today to support CV deployment tomorrow.”

22 Example State DOT Plan and Content Statements of Intent to Make CV Infrastructure Investment • “Support the development of high priority V2I applications” identified as “Work zone, pavement condition, road weather, and SPaT-enabled applications.” • “Accelerate Connected and Automated Vehicle benefits through fleet deployments” by “[outfitting] vehicles to support benefit acceleration and regional testing activities.” The Pennsylvania Joint Statewide Connected and Automated Vehicle Strategic Plan Identifies specific objectives in nine business areas that address the state’s goals for preparing for and advancing CV (and AV). Several objectives imply significant investment in CV infrastructure or ancillary systems to support future investment (Lopez et al., 2018). • Communication: “Planning for efficient and redundant statewide communications will require a considerable effort to catalogue and manage the existing fiber assets, as well as plan to build a complete network in the future.” In addition, “Make Installation of Conduit for Fiber a Requirement for Applicable Design Projects.” • Traffic Signals: “Controller replacement, either strategically, or as part of programmed signal modernization projects should also be done to prepare for Connected and Automated Vehicle. These upgrades should include IP- ready ports and NTCIP compliance for a full-scale Connected and Automated Vehicle deployment, while still achieving integration with new or existing systems.” • Back Office: “Upgrade TMC and other IT Legacy Back-Office Systems [to prepare for Connected and Automated Vehicle]” • Security: “Plan … [and] Implement Security and Credentials Management System” The readiness of certain V2I applications as reflected in pilot and small-scale projects, alongside agencies’ commitment to aggressively expand upon these early deployments as reflected in planning documents, suggests that developing a business case to support the significant investment required in CV infrastructure would help agencies realize this commitment. 2.3 DEVELOP A SHORTLIST OF CV INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS TO SUPPORT APPLICATIONS The process to identify necessary infrastructure investments follows the same general steps that a TSMO analysis—a growing practice in state DOTs—would follow. This process could be applied at a corridor, municipality/city/metro region, district, or statewide level. The process steps include: 1. Identify the problems to be solved in relation to the goals and objectives of the agency for specific roadway location and types—urban freeway (including inter-urban and suburban), rural freeway, urban/suburban arterial, or a general roadway in any location.

23 2. Shortlist V2I applications that may help the agency meet its objectives. Table 2-6 organizes the piloted V2I applications by strategic goal area and relevant roadway locations. Such a table helps to quickly identify a relevant deployment-ready application that may help address a DOT strategic goal on a given roadway type. A DOT could construct a table similar to this to help with its shortlisting exercise. 3. Sequence the applications following the Cautious Approach to CV investments articulated in Section 2.2.1. For example, if TSP is chosen as a priority application for initial consideration and CV infrastructure investments are being planned to enable this application, consider how the initial capital investments can support future V2I safety applications such as Red Light Violation Warning. Sequencing should also consider the scalability and leverage of the initial investment and how the CV investment may scale over time—starting modestly and growing as results suggest further investment is warranted and resources are available. Similarly, consider the benefits the same infrastructure base would provide for advanced TSMO strategies or ITS applications performed using conventional cellular communications methods. These considerations can be organized into a sequencing approach to V2I applications as illustrated in Table 2-7 through Table 2-10. The tables array applications by roadway location and type over various time periods. 4. Identify CV infrastructure investments required to operationalize the V2I application or “application bundles” identified in the sequenced approach in step 3. Once an application or group of applications is selected, the CV infrastructure components required for deployment can be identified using Table 2-2 and any other ITS-related infrastructure that may be required. From this analysis, the DOT can identify CV investment needs in terms of the types of hardware and software that support the application(s), the network infrastructure and type required to support the application(s), and the support infrastructure that must be in place at TMCs and other units of the DOT to deploy the application(s). 2.4 IDENTIFY THE SCALE OF INVESTMENT NEEDED AND ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS After identifying the applications of interest and roadway type and extents for deployment, the next step is to quantify the scale and cost of investment. The scale of investment can be estimated on an application-by-application basis by identifying and costing the CV components that must be provided or upgraded. Table 2-11 provides examples of such quantification for several V2I applications from Parikh et al. (2019). This table can be used as a basis for identifying rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs for each V2I application of interest. Looking for “piggybacking” opportunities to stage and introduce V2I applications as market conditions mature along the investment analysis period allows initial investments in fixed costs (e.g., signal infrastructure or backhaul communications network infrastructure) to be leveraged over time to accrue significant benefits.

24 Table 2-6. V2I Applications, DOT Goal Area, and the Roadway Types for Deployment V2I Application Typical DOT Goal Areas Roadway Type Mobility Safety Enviro. Urban Freeway Rural Freeway Arterial Roadway (any location) Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) P X X X X Curve Speed Warning (CSW) P X X Eco-Approach and Departure at Signalized Intersections P X Eco-Traffic Signal Timing P P X Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) P X X Freight Signal Priority (FSP) (also eco) P P X X Intermittent Bus Lanes (IBL) P X X Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers P S X X X X Intelligent Traffic Signal System (I- SIG) P X X In-vehicle Signage P X X X X Mobile Accessible Pedestrian Signal System (PED-SIG) P X X Pedestrian in Signalized Crosswalk Warning P X Queue Warning (Q-WARN) P S X X X Railroad Crossing Violation Warning (RCVW) P X Red Light Violation Warning (RLVW) P X X Reduced Speed Zone Warning (RSZW) S P X X X X Road Weather Motorist Alert and Warning P X X X X Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) P X Snowplow Priority P S X X Spot Weather Impact Warning (SWIW) P X X X X Transit Signal Priority (TSP) (also eco) P P X X Vehicle Data for Traffic Operations P X X X X P = Primary Benefit; S = Secondary Benefit.

25 Table 2-7. Example V2I Applications Sequencing to Identify CV Investment Priorities for Urban Freeways Planning Period V2I Application Notes 0 to 5 Years Curve Speed Warning Provides Day 1 benefit to equipped vehicles. Infrastructure investment can be as simple as a roadside unit, power, and a mounting location (i.e., pole). Curve Speed Warning would provide active warnings above and beyond static signage. Dedicated backhaul is not critical for primary function because initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection. Dedicated backhaul can be added in the future (6+ years) if needed for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras. Reduced Speed Zone Warning Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers Provides Day 1 benefit for equipped vehicles but requires changes to protocols used by first responders or construction / maintenance crews to ensure that timely and accurate updates are broadcast. Incident Scene is likely to be a truly mobile device associated with first responder vehicles, whereas Work Zone equipment can be deployed both in a mobile context for striping crews and other short-term work and installed on portable message signs / dynamic message signs. Upfront costs: For this roadway type, it is important to decide on architecture—local versus centralized or hub (e.g., TMC)—to handle and process data for time- or safety-critical applications. For example, the need to strengthen communications infrastructure for backhaul (e.g., using optical fiber) is critical for centralized architectures serving the Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts application. 6 to 10 Years Queue Warning Allows for transition from traditional infrastructure-based point sensors to CV-based sensors as adoption increases. Requires a level of penetration to be useful in CV-only context. Would leverage infrastructure-based equipment to relay real-time information to approach vehicles. 10+ Years Speed Harmonization Requires a higher percentage of CV-equipped vehicles to be effective without continued use of infrastructure-based dynamic message signs. INFLO Combination of SPD-HARM, Q-WARN, and CACC. INFLO was conceptualized for the urban freeway environment, with ubiquitous infrastructure coverage.

26 Table 2-8. Example V2I Applications Sequencing CV Investment Priorities for Rural Freeways and V2I Planning Time Period V2I Application Notes 0 to 10 Years Curve Speed Warning Provides Day 1 benefit to equipped vehicles. Infrastructure investment can be as simple as a roadside unit, power, and a mounting location (i.e., pole). Curve Speed Warning would provide active warnings above and beyond static signage. Dedicated backhaul is not critical for primary function because initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection. Dedicated backhaul can be added in the future (6+ years) if needed for real- time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras. Red Light Violation Warning Provides Day 1 safety benefits to equipped vehicles. Allows for transition from “flashing light ahead” type indication to RLVW for these rural intersections. Initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection, and dedicated backhaul can be added in future (6+ years) for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras, if needed. Reduced Speed Zone Warning Provides Day 1 benefit to equipped vehicles. Infrastructure investment can be as simple as a roadside unit, power, and a mounting location (i.e., pole). RSZW would provide active warnings above and beyond static signage. Dedicated backhaul is not critical for primary function because initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection. Dedicated backhaul can be added in future (6+ years) if real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras, is needed. Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers Provides Day 1 benefit for equipped vehicles but requires changes to protocols used by first responders or construction / maintenance crews to ensure that timely and accurate updates are broadcast by the VWI. Incident Scene is likely to be a truly mobile device associated with first responder vehicles (see R.E.S.C.U.M.E. CV research), whereas Work Zone equipment can be deployed both in a mobile context for stripping crews and other short-term work, and installed on portable message signs / dynamic message signs. Upfront costs: For this roadway type, it is important to decide on architecture—local versus centralized or hub (e.g., TMC)—to handle and process data for time- or safety-critical applications. For example, the need to strengthen communications infrastructure for backhaul (e.g., using optical fiber) is critical for centralized architectures serving the Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts application. 10+ Years Queue Warning Assumes limited infrastructure-based CV, and as such, depends on a high penetration of equipped vehicles. Faster CV adoption could reduce the timeline to effective deployment. In this environment, vehicles use a relay mechanism to enable exchange of this warning from vehicle-to-vehicle. Eco-Traffic Signal Timing Effective use requires a high penetration of equipped vehicles and vehicle-responsive speed control.

27 Table 2-9. Example V2I Applications Sequencing CV Investment Priorities for Urban/Suburban Arterials Planning Time Period V2I Application Notes 0 to 5 Years Pedestrian in Signalized Crosswalk Warning Reliable detection of vulnerable road users, or market of CV-equipped devices that are carried by pedestrians are still not mainstream. High priority need but not ready yet in terms of technology. Any investment in CV infrastructure at intersections will be able to be leveraged for this in the future. Red Light Violation Warning Provides Day 1 safety benefit to equipped vehicles. Initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection, although this is not the preferred method. Dedicated backhaul can be added for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, combined with cameras, if needed. Reduced Speed Zone Warning Provides Day 1 benefit to equipped vehicles. Infrastructure investment can be as simple as a roadside unit, power, and mounting location (i.e., pole). RSZW would provide active warnings above and beyond static signage. Dedicated backhaul is not critical for primary function because initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection. Dedicated backhaul can be added in future (6+ years) if real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras, is needed. Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers Provides Day 1 benefit for equipped vehicles but requires changes to protocols used by first responders or construction /maintenance crews to ensure that timely and accurate updates are broadcast by the VWI. Incident Scene is likely to be a truly mobile device associated with first responder vehicles, whereas, Work Zone equipment can be deployed both in a mobile context for stripping crews and other short-term work, and installed on portable message signs / dynamic message signs. Emergency Vehicle Preemption Emergency vehicle preemption provides the best example of a Day 1 benefit to the deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV versus proprietary is similar. Freight Signal Priority A good example of Day 1 benefit to deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV versus proprietary technology is similar. This is private sector benefit however, so its use may require additional policy considerations not currently necessary. Transit Signal Priority A good example of Day 1 benefit to deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV versus proprietary is similar. Upfront costs: For this roadway type, it is important to decide on architecture—local versus centralized or hub (e.g., TMC)—and strengthen communications infrastructure for backhaul (e.g., using optical fiber). In addition, it is vital to upgrade signal controllers to enable various time- and safety-critical V2I applications. 6 to 10 Years Queue Warning Allows for transition from traditional infrastructure-based point sensors to CV- based sensors as adoption increases. Requires level of penetration of suitably equipped vehicles to be useful in CV-only context. Would leverage infrastructure- based equipment to relay real-time information to approaching vehicles.

28 Planning Time Period V2I Application Notes 10+ Years MMITSS Combines multiple V2I applications into an integrated package allowing a more managed approach. Elements of MMITSS for emergency, transit, and freight are all priority applications. Intelligent Traffic Signal Systems and Pedestrian applications complete this suite. Intelligent Traffic Signal Systems Assumes large percentage of equipped vehicles and significant policy change to allow private vehicles to affect signal timing on recurring demand-basis.

29 Table 2-10. Example V2I Applications Sequencing CV Investment Priorities for Urban/Suburban Arterials Planning Time Period V2I Application Notes 0 to 5 Years Railroad Crossing Violation Warning Provides Day 1 safety benefit to equipped vehicles. Initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection although not preferred. Dedicated backhaul can be added for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras. Requires agreements with railroads. Red Light Violation Warning Provides Day 1 safety benefit to equipped vehicles. Initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection although not preferred. Dedicated backhaul can be added for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, say combined with cameras. Reduced Speed Zone Warning Provides Day 1 benefit to equipped vehicles. Infrastructure investment can be as simple as roadside unit, power and mounting location (i.e. pole). These would provide active warning above and beyond static signage. Dedicated backhaul not critical for primary function. Initial management functions can be performed via cellular connection. Dedicated backhaul can be added in future (6+ years) if need for real-time, continuous traffic monitoring, possibly combined with cameras, is needed. Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers Provides Day 1 benefit for equipped vehicles but will require changes to protocols used by first responders or construction /maintenance crews to ensure that timely and accurate updates are broadcast by the VWI. Incident Scene is likely to be a truly mobile device associated with first responder vehicle, whereas, Work Zone equipment can be deployed both in mobile context for stripping crews, and other short-term work, as well as be installed on portable message signs / dynamic message signs. Upfront costs: For this roadway type, it is important to decide on architecture – local versus centralized or hub (e.g., TMC)—and strengthen communications infrastructure for backhaul (e.g., using optical fiber). Emergency Vehicle Preemption Good example of Day 1 benefit to deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV versus proprietary is similar. List longer term given the lower likelihood of need for lower-volume roads. 6 to 10 Years Freight Signal Priority Good example of Day 1 benefit to deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV vs. proprietary is similar. This is private sector benefit however, so its use may require additional policy considerations not currently necessary may be required. Also, given lower volumes / need, considered lower priority. 10+ Years Transit Signal Priority Best example of Day 1 benefit to deploying agency with added cost savings enabled by installing multi-use CV technology versus proprietary systems typically associated with signal preempt and priority. Cost of CV versus proprietary is similar. Intelligent Traffic Signal Systems Assumes large percentage of equipped vehicles and significant policy change to allow private vehicles to affect signal timing on recurring demand-basis.

30 Table 2-11. ROM Costs for Various V2I Investments V2I Application Minimum Deployment Size Initial Capital Cost Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost Curve Speed Warning (CSW) 1 location $110,000 $11,500 Pedestrian in Signalized Crosswalk Warning 1 intersection $120,000 $11,500 Railroad Crossing Violation Warning (RCVW) 1 intersection $11,500 $11,500 Red Light Violation Warning (RLVW) - hub architecture 10 intersections $230,000 to $430,000 $11,500 Reduced Speed Zone Warning (RSZW) 1 location $110,000 $11,500 Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers 1 location $110,000 $11,500 Queue Warning (Q-WARN) 1 bottleneck $400,000 $43,000 Eco-Traffic Signal Timing/ - hub architecture Transit Signal Priority 3 arterials (15 intersections) $280,000 to $580,000 $16,500 Intelligent Traffic Signal System (I-SIG) 30 intersections $660,000 to $1,060,000 $82,000 Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) 1 bottleneck $400,000 $43,000 Source: Parikh et al., 2019 Although the ROM costs are sufficient to assess if a CV investment opportunity crosses a monetary threshold and warrants a more detailed business case analysis, the business case itself will require a more detailed CV component-based cost estimate as part of an economic analysis that more closely examines costs, benefits, and risks. This “economic case” component of the business case is discussed in Chapter 3. 2.5 IDENTIFY INVESTMENTS FOR WHICH BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS IS NEEDED All major capital investment decisions need a business case—whether it is qualitative or quantitative. Quantitative business cases are a part of a normal business model structure of several operating agencies when considering larger capital investments. Developing a quantitative business case analysis takes some effort, and it may be warranted only under certain circumstances. For example, may stipulate that a quantitative business case is needed for a CV investment because a funding agency (e.g., for a grant program) needs it or because the required capital investments of the option or options under consideration exceed a pre-determined threshold value set by the DOT. An agency can determine the threshold value depending on the program and policy norms that govern its capital expenditure programs for related activities such as ITS and TSMO.

31 2.6 WHO DEVELOPS THE BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS Project managers responsible for the V2I application deployment (i.e., implementation planning once an investment decision is made) should prepare the business case. According to a recent survey by the NOCoE (2019), in most agencies, the CV program is embedded in TSMO, ITS, or Traffic Operations units or their like. The personnel in these units designated for CV- and AV-related activities can act as the primary sponsors of the business case analysis. They should convene a working group composed of diverse group of staff from the central office and regions or districts with expertise in relevant areas of the DOT, including CV and AV programs, operations, safety, ITS, and incident and emergency response management. DOT units covering TMCs, traffic operations centers, weather management centers, maintenance, or other areas that will be directly affected by the investment or with direct experience with the problem should also participate in the working group. Although the level of involvement of different participants will vary during the life cycle of the business case, all staff should be involved at the project kick-off meeting where roles, requirements, resources, and timelines are described at a high- level.