Connected Traffic Control System (CTCS): Research Planning ... · 2/15/2019 · CTCS Project Panel – The CTS Project Panel is a small group of selected CV PFS members committed

Connected Traffic Control System (CTCS): Research Planning and Concept Development

Program Management Plan

Final

January 25, 2019

Prepared by

WSP

Prepared for

The Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study

(University of Virginia Center for Transportation Studies)

WSP

Page i

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Management Plan Update Process ........................................ 1

2 MANAGEMENT APPROACH ............................................... 2

2.1 Project Resource Management ......................................................... 2

2.1.1 Project team............................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Key Staffing and Roles ................................................................................................ 3

2.1.3 Project Resources ....................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Schedule................................................................................ 5

2.3 Scope Management .......................................................................... 6

2.4 Budget and Cost Management .......................................................... 6

2.5 Quality Management ........................................................................ 6

2.6 Communications Management ......................................................... 7

2.7 Risk Management ............................................................................. 9

2.8 Invoice Reporting .............................................................................11

2.9 Deliverables .....................................................................................12

TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................................. 6

Task 1 – Project Management ......................................................................... 6

Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 6

Kick-Off Meeting ......................................................................................................................... 6

Monthly Project Status Calls, Team Meetings, and Teleconferences. ............................................ 6

Progress Reporting. ..................................................................................................................... 6

Project Closeout Meeting. ........................................................................................................... 7

TASK 2 - Stakeholder Engagement Planning For Research ............................... 7

Stakeholder Identification ........................................................................................................... 7

Stakeholder Recruitment ............................................................................................................. 8

WSP

Page ii

Stakeholder Engagement............................................................................................................. 8

Stakeholder Communications ...................................................................................................... 8

Stakeholder Engagement Plan ..................................................................................................... 8

Task 3 - Research Review ................................................................................ 9

Task 4 - Assessment Of Technology Readiness Levels For Priority Research Areas ................................................................................................. 9

Task 5 Development of CTCS Research Plan ...................................................10

Task 6 Development of Concept Of Operations Of High-Priority Research Areas ................................................................................................12

WSP

Page iii

TABLES

TABLE 1: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES............................................................ 3

TABLE 2: TASK MANAGERS .............................................................................. 7

TABLE 3: COMMUNICATIONS MATRIX.............................................................. 8

TABLE 4: DELIVERABLES ..................................................................................12

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SCHEDULE

APPENDIX B PROJECT SCOPE

APPENDIX C BUDGET

APPENDIX D RISK LOG

WSP

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Project Management Plan (PMP) is to guide the execution of the Connected Traffic Control System

(CTCS): Research Planning and Concept Development in accordance with the activities identified in the contractual scope of

work. This PMP includes plans for: Scope Management, Cost Management, Quality Management, Human Resources

Management, Communications Management, and Risk Management.

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of the CTCS project is to develop the research plan for the Connected Traffic Control System (CTCS) with prioritized

research areas, and develop the concept of operations (ConOps) of the high priority research area(s).

The objectives of this project are:

• To review the existing studies and developments and engage with stakeholders to identify the needs of the current

traffic control systems as Connected /Automated Vehicles (CAVs) become more common, and map the potential

benefits that can be achieved under CTCS.

• To engage, coordinate and collaborate with other stakeholders, including other researchers, infrastructure owner

operations staff, deployers, traffic signal control vendors, standards groups, vehicle systems representatives like

the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partners (CAMP) and other Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), to avoid

duplication where possible and enhance research outcomes through validation of needs and constraints.

• To develop the CTCS research plan and provide supporting information to enable assessment and prioritization of

continued short and longer-term research and development strategy.

• To develop a CTCS Concept of Operations of the high priority research area(s) that comprehends the entire

roadway system (i.e., considering traffic signals along arterials, interactions with ramp terminals, and ultimately

freeway facilities from a multimodal perspective that considers connected automation).

1.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE PROCESS

This Project Management Plan will be monitored monthly and updated as needed during the project lifecycle. In case of

major change to project scope, schedule or budget, an update of the plan will be generated as well.

WSP

Page 2

2 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The WSP management approach is based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and is designed to be

proactive, ensuring all project risks and issues are addressed as soon as possible, as codified in WSP’s Business Management

System. Our Project Manager Mr. Thomas Timcho is responsible for controlling the scope of services, budget, and schedule,

and manage the work of all subconsultants. In this capacity Mr. Timcho works closely with the PFS project manager during

all activities to ensure the team is staying within the scope of work and work activities are staying on schedule.

2.1 PROJECT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

WSP is the subrecipient to the University of Virginia Center for Transportation Studies for the CTCS project, but in their role

on this project, serve as the ‘prime’ contractor. In this capacity, WSP will maintain overall responsibility for management of

resources to support the timeliness and quality of deliverables and adherence to established project budgets. WSP has

assembled and organized a team of industry experts to bring to bear the management and technical expertise to

successfully develop the expected outcomes of this research. Details of the team, project staff and other resource needs

follow.

When considering the various procurement, proposal and contractual documents associated with this project, several

different, and often conflicting naming conventions are used to identify the various roles of key staff. Further, there are

multiple contractual layers and organizations in play as well. This section will identify both the names and roles of

individuals as well as those of the various organizational layers. Further, as this is a project management plan, and it is used

to document the approach to managing the project, the roles/terms associated with project management (as opposed to

research programs) will be used.

2.1.1 PROJECT TEAM

Connected Vehicle (CV) Pooled Fund Study (PFS) Members – The CV PFS organization was created by a group of state,

local, and international transportation agencies and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in order to provide a means to

conduct the work necessary for infrastructure providers to play a leading role in advancing the Connected Vehicle systems.

CV PFS Members will have responsibility to provide feedback to the project team based on their review of various

documents. Participating agencies include California Department of Transportation (DOT), Colorado DOT, Connecticut DOT,

Delaware DOT, FHWA, Florida DOT, Georgia DOT, Maricopa County DOT in Arizona, Maryland DOT, Michigan DOT,

Minnesota DOT, New Jersey DOT, New York DOT, Ohio DOT, Pennsylvania DOT, Tennessee DOT, Texas DOT, Transport

Canada, Utah DOT, Washington DOT, and Wisconsin DOT with the Virginia DOT as lead agency and the University of Virginia

Center for Transportation Studies as technical leadership provider. For purposes of simplicity, when referring to the CV FPS

Members, the term PFS or PFS members will be used. PFS members will be responsible for reviewing and approving the

work products of this project.

CTCS Project Panel – The CTS Project Panel is a small group of selected CV PFS members committed to get involved

throughout the CTCS project, in order to provide timely feedback and maintain awareness on the status of the project.

Members of the CTCS Project Panel are Govind Vadakpat, Greg Larson, Raj Ponnaluri, Ray Starr, Nick Hegemier, Gene McHale, Debora Curtis, and Ahmad Jawad.

US Department of Transportation (USDOT) – USDOT is technically a member of the CV PFS, but as a major stakeholder in

this area of research, USDOT will assign a coordinator and other USDOT representatives to this project to server as both

reviewers, but also as subject matter experts.

WSP

Page 3

University of Virginia (UVa) Center for Transportation Studies (CTS) – UVa’s CTS is the prime contractor for the CV PFS, and

in that capacity, provides the necessary technical and administrative staff to administer and oversee this project on behalf

of the PFS. All WSP project team deliverables will be first submitted to the CTS, who will in turn, deliver to the PFS. Further,

CTS will be responsible for organizing meetings and reviews between the WSP project team and the PFS.

WSP USA (WSP) – WSP USA is the subrecipient for the CTCS project. WSP will provide management, technical, clerical and

QA personnel to support the activities associated with this contract. The WSP PM will report directly to his counterpart at

CTS, but will be available to the PFS as necessary. The term WSP project team will be used when referencing the totality of

the WSP team, including the University of Arizona and PATH. When referring solely to WSP USA, the term WSP is used.

University of Arizona (UA) – As a member of the WSP project team, the University of Arizona and specifically Dr. Larry

Head, will provide research information related to the multi-model intelligent traffic signal as well as other high-priority

areas. All work produced by the University will first be submitted to WSP, as will all communications with CTS or the PFS,

unless otherwise approved. When referring to the University of Arizona individually, either the full name or the

abbreviation UA will be used.

California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology (PATH) – As a member of the WSP project team, PATH will

either lead or contribute to the various task activities of this project as delineated in the original response to the request for

letters of intent (RLFI) and as shown in the accompanying budget. All work produced by PATH will first be submitted to

WSP, as will all communications with CTS or the PFS, unless otherwise approved. When referring to PATH individually, the

abbreviation PATH will be used

2.1.2 KEY STAFFING AND ROLES

Brian Smith is the CTS Project Director, as identified in subcontract number: GS11948.157441. As the Project Director, Mr.

Smith has the authority to monitor the technical progress of the services that the WSP project team is required to deliver

under this contract. He will be assisted by Dr. Hyungjun Park, who will be the direct liaison with the WSP project team, as

he is effectively the CTS Project Manager (PM).

Thomas Timcho will serve as the WSP Project Manager (identified also as the Subrecipient Project Director in the

subcontract), with responsibility to manage the cost, schedule and technical performance of the WSP project team. Mr.

Timcho will be supported by both internal staff serving in a variety of project roles, as well as by a team of subject matter

experts and researchers from UA and PATH to lead specific elements of this work.

Govind Vadakpat will serve as the USDOT Coordinator for this project. In this role, Dr. Vadakpat, will be responsible for

keeping the interests of the broader USDOT research program in mind as well as providing his direct technical input and

expertise.

Other key personnel and their role as included in Table 1.

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities

NAME ROLE EMAIL PHONE NUMBER

Brian Smith CTS Project Director [email protected] 434-243-8585 (office)

Hyungjun Park CTS Project Manager [email protected] 434-924-1651 (office)

434-977-4069

(mobile)

WSP

Page 4

Tom Timcho WSP Project

Manager

[email protected] 614.791.5189 (office)

614.893.7744

(mobile)

Steve Kuciemba WSP Principal in

Charge


301.801.6345

(mobile)

Dr. Govind

Vadakpat

USDOT Coordinator [email protected] 202.493.3283 (office)

Ted Smith WSP Quality

Manager


202.427.7760

(mobile)

Jason Stribiak WSP Deputy PM and

Task 6 Lead


630.770.9910

(mobile)

Dr. Christoper

Toth

WSP Task 3 Lead [email protected] 614.791.5397 (office)

614.783.3100

(mobile)

Dr. Larry Head Univ. of AZ / Subject

Matter Expert


Ben McKeever PATH / Task 5 Lead [email protected] 510.665.3008 (office)

Dr. Kun Zhou PATH / Subject

Matter Expert


Figure 1 provides the CTCS project organizational chart.

WSP

Page 5

Figure 1: CTCS Project Organization Char

2.1.3 PROJECT RESOURCES

The only critical project resource necessary to fulfil the requirements of this project that is not already available directly to

the WSP project team is that of meeting location and room sufficient to support any in-person stakeholder engagement

activities that may be necessary. As noted in the proposed project scope, WSP intends to align with other industry

meetings, but if timing does not allow, may need to consider sites at US DOT or other participating PFS member locations.

No special equipment, field work or other non-office activities are necessary to conduct this project.

2.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The WSP project team uses Microsoft Project to schedule the work items and establish a timeline or path for completing all

work activities within the desired 18-month timeframe. A detailed timeline, developed using Microsoft Project, is included

in Appendix A. Per the current schedule, the WSP project team will complete all activities by September 13, 2019. WSP will

update the project schedule monthly based on feedback received at the kick-off meeting and throughout the project, and

will distribute an updated version prior to each monthly project status meeting. Any proposed changes in project schedules

will be discussed during the status meeting. The updated project schedule will also be delivered with the monthly progress

report. Monthly progress reports will also include an estimated percent complete for each deliverable that is currently

under development.

WSP

Page 6

2.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT

Scope management for the CTCS project will be the responsibility of the CTS and WSP PMs. The scope for this project is

defined by the Scope Statement as detailed in the UVa Subcontract No.: GS11948.1574413, dated April 8, 2018. The

Project Scope is also included as Appendix B of this plan.

Any proposed scope changes will be initiated by the CTS PM. All proposed changes in scope will go through a formal

contract change process. As such, the following procedures will be followed to accommodate potential changes in project

scope:

• The CTS PM will submit a request for a modification of scope in writing to the WSP PM.

• Should the proposed change in scope not impact cost or schedule and be otherwise accepted by WSP, the WSP PM

will acknowledge in writing the acceptance of the requested change in scope.

• Where project cost and the schedule are affected:

o The WSP PM will prepare a memorandum detailing understanding of the proposed scope change, and the

anticipated budget and schedule impact.

o The CTS PM will initiate a contract change order to reflect the agreed-upon scope, schedule and budget

modifications.

o Work on the modified scope will begin upon receipt of the signed contract change order or other Notice-

to-Proceed (NTP) mechanism acceptable to both parties.

• Once a scope change has been accepted by both parties, this PMP will be updated by WSP to reflect the modified

scope, schedule and budget, and submitted for approval by the CTS PM and CV PFS.

2.4 BUDGET AND COST MANAGEMENT

The WSP PM is responsible for managing and reporting on the project’s cost throughout its duration. The project’s cost

performance will be reported as part of the monthly progress reporting, and will be discussed as-needed during the bi-

weekly project management meeting. Monthly cost reporting will reflect real-time financial system outputs from all WSP

project team members, rather than dated progress as reported in invoicing. An estimation of the physical percentage

completion of work will be reported for all active tasks.

Variances of 10% or more between the estimated physical and actual financial percent of completion will be identified as

yellow, or cautionary. If it’s determined that there is no or minimal impact on the program’s cost or schedule baseline then

there may be no action required. Cost variances of 20% or more will change the status of the cost to red or critical. These

will be reported and require corrective action from the WSP PM in order to bring the cost and/or schedule performance

indexes back in line with the allowable variance.

The Baseline project budget for the CTCS project is included in Appendix C.

2.5 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Before any materials are delivered to our clients, it is our policy that the deliverables be reviewed and scrutinized within the

project team. The individuals identified below will ensure that quality assurance and quality control is exercised throughout

the project.

WSP

Page 7

• Project Manager - As the team’s leader, Tom Timcho is responsible for ensuring quality activities (QA and QC) are

conducted according to the plan. This includes managing resolution of conflicting comments or direction arising

from reviews.

• Task Manager - The manager of each task is responsible for the quality of that task. The task manager will review

each deliverable prior to submitting to the client or other external stakeholders. If the task manager is also the QC

initiator for a given deliverable, that person will work with the project manager to identify a different quality

manager for that task. Table 2 identifies Task Managers.

• Quality Control Reviewer - The function of the Quality Control Reviewer (Ted Smith) is to perform detailed checks.

The reviewer is responsible for verifying that the work product meets the client needs. The reviewer and the

initiator will resolve any discrepancies between them prior to the work product being provided to the task leader.

A reviewer will be assigned to each document or deliverable.

Table 2: Task Managers

TASK TASK MANAGER

1 – Project and Systems Engineering Management Tom Timcho

2 – Stakeholder Engagement Planning for Research Steve Kuciemba

3 – Research Review Chris Toth

4 - Assessment of Technology Readiness Levels for Priority Research Areas Steve Kuciemba

5 – Development of CTCS Research Plan Ben McKeever

6 – Developmenf of Concept of Operations of High-Priority Research Areas Jason Stribiak

2.6 COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the Communications Management is to define the communication requirements for the CTCS project and

how information will be distributed (internally and externally) to ensure success. Communications Management includes

the following:

• Communication requirements, by role

• Decision-making process

• What information will be communicated

• How the information will be communicated

• When will information be distributed

• Who does the communication

• Who receives the communication

• Communications conduct

The WSP PM and CTS PM will together take the lead role in ensuring effective communications on this project. The

communications requirements are documented in Table 3: Communications Matrix. This Communications Matrix will be

WSP

Page 8

used as the guide for what information to communicate, who is to do the communicating, when to communicate it, and to

whom.

A complete directory will be prepared and stored on our document repository. This directory provides contact information

for the CV PFS leadership team and consultant support team.

Regularly scheduled meetings will be key in maintaining appropriate Project Team communications. For example, the WSP

project team will conduct bi-weekly status meetings. The agenda for these bi-weekly meetings is as follows:

• Scope, Schedule, Budget Short and Long-Term Priorities

• Upcoming Deliverables and Status

• Partnership Engagement Updates

• Decisions Needed

• Risks & Opportunities

• Review Previous Action Items

• New Action Items

Further, monthly project status calls will be held with the WSP project team, CTS, USDOT and PFS members. A similar

format as above will be utilized for this call. As noted in the Task 1 scope, an agenda will be provided in advance of the

meeting, and the meeting summary upon completion.

A teleconference / webinar service will be setup for purposes of these meetings and will be provided to all participants in

advance of the regularly scheduled meetings.

Another key aspect of communications is document control, specifically version control. The WSP Project Team will use

document management and collaboration features of Microsoft SharePoint to share files among the Team members. This

file sharing application is designed to work seamlessly to provide secure, organized access to documents and content, and

to enable ease of sharing documents between all stakeholders.

A combination of a filename convention and version history/document controls built into SharePoint will be used to

facilitate document version control. These tools will be structured to meet the projects needs and provide access at

multiple levels using secure user groups. The first level of access and the users responsible for managing the SharePoint site

are Administrators; these users are responsible for the structure, access to the site, and training. The next level of access is

core team and is made up of WSP Project Team members who will be contributing to the content of the site. The final set of

users are limited access review team who can access the content that has been restricted to purview. Access to the site will

be controlled through secure login information.

Table 3: Communications Matrix

COMMUNICATION TYPE DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY FORMAT PARTICIPANTS/DISTRIBUTION OWNERSHIP

Project Leadership

Meetings

Kick-off, close out, and

key milestone meetings

to determine/validate

direction and receive

feedback on work

products

Periodic per

schedule

In-Person CTS PM, CV PFS Management

Team, PM, PMS, CT

CTS PM

Project Team Meetings Monitor direction,

update on

scope/schedule/budget

management

Bi-Weekly Conf. Call CTS PM, PM, PMS, CT (as

needed)

PM/PMS

WSP

Page 9

Stakeholder Meetings Inform external

stakeholders and

gather user needs and

input

Periodic per

schedule

In-Person CTS PM, CV PFS Management

Team , CTS Project Panel,

External Stakeholder Group, PM,

PMS, CT

PM/PMS

Progress Reporting Developed by

Consultant to

document progress and

update scope, schedule

and budget

Monthly Document CTS PM, CV PFS Management

Team (via CTS PM), PM, PMS, CT

PM/PMS

Definitions of team members:

• PM: WSP Project Manager

• PMS: Project Management Support

• CT: Core Team, consisting of the systems engineering lead, subconsultant leads, and additional key staff on an as-needed basis.

2.7 RISK MANAGEMENT

The approach for managing risks for the CTCS project includes a methodical process by which the team identifies, scores,

and ranks potential risks and their impacts. Every effort will be made to proactively identify risks throughout the project in

order to develop and implement mitigation strategies before a risk is realized. A manager for each risk will be identified at

the time the risk is identified, and will have the responsibility of managing the risk throughout its life cycle.

The most likely and highest impact risks will be added to the project schedule to ensure the assigned risk managers take the

necessary steps to implement the mitigation strategy at the appropriate time. Risk managers will provide status updates on

their assigned risks in weekly project team meetings, when the meeting includes the risk’s planned timeframe.

The WSP Project Team will utilize the following basic 5 step process to manage Program Risk.

Step 1: Identify the Risk

At the kick-off meeting, initial risks will be identified. Risk identification will be revisited during each project team meeting

in order to update the project risk profile. Once identified, each risk will be added to the Program Risk Register. Each Risk

will contain the following attributes in the Risk Identification Section of the Risk Register:

• Name

• Risk Group

o Contractual

o Technical

o Organizational

o Cost

o Schedule

o Usability

• Type

o Threat

o Opportunity

• Description

• Trigger

Step 2: Analyze the Risk

WSP

Page 10

Once a risk is identified, the team will determine its likelihood of occurring and the consequences if it occurs. This will help

the team understand the nature of the risk and its potential to affect program\project goals and objectives. This

information will be listed in the “Qualitative Baseline Assessment” Section of the Risk Register with the following attributes:

• Probability of Occurrence

o Very High (5)

o High (4)

o Moderate (3)

o Low (2)

o Very Low (1)

• Impact to Outcome

o Very High

o High

o Moderate

o Low

o Very Low

• Impact to Cost

o Very High

o High

o Moderate

o Low

o Very Low

• Impact to Schedule

o Very High

o High

o Moderate

o Low

o Very Low

• On or near the Critical Path?

o Yes

o No

Step 3: Evaluate or Rank the Risk

Each Risk will be ranked based on the attributes in the “Qualitative Baseline Assessment” Section and assigned a Rank

calculated as (Impact to Cost + Impact to Schedule) * Probability. Based on the Rank, the team will decide whether the risk

is acceptable or whether it is serious enough to warrant treatment.

Step 4: Treat the Risk

During this Response Planning step, the team will assess the highest ranked risks and set a plan to treat or modify the risk to

achieve acceptable risk levels. The team will develop risk mitigation strategies, preventive plans, and contingency plans

associated with each high ranked risk. Each treated Risk will have the following attributes in the “Response” Section of the

Risk Register:

• Owner

• Approach

o Accept

o Avoid

o Mitigate

o Transfer

o Exploit

o Share

WSP

Page 11

o Enhance

• Response Plan

• Next Action Due By

Step 5: Monitor and Review the risk

The Risk Register will be reviewed each week during smaller project team meetings to monitor, track, review, and reassess

each Risk. The “Monitor and Control” Section of the Risk Register will have the following attributes:

• Status

o Active

o Inactive

o Retired

o Closed

• Status Notes as of <date>

Appendix D contains an example of the CTCS Project Risk Register. Monthly progress reports will include an updated Risk

Register.

2.8 INVOICE REPORTING

The total cost of this SUBCONTRACT shall not exceed $400,000.00 on a cost reimbursement basis. Reimbursement is

contingent upon met deliverables included in Exhibit A of the executed agreement and in accordance with the “Approved

Budget” also include in the executed agreement as Exhibit B (“Approved Budget”) and incorporated herein by reference.

For invoices to be paid under this contract, WSP will maintain an active vendor registration with UVa’s Procurement

Services located at http://www.procurement.virginia.edu/pagevendorformsvlist. WSP will submit invoices to CTS no

more often than monthly nor less frequently than quarterly. Said invoices must represent actual cost incurred, shall include

itemized current and cumulative costs and the billing period, and must be formatted substantially similar to the sample

invoice attached as Exhibit E to the master agreement (“Invoice Sample”) with an authorized signature. Invoices must

reference Account No. GS11948.157441 and must be submitted by email to: ospsubcontractorinvoice@ virginia.edu. The

final invoice must be marked as “Final” and received no later than SIXTY (60) days after the contract end date.

Following summarize the required information for each invoice.

• Date

• Invoice No.

• UVA Agreement No.

• Agreement Amount: GS11948.157441

• Investigator

• Reference No.

• Budget Period

• Invoice Period

Further, for each of the following expenditure type, the invoice shall identify the budget, current period expenditures,

cumulative expenditures and budget balance. The expenditure types are:

• Salary & Wages

• Fringe Benefits

WSP

Page 12

• Contractual Services

• Equipment

• Supplies & Materials

• Scholar/Fellowship Tuition

• Travel

• Other Expenses

Summary rows for Total Direct, Indirect and Overall Total Costs will also be provided.

Invoice will be addressed to:

University of Virginia

Office of Sponsored Programs

PO Box 400195

Charlottesville, VA 22904-4195

2.9 DELIVERABLES

WSP shall submit scheduled Draft, Interim and Final Deliverables to the CTS Project Manager, who in turn will submit to the

PFS Members.

Table 4: Deliverables

DELIVERARABLE DUE DATE

Task 1 – Project Management

Draft PMP and Project Schedule 4/25/18

Briefing Materials, Kick-Off Meeting 5/22/18

Revised PMP, Project Schedule, and the Comment Resolution Report 11/9/18

Final PMP and Project Schedule 12/21//18

Monthly Progress Reports By 15th of Month

Monthly Project Status Call Agendas 1 week prior

Monthly Project Status Call Minutes 1 week post

Team Meeting Agendas and Summaries, as needed As needed

Briefing Materials, Closeout Meeting 10/18/19

Task 2 – Stakeholder Engagement Planning for Research

Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan 9/5/18

Revised Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the Comment Resolution Report 10/31/18

Final Stakeholder Engagement Plan 12/21/18

Task 3 – Research Review

Draft Research Review 10/12/18

Revised Research Review and the Comment Resolution Report 1/11/19

Final Research Review 2/8/19

WSP

Page 13

Task 4 - Assessment of Technology Readiness Levels for Prioirty Research Areas

Stakeholder Engagement/Workshop and Briefing Materials 3/1/19

Draft TRL/Priority Assessment of CTCS Research Areas 3/29/19

Briefing of Stakeholder Engagement/Workshop Results and Updated CTCS TRL/Priority

Assessment

4/26/19

Revised TRL/Priority Assessment and the Comment Resolution Report 5/24/19

Final TRL/Priority Assessment of CTCS Research Areas 5/31/19

Task 5 - Development of CTCS Research Plan

Draft CTCS Research Plan 6/21/19

Revised CTCS Research Plan and the Comment Resolution Report 7/19/19

CTCS Research Plan Briefing 7/22/19

Final CTCS Research Plan 8/16/19

Task 6 - Developmenf of Concept of Operations of High-Priority Research Areas

Draft CTCS ConOps of High Priority Research Area(s) 8/2/19

Revised CTCS ConOps of High Priority Research Area(s) 8/16/19

CTCS ConOPs Walkthrough and Workbooks 9/6/19

Revised CTCS ConOps and Walkthrough Comment Resolution Report 9/20/19

Final CTCS ConOps of High Priority Research Area(s) 10/11/19

WSP

Page 1

APPENDIX A

SCHEDULE

CTCS: Project Management Plan Project No. 182680 University of Virginia Center for Transportation Studies

WSP

Page 2


WSP

Page 3


WSP

Page 4


WSP

Page 5

APPENDIX B PROJECT SCOPE


WSP

Page 6

TECHNICAL APPROACH The technical approach provided below was included in the original proposal and may require modifications as the project progresses.

TASK 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Appendix A provides the project schedule.

KICK-OFF MEETING

The WSP project team will coordinate with the CTS / PFS to schedule a project kick-off meeting and establish a common vision for moving the project forward. At a minimum, and upon approval from the PFS working group, the agenda for this meeting will include the following discussion items:

• Team introduction including key staff and roles.

• Overview and discussion of the draft PMP and project schedule.

• Overview of project scope, goals, and objectives.

• Identification of project issues, challenges, and opportunities.

• Summary of next steps, upcoming work activity, and action items.

MONTHLY PROJECT STATUS CALLS, TEAM MEETINGS, AND TELECONFERENCES.

The WSP project team will host monthly 30-minute project status calls to report overall project status. At a minimum these meetings will cover project progress and results, schedule, budget, outstanding action items, and any issues requiring PFS action. Monthly progress reports discussed below will be provided prior to the monthly status call. Where possible and practical, the WSP project team will coordinate monthly project status calls with ongoing work activity and project related team meetings to reduce scheduling burden of PFS members and USDOT representatives. In some cases, and depending on individuals required to participate, monthly project status calls and team meetings will be combined and in other cases, meetings will abut each other, further reducing schedule burden of individuals to attend both meetings. The WSP project team will distribute an agenda one week prior to each meeting and subsequently distribute a meeting summary within one week following it.

PROGRESS REPORTING.

The WSP project team will develop and submit monthly progress reports that cover the entirety of the scope of services. The WSP project team will deliver a progress report detailing activities that occurred during the previous month by the 15th of every month. At a minimum, progress reports will include the following items:

• Summary of project progress, including work activities in progress and completed.

• Status of action items.


WSP

Page 7

• Total budget and remaining budget, including estimated cost to complete.

• Major activities performed and deliverables submitted.

• Work planned for the next period and upcoming milestones.

• Variances from the current work plan, including planned corrective actions.

• Identified scope issues and risk narrative.

PROJECT CLOSEOUT MEETING.

After acceptance of all deliverables developed as part of this project, the WSP project team will coordinate with the PFS working group to schedule and conduct an in-person project closeout meeting. The closeout meeting will provide an opportunity to summarize the work completed and recommend next-step activities to keep the momentum going forward.

TASK 2 - STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLANNING FOR RESEARCH The WSP project team will develop a plan for identifying and engaging the diverse set of users that have a stake in the connected traffic control environment. Our approach to effective stakeholder engagement is founded on the principles of early and continuous informed engagement. We recognize that the project cannot be successful without stakeholder input, which includes many industry leaders as well those tied to modal groups like transit, commercial vehicles, disadvantaged groups, etc. From our experience, we also know that there are many segments in the industry who will openly and freely support this process. However, we also understand that any engagement must show progress and best utilize the stakeholders’ time. Considering these factors, we will deliver a stakeholder engagement plan, by undertaking four primary tasks: identify, recruit, engage, and inform.

STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

WSP recommends including heavy rail operators be considered in the list of stakeholders provided in the RFI given the impact and safety aspects of at-grade crossings to traffic control and/or fleet operators since this group may serve as early adopters of technology. It is also important to consider this list and then tease out the specific areas of stakeholder expertise that is needed. Only a limited set of stakeholders can be engaged, recommended to not exceed 20 to 25 participants. For instance, it would not be practical for the entirety of the V2I Deployment coalition to participate as stakeholders, but it is certainly expected that the different focus areas that the coalition represents be included. The charter of the V2I Deployment coalition, which attempted to align stakeholders and include both public- and private-side representation in each group (alongside academia), will be one of the key inputs into organizing the stakeholder list. Similar to the V2I Deployment coalition participants, the value of involving the relevant Transportation Research Board (TRB) committees is such that WSP recommends that the topic of this research be added to the agenda of each committee during TRB, even if the project initiation has not been completed prior to TRB.

A second resource for stakeholder identification will be the respective industry groups and representatives of their various committees, including standards committees and similar. Organizations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), ITS America, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and others will all be considered in this process. Our team will also look for opportunities to bring in stakeholders from the growing AV industry by leveraging innovative groups such as Berkeley Deep Drive (BDD), a UC Berkeley-led consortium of 18 leading companies in the AV industry. The member states of the PFS will also be included.

In addition to the list of industries/organizations from which to draw, a list of qualifications/attributes will also be identified to ensure that adequate and equal representation be included, to the extent possible. For example, traffic control systems


WSP

Page 8

extend beyond signalized intersections, to include freeway operations and more. FHWA publication FHWA-HOP-06-006 Traffic Control Systems Handbook (2005) serves as a great resource to identify all areas impacted by traffic control system strategies, and as the list of stakeholders is developed, representation from these varying areas will also be considered.

Using the above list and criteria, the WSP project team will prepare an initial list of stakeholders, organized by industry/role, and will include any gaps that are identified, along with a suggested approach to remedy them. This initial list will be submitted to the PFS for review and discussion, and once agreed to, it will be formalized. The goal is two have a least two different stakeholders from each major segment to ensure multiple points of view.

STAKEHOLDER RECRUITMENT

The WSP project team will prepare a high-level scope statement and schedule that will be used as part of the stakeholder recruitment process. The recruitment request can be thought of as both marketing material and an invitation. The content of this material, expected to be one to two pages in length, will be coordinated with the PFS working group and formalized.

Upon agreement with the stakeholder list and the initial engagement material, the WSP project team will initiate the recruitment activity, contacting each potential stakeholder, conveying the purpose, and documenting their commitment. As this step is performed, changes/additions to the stakeholder list may occur. We will track and inform the PFS of these changes.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Maximizing value from stakeholders is to communicate early and often. Task 4 discusses at depth the stakeholder engagement activities that will shape the research plan and corresponding ConOps. In addition to these major engagement activities, it is expected that occasional, minimally disruptive engagement may be necessary, such as scheduling a meeting to review a component of the plan or ConOps, or seeking targeted input from a select stakeholder. Email will be the primary tool to support these ongoing engagements, while teleconferences and/or webinars may also be used as necessary. PFS/USDOT representation will be included in these activities as desired by the PFS/USDOT.

STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS

A project SharePoint site will be established that will include copies of the various working documents and the outcomes of stakeholder engagement. This information will be kept current and accessible to all stakeholders. Stakeholders can opt to receive email notifications when new material is published or similar changes take place. However, the WSP project team will not rely exclusively on SharePoint for informing stakeholders of key dates/events and will continue to use email as the communications tool for critical activities with the occasional direct phone contact as necessary to maintain clarity.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN

Prior to initiating this task, the WSP project team will formalize the above steps in a stakeholder engagement plan. The WSP project team will submit the draft stakeholder engagement plan for review by the PFS working group, and subsequently revise this plan based on feedback received. We will then submit the revised stakeholder engagement plan and the comment resolution report that documents how each comment was resolved, to the project manager and USDOT coordinator. The WSP project team will discuss the resolution of the comments with the PFS working group as needed. The WSP project team will then make any final revisions based on additional feedback received and deliver the final stakeholder engagement plan.


WSP

Page 9

TASK 3 - RESEARCH REVIEW In this task, the WSP project team will work with the PFS working group and key stakeholders to document and identify gaps in existing research and solicit stakeholder input to identify potential research areas and priorities, user needs, transformative benefits or goals, and corresponding performance measures for the CTCS.

A research review will be conducted to identify and synthesize the existing studies and research, developments, and deployments, and map the potential benefits that can be achieved under the CTCS. The research review is expected to include but is not limited to the references listed in the RFLI. Further, WSP will include international research activities, such as those currently being conducted in Europe as well as other countries, and the involvement of technology vendors, including communications firms, also be considered.

Based on synthesis of the reviewed materials, the WSP project team will identify potential CTCS research areas and conduct an initial high-level technology readiness level (TRL) assessment for the identified research areas. The stakeholder engagement plan developed under Task 2 will outline relevant stakeholder groups to ensure that the literature/research review is comprehensive and adequately captures information needed to guide the Task 4 comprehensive TRL assessment. Stakeholder feedback will be incorporated into a summary that will be included in the research review.

Upon completion, the team will provide a draft research review to the entire stakeholder group for eliciting feedback. The WSP project team will revise the research review based on this feedback and document revisions made to the document in a comment resolution report. Stakeholders will be contacted as necessary to ensure the WSP project team understands the objective and motivation behind the feedback received. The revised research review and associated comment resolution report will be provided to the CTS PI and the USDOT coordinator for receiving additional feedback. This additional feedback will be used to make final revisions to the research review. Once final revisions have been completed, the WSP project team will submit a final research review.

TASK 4 - ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS FOR PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS The primary objective of Task 4 is to engage the stakeholder pool to guide the prioritization of CTCS research areas identified in Task 3, in support of developing the detailed research plan in Task 5. It is expected that this task will be performed primarily via in-depth stakeholder engagement activities, including stakeholder workshop(s), webinars, and as necessary, direct one-on-one stakeholder engagement activities.

The WSP project team will work to schedule an in-person stakeholder workshop with other national meetings (e.g., V2I Deployment Coalition, ITS America, ITE, TRB, SAE, or AASHTO) to make it convenient for the largest number of possible participants to participate. If this is not practical, the WSP project team will work with CTS and the PFS to identify a suitable time and location to support a workshop. The WSP project team will prepare a well-structured agenda defined in advance, with suitable briefing materials to set the stage and well-defined questions to elicit the needed information from stakeholders.

The project team will also use webinars to maximize the group of participants. Since interaction and comments are generally more difficult to collect in a webinar format, participants will be encouraged to submit questions, comments, and concerns to the project team. The briefing materials will be posted prior to the webinar to ensure participants have time to review and form critical comments.

Finally, as necessary, the project team will conduct individual stakeholder engagements to solicit necessary feedback. As one-on-one activities, the project team expects to limit this approach to instances where stakeholder input is key to filling a noted gap.

The overall engagement is expected to consider two factors when prioritizing the research areas: both the maturation of the research (as measured by the TRL) and the priority/value of each research area, as identified by the stakeholder. The


WSP

Page 10

assessment of TRLs, or more appropriately, the technology readiness levels for highway research (TRL-H) are an established set of evaluation criteria from which the maturity of a product or service may be assessed. FHWA developed the TRL-H criteria specific to the transportation environment in response to a need to evaluate and compare the varying levels of basic research, applied research, prototypes, and deployment. The criteria attempt to make this an objective process for evaluating the readiness of an item by structuring the evaluation questions as a yes or no response, ideally allowing an apples-to-apples assessment of items with similar maturity levels. However, there is level of subjectivity to this process. Say that, for each level of TRL-H (1 through 9 with 1 being the lowest) there is a series of specific criteria to meet. If after being able to answer affirmatively to all questions at a certain level, the item is considered to be at that level.

More details regarding TRL-H are available from FHWA, but for purposes of this project and the definition of research, items at level 6 or higher are no longer considered research.1 TRL-H 6 and 7 are still however considered prototypes, and as such, will not necessarily be ruled out. Since this project is focused on identifying and developing high priority research, it is expected that items with TRL-H of 3 or greater are the only realistic areas that can be considered near term. As much as it is possible (given the rapid evolution of technology), the project team will use the FHWA TRL-H criteria as the mechanism by which each research area will be rated, and once those are identified and agreed to, activities will then be conducted under which these items are prioritized.

A critical consideration in a TRL-H based assessment is the level of integration of connected and automated vehicle (CAV) systems with the existing technologies and practices. For example, area-wide ramp metering strategies have been developed and are operational in some transportation networks, but these systems don’t integrate the ability to control vehicle trajectories (e.g. speed) at ramp facilities. The use of vehicle speed control could make traditional ramp meters less effective, or even useless, when considering the goal of smoothing and limiting flow onto the freeway. Integration of eco-driving concepts with ramp metering control could generate the desired flow rate and vehicle spacing, while considering the individual vehicle dynamics - such as a freight truck who has limited acceleration and deceleration dynamics. In this case, the WSP project team would identify features of ramp metering applications that are at TRL-H level 1 or 2, but the concept of ramp metering is at TRL-level 8 or 9. This would result in the identification of a research and development need that could be reviewed by the stakeholders and prioritized.

Deployment readiness includes institutional and other factors that are not limited to technical capability and will be considered as part of this evaluation. Discussion of relevant deployment readiness factors, including potential uncertainties and impediments, will be included as part of the discussion with the stakeholders.

The project team will incorporate these factors and the outcomes of the stakeholder workshops into a priority assessment for each identified priority research area. The project team will then prepare and submit the draft TRL and priority assessment of CTCS research areas for review by the PFS working group. Feedback will be incorporated and the project team will then brief the stakeholder engagement workshop results and updated CTCS TRL/priority assessment to the PFS working group. The project team will then submit a revised CTCS TRL/priority assessment and the comment resolution report that documents how each comment was resolved. The project team will make any final revisions based on additional feedback received and deliver the final CTCS TRL/priority assessment.

TASK 5 DEVELOPMENT OF CTCS RESEARCH PLAN In this task, the WSP project team will develop a CTCS research plan based on the findings of Task 3, which will identify gaps in existing research, and Task 4, which will prioritize research areas based on stakeholder review of technology readiness, accounting for feasibility, deployment interest, and development effort for the new technologies. In coordination with CV PFS and USDOT, the CTCS research plan will define a path from concept to deployment for each research topic area, identifying early opportunities to incrementally deploy newly developed technologies including ramp meters. Our team will define specific research activities or projects for each of the prioritized CTCS Research Areas defined in Task 4. Possible research topic areas could include freeway management, arterial management, freight, transit, integrated corridor

1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/ear/17047/index.cfm


WSP

Page 11

management or others. The research activities will also be separated into short- and long-term research. For the short-term research (time frame within five years), the proposed activity will be broken down into specific research projects with their description, recommended schedule, cost, and deliverables. For the longer-term research (time frame five to ten years), the proposed activity will be described in more general terms, indicating the amount of effort and time frame for each activity. We will look at several high priority research topic areas and identify short-term research activities for each. Example research activities include:

• Arterial Management

• Inclement weather impacts on automated vehicle operations.

• Coordinated and connected ramp metering, variable speed limit, and arterial traffic signal control.

• Managed lanes for automated commercial fleets, transit, and shared mobility.

• Connected traveler information for congestion mitigation and incident response. To propose longer-term research, we need to look at connected transportation vehicle traffic in a broader perspective, taking into consideration the urban planner’s vision of the future city. On October 30, 2017, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, a 60-city organization of highly respected transportation planners, published its version of the desired city of the future, a blueprint outlining how to account for automated future and build in flexible options that could result in less traffic for everyone, not just those riding in cars.2 The concepts described in this blueprint include integrated freight and deliveries; narrow traffic lanes coupled with frequent traffic gaps between vehicle platoons allowing pedestrians to cross streets anywhere, not just at intersections; Microtransit with flexible routes carrying only a few passengers; and dynamic pricing for using roads and curbs. In addition, longer-term research is likely to incorporate elements of disruptive technologies and trends such as higher levels of vehicle automation (e.g., Level 3 to 5) and mobility as a service. Thus, potential longer-term research activities could include:

• Using CVs for dynamic congestion pricing in selected city areas based on parking and curb availability.3

• Managing connected and automated delivery vehicles in combination with curb management to avoid or to minimize double-parking and street blocking.

• Enabling rapid stops for Microtransit and ordinary vehicles for the purposes of drop-off and pick-up at areas designated for public transit when these areas are not occupied.

Based on the identification of potential research, the WSP project team will develop a ranking based on consideration of technology readiness, feasibility, deployment interest, and development effort as the key decision factors. A simple ranking methodology will be applied that scores each factor on a scale of 1 to 10 and multiplies the factor scores into a technology score. Technology readiness will be assessed based on the TRL-H review from Task 4 that considers the maturity including the integration of connected automation. Feasibility will assess the level of research needed based on estimated program cost and uncertainty. Deployment interest will be assessed based on stakeholder feedback and potential benefits, including consideration of factors such as market penetration of CAV technologies. Development effort will be assessed based on the estimated development (not research) required to implement a deployment ready system that can be demonstrated and tested in a field system. Each potential research topic will be assessed based on the composite score, but also on individual scores to identify short-term and long-term research priorities.

The WSP project team will prepare and submit the draft CTCS research plan for review by the PFS working group. Feedback will be incorporated and the project team will then develop and submit a revised CTCS research plan and a comment resolution report that documents how each comment was resolved. The project team will brief the PFS working group of the revised CTCS research plan make any final revisions based on additional feedback received and deliver the final CTCS research plan. It is important to note that high-priority research activities may be in part guided by the stakeholder engagement plan.


WSP

Page 12

TASK 6 DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS OF HIGH-PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS Building from work completed in prior tasks, the WSP project team will develop a ConOps document that describes the high-priority concept(s) thought to best demonstrate integrated control operations along arterials, freeway interchanges, and eventually freeways. To begin this task, the WSP project team will bring forward the prioritized list of high priority research areas identified in Task 4, as well as the associated research concepts identified in Task 5, and will collaborate with the PFS working group to identify the concept(s) that offer the best opportunity to demonstrate integrated control operations and could best advance the goals and objectives of the PFS working group. Our approach and budget assumes development of a ConOps document focused on a maximum of three high-priority development projects; however, depth of detail and discussion with the CV PFS could alter this assumption later. The ConOps to be developed in this task will adhere to industry accepted systems engineering practices and be developed in a non-technical manner that is easy to understand by anyone regardless of background or familiarity with previous efforts. While the stakeholder group invited to participate at this stage will be narrowed to those stakeholders with a potential role in the selected concept(s), the goal here is to still be as inclusive as possible to allow ALL stakeholders the opportunity to understand the nature of the project concept(s) and to be able to provide input at this stage in project concept’s development. Achieving stakeholder consensus and buy-in at this stage of the concept’s development will help to mitigate the risks to budget and schedule if the development team were forced to revisit this stage critical feedback or stakeholders were missed. It will also establish a vision for the concept in support of future prototyping efforts.

Our approach for developing the ConOps begins by engaging stakeholders early to identify and better understand needs. This is an iterative activity that begins well before initial stakeholder contact is made and is dependent on our stakeholder engagement plan detailed in Task 2. To elaborate – identifying stakeholder needs along with opportunities and challenges begins first in research. The WSP project team will collect and review existing documentation and will identify and preserve, for later use, stakeholder needs, opportunities, and potential challenges. These sources of information will also be referenced within the ConOps document itself. Together, these aspects of project development lay the foundation for future stakeholder outreach and coordination and reduces stakeholder burden when trying to develop this understanding. It also allows us to tailor future outreach activities based on what is known and what isn’t. The WSP project team includes several individuals who have been active in MMITSS and CV research, reducing effort required to collect existing documentation and to identify stakeholders for outreach efforts.

As part of the activities conducted in this task, the WSP project team will facilitate a face-to-face workshop with the CTCS PFS working group to develop and gain consensus on the concept(s) vision, goals, and objectives as well as to begin understanding the operational considerations of the concept(s) with respect to existing individual agency operations. Other goals of the ConOps are to ensure stakeholder needs and expectations are captured early; identify existing operational environment and roles; identify how the concept could enhance existing situations; identify operational requirements; begin the process of linking needs with specific requirements; and provide contextual framework needed to support future prototyping efforts. The WSP project team will once again seek to identify opportunities where we can conduct the workshop in concert with a well-attended industry conference or related meeting to maximize stakeholder attendance.

In advance of the workshop, the WSP project team will develop a series of scenarios tailored around each concept providing a range of operating conditions from the perspective of each user. For example, one such scenario may be connected traffic control under a limited CAV vehicle penetration rate while another may be a nearly saturated CAV vehicle fleet. The scenarios will be disseminated in advance of the workshop to allow stakeholders to analyze and brainstorm the scenario in advance of the workshop. Prior to the workshop, the WSP project team will develop a series of questions that will be used to solicit stakeholder feedback at key breaks within each scenario during the workshop. Questions will focus not only on the technical facets of the concept (i.e., how might this be accomplished) but also on the institutional and management facets (i.e., what resources are needed and how might collected data be managed).


WSP

Page 13

The WSP project team will then develop a draft ConOps for the PFS working group to review. To save time and to develop the ConOps in a standardized format, the IEEE standard 1362-1998 ConOps template will be used. Based on comments received, a revised ConOps will be developed and disseminated to the narrowed stakeholder group. The WSP project team will then conduct a review with the CTCS team and members of the focused stakeholder group to solicit more stakeholder-oriented comments. A face-to-face review meeting would be preferred, but if necessary can be conducted by webinar. The author(s) of the ConOps will lead a walk-through of the ConOps document and the project manager will be present to provide a summary of work activity completed to date as well as to answer general project-related questions. To include stakeholders unable to attend the on-site meeting, the WSP project team will establish a teleconference line for remote participation. The WSP project team will work with the PFS working group to develop and confirm stakeholder participation at the ConOps walkthrough meeting and to confirm general logistics.


WSP

Page 15

APPENDIX C BUDGET


WSP

Page 16

Task Task Description Budget per Task 1 Project Management $51,986.61 2 Stakeholder Engagement $44,194.97 3 Research Review $66,565.19 4 Assessment of Tech Readiness $48,665.24 5 Dev of CTCS Research Plan $24,457.09 6 Dev of ConOps $150,751.78 Labor Total $386,620.88

Travel / Expenses $13,379.12 Grand Total $400,000.00


WSP

Page 17

APPENDIX D RISK LOG

Risk Identification Baseline Risk Assessment Current Risk Assessment Risk Response/Mitigation Monitoring Baseline Risk Ranking

# Risk Name Group Type Description Trigger Probability of Occurrence

Impact to Outcome

Impact to Cost Impact to Schedule

Critical Path Rank Probability of Occurrence

Impact to Outcome

Impact to Cost Impact to Schedule

Critical Path Rank Owner Approach Response Plan Next Action Due By Status Notes - Current Period

Probability Outcome

1 US DOT Review Cycles Schedule ThreatReview comments are not provided to contractor as planned

Late delivery of comments to contractor

High (4) High (4) High (4) High (4) Yes 32 High (4) High (4) High (4) High (4) Yes 32 CTS MitigateProvision of clear instructions and schedule to reviewers 5/22/2018 Active Discuss at KO meeting

4 4

2 Conflicting comments Schedule Threat

Review comments provided by various US DOT reviewers conflict

Conflicting review comments provided by US DOT

Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Yes 18 Moderate (3) Moderate (3) High (4) High (4) Yes 18 CTS MitigateFacilitate collaboration and mediation between multiple commenters 5/22/2018 Active Discuss at KO meeting

3 3

3

Task 5 - Identification and agreement on priority research area

Cost Threat

Ability to constrain and agree to the number and content of priority research areas

Facilitate collaboration with stakeholders

Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Yes 18 Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Yes 18 CTS MitigateLeverage PFS member input to solidify content and rank of research areas 5/22/2018 Active Discuss at KO meeting

3 3

4

0 0

5

0 0

6

0 0

Documents

Connected Traffic Control System (CTCS): Research Planning ... · 2/15/2019 · CTCS Project Panel – The CTS Project Panel is a small group of selected CV PFS members committed