Architecture Version 7 0 Survey Results

National ITS Architecture Version 7.0 User Survey June 23, 2011

Introduction An online survey was conducted from May 23, 2011 to June 10, 2011 to collect user feedback on the changes and enhancements that should be included in Version 7.0 of the National ITS Architecture, to be released in 2012.

Through a series of mostly multiple choice questions, users provided background information to establish their experience with the National ITS Architecture and feedback on current aspects of the Architecture and potential enhancements. Survey respondents were also given the ability throughout the survey to elaborate on their answers and provide further details. This paper summarizes the results of the survey along with the impact these results may have on the planned enhancements for Version 7.0.

Demographic Information of the Respondents

Survey Completion

Number of surveys with some information: 196

Number of surveys completed with specific comments: 60

The 126 surveys that were not completed all, included everything except for the specific comments.

Expertise The survey respondent pool contains a good amount of experience. More than half of them rated their expertise average or above average.

Response Percent

Response Count

28.6% 56 18.9% 37 27.6% 54 16.8% 33 8.2% 16

0skipped question

1. How would you rate your expertise with the National ITS Architecture?

1 - Novice answered question

Answer Options

5 - Expert

Architecture Version 7.0 User Survey Results and Analysis, 06/15/2011

Previous Architecture Training Course or Workshop

In response to this question 133 of respondents reported taking a course/workshop related to Architecture and 63 of them did not respond.

Architecture Use Respondents were asked what parts of the National ITS Architecture they have used. The Results were evenly distributed with relatively even use for Logical Architecture, Market Package and Physical Architecture.

Questions:

Survey included 4 sets of multiple choice questions asking users to rank the list of proposed enhancements and how important is each to them. Some questions offer participants a place to provide a longer answer if they liked.

Proposed changes were rated by assigning 2 points to “Very Important”, 1 Point to “Somewhat Important” and negative 2 points to “Not Important”. Results are shown in the following table.

National ITS Architecture Version 7.0 User Survey June 23, 2011

Answer Options Very Important Somewhat Important

Not Important Unknown Rating

Average Response

Count New Services 2 Points 1 Point -2 points

Make the market package and physical architecture diagrams a navigable part of the National ITS architecture web site. Add hyperlinks so that clicking on a subsystem, equipment package, or architecture flow on these diagrams takes you to the web page for

91 67 6 8 237 172

Define performance measures (e.g., hours of delay, on-time performance) in the architecture, associating them with market packages and specific data sources and architecture flows that support the performance measurement.

100 58 11 7 236 176

Refresh the ITS standards mappings to the National ITS Architecture, reflecting recent ITS standards changes.

87 71 6 8 233 172

Expand center to center interfaces such as Traffic Management Subsystem to Other TMS and Information Service Provider to Other ISP to better differentiate the types of information that may be shared.

85 70 4 13 232 172

Develop a planning oriented view or entry point to the architecture.

For example, add an entry point that lists goals and operations objectives with links to market packages and related National ITS Architecture components.

92 63 14 7 219 176

Improve support for Active Traffic Management in the National ITS Architecture including support for speed harmonization, temporary shoulder use, queue warning, dynamic lane markings, and dynamic truck restrictions.

86 62 17 11 200 176

Add a mapping between architecture flows and a message-oriented list of the types of information carried by the flow. This would allow the user to drill down into message-level detail below each architecture flow that reflects ITS standards associated wi

66 77 12 17 185 172

Add user service and extended market package information such as the mapping between market packages and goals and ITS benefits to the Access databases available on the National ITS Architecture web site.

55 91 12 14 177 172

Answer Options Very Important Somewhat Important

Not Important Unknown Rating

Average Response

Count New Services 2 Points 1 Point -2 points

Improve the alignment between the National ITS Architecture and Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) including support for Wireless Roadside Inspections.

57 78 16 23 160 174

Update the Institutional Layer of the architecture (which introduces the policies, funding incentives, working arrangements, and jurisdictional structure that support the technical layers of the architecture) and include it on the National ITS Architectur

64 75 25 12 153 176

Update the National ITS Architecture to be consistent with the Connected Vehicle initiative.

53 78 16 29 152 176

Improve the alignment between market packages and the Cost- Benefits databases, IDAS, Lessons Learned Database, and Deployment Statistics, revising market packages and adding mappings to these other tools.

53 82 19 20 150 174

As part of the preceding item, rename “market packages” to “ITS services”, “ITS solutions”, or another more intuitive name.

64 62 34 14 122 174

Add support for Open Road Tolling in the National ITS Architecture to support Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) user fee collection.

58 68 36 14 112 176

Improve support for rail transit modes, including support for Positive Train Control, in the National ITS Architecture.

42 75 38 21 83 176

Include enforcement more prominently, including red-light running and other enforcement applications.

49 72 46 9 78 176

Improve consistency with Version 2.0 of the ITS Architecture for Canada, including enhancements and revisions from the Canadian architecture that are applicable to the U.S. National ITS Architecture.

17 63 47 47 3 174

Specific Comments There are a number of new ideas provided by the users that we could consider for Version 7.0 update. The first item that most users asked is to simplify architecture especially market packages description. They also asked to consider including international Standards, rural Architecture, adding subsystem for communication, and expanding rail and transit systems. This is a summary of additional enhancements request:

Simplify Architecture:

1. Shorten the descriptions of flows/market packages or bulletize them. Understand that it has to be comprehensive, but we have to

2. Simplify the architecture jargon to a user friendly level and make it consistent with Turbo Software.

3. Review of the National Architecture with the goal of simplifying the language would be of great benefit.

4. If graphical support capabilities were more user friendly and illustrative, it would be helpful. Now, to communicate with non-technical stakeholders, we create separate illustrations.

5. The market packages are very useful. Make sure the text description of each market package is clear.

Standards:

1. For standards relationships, include environmental and quality standards, as well as systems and software engineering standards applicable to the automotive industry not currently identified such as JTC 1 IT security, codes, data, IT governance, and LTE, and UN/CEFACT.

2. International Standards: align with international developments and standardization (ISO 14813, etc.) (Refer also to formal partnership between ISO and ITU in ITS services space signed this April). This would also bring in better/more common terminology.

3. Use international standards such as SysML, IDEF, etc. for modeling.

Rail: it's time for the national ITS architecture to be intentional about rail and reflect rail in a more meaningful way like the architecture has done with CVO.

Add Subsystem for Communications: Add some type of subsystem for a communications network - center-to-center systems developed in some parts of the country act as their own unique subsystem that moves information and is vital to include in regional architectures. Right now these networks/softwares/systems are "fit into" the architecture rather than having an actual place they be defined.

Adaptive Traffic Control Systems: Improve support for "adaptive traffic control systems". Market package ATMS 03-Surface Street Control does not describe the functionality of an “adaptive traffic control system" properly. These systems rely on real-time communication unlike the description provided by ATMS 03. The V model should be updated to reflect recent changes in technology.

Dynamic Architecture: Let’s move away from the existing design of architectures online and instead consider harnessing the true power of the internet and have dynamic architectures for regions and/or states that can be added to and modified by multiple agencies. This would be a live architecture with components that can be affected by the architecture maintainers and would lead to better cohesiveness across architecture 'boundaries' and for a more useful process.

Transit:

Please expand the transit portion and the need for universal interfaces with the transit market packages - the universal interface is critical in the transit area

Architecture for State level: As you enhance the National ITS Architecture, think about ease of application by end users at the State level. For example, some users at the local or State level have not found it easy and intuitive to use the current National ITS Architecture as their major ITS planning guide. They simply pay lip-service to compliance to the document just to "satisfy" Federal regulations and requirements; but in truth they did not actually use the National Architecture as their primary Guide.

Instead they have developed their own ROP's (Regional Operations Plan) which in some cases differ drastically, in their approach, from the National ITS Architecture.

BIFA: Add linkages to the Border Information Flow Architecture (BIFA).

Crossing Guard: Consider including crossing guard in architecture.

Safety: Provide linkages to safety, particularly for pedestrian signals and bicycle signals.

Congestion Management: Align the ITS process with the Congestion Management Process as well as the Regional Transportation Planning process.

Rural Areas: Make the ITS more specific and less general. Architecture design needs to be just as usable for rural areas as large metropolitan areas.

Some of the new ideas from the stakeholder comments received will be considered for version 7.0 update and others that bear further analysis for incorporation into a future update.

The following section documents specific comments that respondents took the time to type into the survey. They are listed by participants Expertise level and their attended workshops followed by their specific comments/suggestions on proposed changes or their additional ideas for changes. The respondents names are removed from this version to maintain their privacy and maintain confidentiality.

Table 2 – Specific Comments

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

1 5 6 Enhancing the architecture to include connected vehicle is important given the energy that is being given by FHWA to this effort. I'm not sure the feds have stopped changing the name but connected vehicle seems to be sticking and not going away. There are test projects underway that are defining ConOps for various aspects of connected vehicle and it would likely benefit the Arch Team to look at those graphics to get a better idea of what the practioners in the ICCs and MPOs are thinking with regard to connected vehicle as you consider changes to the architecture in this area.j I like the idea of enhancing the planning and hopefully the agreements sections by connecting the impact of policies with goals. This is especially important as it relates to the joint operations policy statements or operational agreements currently underway in many states connecting traffic incident management partners, highway patrol and DOTs.. the more intentional their efforts together the more impact on Incident Management and congestion improvements in real time.

Performance Measures.. important but, different in every state. I think having some obvious performance measure would be good but the architecture cannot be everything to everyone and while performance measuring is important I think that adding them to the arch you run the risk of having a meaningless effort because there's just not enough time or energy to do it right or, doing something like IDAS that is too shallow to provide meaningful measures.. garbage in - garbage out concept. hope this makes sense...

First let me say that I am so impressed with the flexibility of the national architecture over the years as I've watched it morph into an amazing framework that continues to meet the needs of ITS while staying away from technology perscriptives. Same thoughts about Turbo. Future changes or enhances.. I guess Rail would be my first recommendation. I thought the rail folks were supposed to have their own structure or architecture several years ago - do they? If so, I haven't seen it. So, since they don't I think it's time for the national ITS architecture to be intentional about rail and reflect rail in a more meaningfull way like the architecture has done with CVO... it is after all, an important part of transportation and transport in the US. Either way, I'm sure with the bright minds of the Architecture Team you guys will figure out the balance. :-) Thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide my comments.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

2 4 0 Following up on your plans to coordinate with ITS architecture for Canada, I'd suggest to align with inetrnational developments and standardisation (ISO 14813, etc.) (refere also to formal partnership between ISO and ITU in ITS services space signed this April).

This would also bring in better/more common terminilogy. Some you have suggested above (i.e. ITS services (very appropriate in our brave new SOA world) vs market packages (I always had problems with this one). Overall excellent work

3 1 1 Would like to see more training with Turbo and National/Local Architecture

4 5 1 1. It is interesting to navigate the site without some type of a history of where you have been or where you are in the site. Maybe it would be good to include a running history per session on the website, or a more defined table of links on the left side that when you click on a link, it opens up a short more detailed list of items to click on within that link still captured in the left hand tool bar. 2. Updating the market packages to be hyperlinked is a fantastic enhancement! 3. If there is any relationship with the cost/benefit database, lessons learned database, IDAS, etc., then some level of effort to keep those up to date should be priority for the USDOT. Last time I checked, the cost/benefit database had 90% of information on it from 2006.

1. Add some type of subsystem for a communications network - center-to-center systems developed in some parts of the country act as their own unique subsystem that moves information and is vital to include in regional architectures. Right now these networks/softwares/systems are "fit into" the architecture rather than having an actual place they be defined. 2. Shorten the descriptions of flows/market packages or bulletize them. Understand that it has to be comprehensive, but we're having to paraphrase quite a bit to get down to what the flow or the market package really means.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

5 3 4 While I like many of the changes/enhancements that continue to make things more interactive, it is important that users understand the final product is NOT just a Turbo Architecture file/application. Make it easy to use and understand, but continue to reinforce the role of the ITS Architecture in terms of overall system development and implementation.

You should get to a point where the individual systems within a region are all directly mapped to the regional ITS Architecture and can be easily illustrated for all. I'm picturing a shadowy background showing the general regional architecture with brightly highlighted existing systems. This is important for the regional players to better understand how their systems need to interact and interface with other systems, and in demonstrating to leaders the progress that is being made.

6 1 1 I am just beginning to get involved with the achitecture. Looking into ITS start-up training.

7 4 6 Please simplify the architecture jargon to a user friendly level and make it consistent with Turbo Software.

8 2 0 All the planning is great, but we need funding sources to carry out the plans. For our state, money is really tight right now and designating a dedicated source for these projects is the only way we are going to move forward.

Find money to fund the projects identified in the architecture.

9 3 1 For standards realtionships, include environmental and quality standards, as well as systems and software engineering standards appliable to the automotive industry not currently identified such as JTC 1 IT security, codes, data, IT governance, and LTE, and

UN/CEFACT.

Describe external connectors for initiatives such as connect car, core components (aka, system), and regional ITS systems such as the EU. Connection between wire line and wireless technologies for safety data exchanges. External connectors to registration and certificate issuing authorities, if not already identified in V6, and descriptions thereof as part of the global ITS.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

10 2 0 Improve support for "adaptive traffic control systems".

Market package ATMS 03-Surface Street Control does not describe the functionality of an " adaptive traffic control system" properly . These systems rely on real-time communication unlike the description provided by ATMS 03. The V model should be updated to reflect recent changes in technology. It seems we are still using a model that was created when ITS standards did not exist. For an adaptive traffic control system, at least 95% of the devices used are COTS components (e.g. adaptive software, controllers, vehicle detection) and most of them are designed to meet ITS standards.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

11 4 6 The most critical issue to me to enhance the relevance of the ITS Architecture is strengthening the linkages between planning and strategic objectives (the 'why') with the ITS architecture (the 'how). I have led numerous agency, regional, and state ITS architecture/strategic plan efforts, and the ITS architecture itself is rarely an appropriate entry point to engage (and sustain interest of) stakeholders or decision makers. In my opinion, a regional/agency/project ITS Architecture (as well as the enabling ITS field infrastructure) should be derived from higher order operational objectives and performance measures, which themselves are explicitly linked to intuitive and widely-recognized transportation needs and goals. In my experience it is the RCTOs and strategic TSMO plans where most of the effort, shuttle diplomacy, policy buy-in, resource sharing, and consensus building opportunities lay. It is also more consistent with the Systems Engineering approach to reach further back into the needs/policy realm to find the common point of departure from which to develop the Architecture.

Once those front end issues are hammered out, assembling the ITS Architecture is fairly deterministic.

From my observations 80% or 90% of the market packages, terminators, etc. are strikingly similar from region to region...with the odd addition of the Drawbridge Management MP or electronic toll collection for 'local color.' I have also noticed that the Architecture has a 'target audience problem.' Agencies representatives in an Architecture project workshop may range from planners so executives to IT staff, because of varying interpretations on what the Architecture is and how to approach it. In reality, I think there are different strata of the Architecture that require multiple levels of participation from agencies at different points along the way. Two other suggestions: - Develop an end product that is more intuitive and resonant to a broader audience than Turbo Architecture. While TA is arguably a necessary evil for low-level project design, few people who need to understand the intent and

I think the potential of the Regional ITS Architecture has been thwarted by its peculiar and obtuse verbiage and concepts. This is a barrier to gaining widespread interest and meaningful engagement beyond the hard core ITS community...even among agency professionals who eat and breathe operations.

Consider more intuitive conceptual frameworks and language in future additions that still honor the SE origins and intents of the Architecture. Thanks.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

12 4 5 Market package outputs need to be improved. These are often the most "tangible" components of the architecture to the broader regional stakeholder base.

My experience has been that customized data flows are not output as part of the graphic that is generated (this is a flaw in Turbo, not necessarily the national ITS architecture). Traveler information market packages need to be updated - for clarity, if nothing else. 511 has evolved, and there needs to be an elegant way to show different outputs (data to mobile devices), and connectivity among different data sources/servers that support these systems.

13 5 5 Anything that can be done to simplify the documentation for architecture and allow for more regional flexibility to better coordinate the architecture with existing regional planning is encouraged. The level of specificity, and the terminology, of architecture prevents it from being user-friendly. We really need to consider WHO is using the architectures and for what purpose. It is used in planning, by planners and regional agencies. It is NOT being used by engineers. Which means we need to rethink how the architecture is described in a way to make it tie in more with plans and be more accessible language-wise to planners.

Crazy idea - lets move away from the existing design of architectures online and instead consider harnessing the true power of the internet and have dynamic architectures for regions and/or states that can be added to and modified by multiple agencies. This would be a live architecture with components that can be affected by the architecture maintainers and would lead to better cohesiveness across architecture 'boundaries' and for a more useful process.

14 3 2 Make sure the correct entities are invovled and only speaking for what they have expertise in. We have too manu plans already that cannot be implemented because the creating entity does not know how to do what they have made a pretty plan for.

same as above

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

15 2 0 Please expand the transit portion and the need for universal interfaces with the transit market packages -the universal interface is critical in the transit area -thanks, k

16 1 1 No None

17 3 1 None at this time None at this time

18 3 5 Open Systems development for Tolling and VMT

19 4 2 As you enhance the National ITS Architecture, think about ease of application by end users at the State level.

For example, some users at the local or State level have not found it easy and intuitive to use the current National ITS Architecture as their major ITS planning guide. They simply pay lip-service to compliance to the document just to "satisfy" Federal regulations and requirements; but in truth they did not actually use the National Architure as their primary Guide. Instead they have developed their own ROP's (Regional Operations Plan) which in some cases differ drastically, in their approach, from the National ITS Architecture.

20 4 6 In the spirit question 4. sub question K a review of the National Architecture with the goal of simplifying the language and removing symantics would be of great benifit. Im sure a large percentage of the user base are still getting tripped up/confused because of the cumbersome nomenclature (including this writer).

Although it is the nature of the beast, I believe it could be simplified. The feeling (by most agencies) that one can never completely get a handle on this subject without the aide of an outside consultant needs to change - and thats comming from a consultant!

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

21 4 4 Add linkages to the Border Information Flow Architecture (BIFA).

22 1 1 As noted, I am a novice when it comes to ITS Architecture...so I may have overrated the importance of the enhancements proposed.

23 1 2 I work for a mid sized city, 50,000, but large enough to fall into the MPO catagory and other requirements.

I only fill out ITS forms about 2 or 3 times a year.

There needs to be a simple step by step instruction process written in PLAIN English as to what needs to be done. Every time something is changed it is a challenge to try and figure out what is needed. Don't use jargon. If you want to know what equipment is being installed then ask. Don't get into systems and such that can means several things to differents people. This is complicated enough as it is. I am an engineer and can usually figure out most things, but this process has been complicated way beyond what it should have been.

24 5 6 Need to find a way to address cyber security and anti-tampering architecture into the new version.

Remember to follow the K.I.S.S. principle while strengthing the connection between Planning and System Engineering.

25 4 0 Funding funding funding

26 1 3 Make the architecture simple! All these items just fund monies to consultants where we could be puting ITS devices on the roads to make a real impact on lives. I know we need a plan / framework to do things, but the ITS architecture is too involved and has got to go!!!

27 3 1 CrossingGuard Ask me about the updated CrossingGuard

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

28 4 0 NONE ADD THE V2V AND V2I SERVICES.

29 4 2 Any thought about having some sort of documentation for the Access database supporting Turbo Architecture?

30 3 3 If graphical support capabilities were more user friendly and illustrative, it would be helpful. Now, to communicate with non-technical stakeholders, we create separate illustrations.

31 3 1 COULD YOU IMPROVE THE REPORT SESION

32 2 1 The NTCIP standards cause problems because of the overhead requirements. We have a traffic signal system that is taking 4 minutes to download into the field because of the overhead. I believe additional guidance on appropriate use of proprietary protocol be explored. I would focus on making the existing better as opposed to adding new things with significant detail.

I'd also suggest more funding for training. Especially with traffic signal designers. It seems traffic signals remain a weak point where there has been significant resistance to make changes to our standards and limited new data provided to our ITS systems.

The standards should be more open source and there should be an understanding of the requirements. The link to policies is important and flexibility should be built into the process.

33 2 1 Linkages to safety, particularly for pedestrian signals and bicycle signals.

34 1 1 No Make it applicable. Allign the ITS process with the Congestion Management Process as well as the Regional Transportation Planning process.

35 1 0 Would like to see more classes on Turbo Architecture training

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

36 4 0 Add some type of website generation tool, so that the ITS Architecture database can be converted to a ready-to-post website with little additional effort. A website is a much better way to disseminate the architecture than a huge PDF report.

37 2 0 Make the ITS more specific and less general.

Architecture design needs to be just as usable for rural areas as large metropolitan areas. However, rural areas feel unguided and left out of ITS planning guidelines.

Definitions should be clearer and more precise.

Guidance on ITS architecture should have an across the board standard for all regions. Currently, some areas use the architecture to map communications links without identifying physical inventory. There is little to no guidance on what should be named in the regions architecture or in Turbo.

38 3 1 Provide the link for the manual and help and make it more user friendly.

39 4 2 no. Definitely do this: When using Turbo, and you select the Stakeholders for a project, have the unchosen Stakeholders be automatically eliminated from the rest of the architecture analysis. There is no way the Stakeholders that are not wanted should be showing up in the Interfaced tab. That is really confusing and needs to be changed.

40 4 2 The above recommendation for a web-based architecture would be very useful! Our contractor provided this service and it was extremely helpful for reviewing the work in progress and after completion. It illustrates relationships much better than single pages and printed copies.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

41 2 2 Not at this time Not at this time

42 2 2 The bottom line is that inorder to promote the widespread use of Turbo and to foster a better understanding of Architectures in general, the software has to be user friendly. The terminology must be clear and consistent. Many ITS stakeholders are confused by use of terms like market package, subsystem, element, and terminator. Efforts to get by-in and cooperation in the building and maintenance of regional architectures is severely hampered by this.

The output and reporting capabilities are extremely inadequate. Creating reports should be a user friendly and customizable process.

43 2 3 No. No.

44 1 1 none none

45 4 2 Migrate Access database to SQL Server Express

46 3 2 No. No.

47 3 0 Use international standards such as SysML, IDEF, etc.

for modelling.

48 3 3 Need to be careful you do not add too much detail to the architecture. Development of regional ITS architectures are generally planning level exercises and involve higher level managers. Requiring lots of detail about ITS market packages or other components that may be years into the future (or may never happen at all) makes the proces too complicated and time consuming.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

49 4 4 The market packages are very useful. Make sure the text description of each market package is clear. I use the sum of all market packages as my definition for what is ITS versus what is not ITS. If there is a market package description that fits, then it is ITS. If not, it is not.

Create standard ConOps and Requirements documents for the market packages that will meet the final rule 940 requirements. Why should every jurisdiction have to re-invent a ConOps for variable message signs and cameras, for example.

50 2 1 A basic set of instructions with the concepts of the architecture better defined would be helpful. That would allow in-experienced user get better aquainted with Turbo and the process of defining project architectures. There are "gaps" in some of the state's architectures because individual "project" architectures have not been included (updated) into their respective state or regional architecture.

We need to make the use of the architecture easy and not as "cryptic" as it appears to be now, especially for novice users. Turbo also needs to be more intuitive and interactive to the user; prompting, providing examples and alerting the user to obvious errors or inconsistancies.

51 4 1 Not at this time Not at this time

52 5 0 The importance to develop open process and technology specifications, able to answer the new complex integrated IT solutions, aiming at reduce the existing dependency from proprietary process and technology patterns. This, on the assumption that the evolving of existing closed complex technology infrastructures depends on the involvement of its own systems suppliers. Furthermore, a change on a key technology supplier makes commonly difficult the reutilization of existing technology systems.

The ITS solution tend to be collaborative, i.e.

involving the collaboration among stakeholders on promoting a national wide transparency for movers and on offering innovative mobility services (inside vehicle, workstations and nomadics). This requires a new information and technology organization (cooperative systems for on board, road side and backoffice IT technology systems) in a coordinated way with the emerging collaborative business processes or cross-organizational processes (the new generation of applications involving information systems from a diversity of organizations or stakeholders).

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

53 4 0 Provide an option to view all associated content with a selected element. For example, the output for element A would show that it belongs to stakeholder B with subsystem/terminator C and is associated with market packages D, E, and F. Also include all the other information in Turbo including agreements (if any), con ops (if any), the interconnects/flows, and perhaps even which standards are applicable and functionality/requirements.

54 2 1 None When doing interconnects the tool provides all of the data flows and many of not most of them are not used in the final diagrams. I would be nice to offer a minimum set of essential data flows e.g. Video, status and control only and then add the extra data flow as needed. combing through the the large amounts of data flows for what is needed takes an lot of effort.

55 2 0 very difficult to navigate.

56 1 1 Please make this more user friendly. I'm somewhat of a tech-savy engineer but find this software package cumbersome to extract the data that I need to extract.

57 3 0 Generally, the National ITS Architecture is unused by transportation professionals and does not play a role in which equipment, concepts or processes are implemented in an area.

58 3 4 Require controller manufacturers to actually be fully NTCIP compliant, including allowing each company's system to read and operate other company's controllers on the central system.

Expertise Level

Attended Trainings

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions on these proposed enhancements?

6. Do you have any additional ideas for changes or enhancements?

59 2 2 I would recommend adding a method where stakeholders can suggest modifications to the architecture to reflect local conditions, without having to change the national architecture. I.e. it would be beneficial to add a tool that allows local users to modify the architecture for their own purposes, and perhaps share this as an option with the ITS community, perhaps through the National ITS Architecture website, or some other forum.

The National Architecture could benefit from mimicking some of the efforts that the 2010 HCM and Highway Safety Manual have embraced. Namely, they have established online areas with suggested modifications can be developed and posted on an interim basis, without having to update the entire document. E.g. the HSM has the Crash Modification Clearinghous (www.cmfclearinghouse.org), where users can upload experimental CMF's for others to use. Additionally, the authors of the HSM can post updated CMF's as they are developed, without having to issue an entirely new HSM. This has the benefit of keeping the manual up to date and relevant to users, something the National ITS Architecture could benefit from.

60 2 3 Bi-monthly status annoncements via e-mail, whats done, where it can be accessed, etc...

Map it all, pictures, less text... Note, we typically do not utilize in-house, consultants utilize for us...we simply review