NOTICE OF A MEETING
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
111 LIBERTY STREET, SUITE 100
COLUMBUS, OHIO
SCIOTO CONFERENCE ROOM
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
9 a.m.
AGENDA
1.
Welcome and Introductions – Bill Ferrigno, Chair
2.
Approval of May 5, 2010 Minutes (enclosed)
3.
Monthly Progress Report (handout) – Robert Lawler
• Regional Plan Update (Bernice Cage)
• Upcoming Events (enclosed)
4.
Proposed Resolutions:
• T-13-10: “Amending the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement
Program” (enclosed) – Nick Gill
• T-14-10: “Adoption of the Revised Central Ohio Regional Intelligent Transportation
System Architecture” (enclosed) – Ariel Godwin
5.
State of the Region – Amelia Costanzo
6.
Funding Programs
• Stimulus II: Jobs for Main Street
• MORPC Project Updates and Solicitation
7.
Other Business
PLEASE NOTIFY BRENDA AT 233-4146 or bnoe@morpc.org TO CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE FOR
THIS MEETING
THE NEXT MEETING IS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2010
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
9 a.m.
Scioto Meeting Room at MORPC
111 Liberty Street, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Members Present
Susan Banbury
Roger Betts
Mike Bradley (for Moore)
Robert Lawler
Dave Mengerink
Ted Beidler
Pat Blayney
Randy Comisford
Bruce Mansfield
Clyde Seidle
Tim Bell
Randy Bowman
William Ferrigno
Michael Meeks
Guests Present
Robert Heady, Strand Associates
Ryan Manczak, COTA
Rob Riley, Delaware County Engineer’s Office
MORPC Staff Present
Bernice Cage
Brenda Noé
Nathaniel Vogt
Nick Gill
Nancy Reger
Zhuojun Jiang
Andy Taylor
1.
Welcome and Introductions. Chair Bill Ferrigno called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.
2.
Approval of March 31, 2010 Minutes. Pat Blayney made a motion to approve the March
31, 2010 minutes, and Susan Banbury seconded. The motion carried.
3.
Monthly Progress Report. Robert Lawler reported that MORPC prepared a list of the central
Ohio transportation earmarks that were submitted by Senators Voinovich and Brown and
Representative Kilroy, which was distributed to TAC members. Lawler said that we do not
anticipate that the appropriations bill will be passed until the end of September or later.
Lawler reminded the committee members that MORPC has been promoting Walk-to-School.
He said that about every other month Amanda McEldowney has been holding educational
forums to highlight some of the best practices and funding information, and this has been
going very well. The International Walk-to-School Day is every October, and last year over
40 schools participated in the various events throughout the region. This year we are
planning to hold Walk-to-School events twice – once in May and again in October. For the
May event MORPC is encouraging people to get involved with their schools for this. Six
schools are already participating in the May event – Gahanna, Pickerington, Newark and
Pataskala school districts, and Livingston Elementary School and Barrington Elementary
School. Resources are available on MORPC’s website. We are trying to get children to be
more active by walking and biking. Lawler also pointed out the Bike Week events the week
of May 17th.
Nancy Reger reported that the Census is nearly over. We are now in the enumeration
phase. Census enumerators will be visiting those people who did not return their forms.
She reminded people that Census people will not ask to enter the home and will not ask for
Social Security numbers or bank account numbers. Replying to the Census Bureau is
actually a law. Reger displayed the Franklin County and seven-county map showing the
concentrations of those who did or did not return their census forms. Enumerators will be
active through the end of June.
Bernice Cage announced that the Clean Air Fair will be held on Friday, May 7th, at
Nationwide. A wind turbine blade will be there for everyone to sign. Riverfest is at the end
of May and tomorrow is MORPC’s State of the Region luncheon.
4.
COTA Presentation – Bus Stop Service Improvement Project. Mike Bradley said that the
purpose of the project is to decrease passenger travel time, increase the average travel
speed for routes, potentially free up buses and redistribute them for additional service, and
increase ridership. A stakeholder group consisting of representatives of different
communities around COTA’s service area met on April 1st. Presentations were also given to
the COTA Mobility Board and Accessible Transportation Advisory Committee. MORPC’s CAC
and TAC are receiving a presentation, and this information will be presented at next week’s
COTA board meeting. Public meetings will follow on May 14th and May 24th. A tentative
stakeholder meeting is scheduled for June 15th, followed by a COTA board presentation on
June 23rd, at which time final recommendations will be presented. COTA is looking for
comments from everyone. They want to know if this project has merit.
Bradley displayed a COTA System Overview, indicating the local, express, cross-town and
link routes. COTA has 4,270 bus stops, 1,310 transfer locations, 377 shelters, and 302
trash receptacles. Most of COTA’s bus service is in Franklin County, but it is branching out
to Dublin and other cities. COTA may expand beyond Franklin County in the future if it is
agreeable to other communities. Bradley also displayed a picture of how COTA wants most
of its bus stops to look.
This project began in March of 2009. COTA began by looking at a set of routes: local, crosstown and express, in order to do a fair comparison. They researched other transit agencies
to see how they approached this problem. Transit authorities throughout the country are
optimizing their service and providing a higher quality of service as well as reallocate
resources. In the future COTA will continue to work with every group that wants to come to
the table and present ideas on how to effectively implement this process.
Some of the benefits of reducing bus stop density include reducing trip times and lowering
operating and capital costs. COTA is currently using its 1999 design guidelines and
proposes to change these guidelines by including the following considerations:
• Block lengths and physical elements
• Current population/employment density (2010 census data when available)
• Bus dwell time
• Onboard passenger travel time
• Transfer opportunities
• Transit-oriented development (TOD)
• Future developments (1-3 years)
• Accessibility (sidewalks, waiting areas, roadway speeds, etc.)
• Special consideration (persons with disabilities or high volume of seniors using stop)
Bradley displayed a map showing regional population density as of 2000. He also
displayed and explained COTA’s proposed new standard spacing, transit system guidelines
comparison and example analyses of each type of route. COTA’s previous model did not
take accessibility into account (sidewalks, ramps, crosswalks, etc.). COTA is trying to work
with companies to add infrastructure so COTA can put in a bus stop.
The public involvement process during the implementation phase will be accomplished by:
• Posting project information on COTA’s website (route- and stop-specific)
• Posting commuter bulletins at affected bus stops and on buses
• Soliciting public comments and suggestions
Randy Bowman asked how many bus stop relocations were planned. Bradley said it is 20 to
30 percent, and that COTA does not want to have to remove and relocate bus pads.
Bowman also asked if COTA had received any information from Indianapolis. Ryan Manczak
replied that they received a letter from Indianapolis but have had difficulty getting statistics
from them.
5.
Regional Plan Survey Results and Draft Goals. Reger stated that the Regional Plan being
done in concert with MORPC’s four-year transportation cycle. MORPC is looking at twelve
counties for the overall regional plan, which is the Columbus Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area, meaning that those counties have enough in common that they are
recognized as being an entity (central Ohio). This is one of many plans in the works right
now – the City of Columbus Downtown Plan and Bicentennial Plan; Central Ohio 2015
sponsored by Channel 10; Columbus 2020 being done by the Columbus Partnership for
economic development purposes; and the Urban Land Institute Columbus 2050 plan. All of
these entities are aware of the plans being conducted by each other. MORPC’s Regional
Plan on a schedule similar to the usual transportation plan four-year cycle
There are five major steps involved in MORPC’s Regional Plan:
• Information gathering to decide what to change (2010)
• Listening to experts to find out how to change (2010)
• Finding out how to make changes (2011)
• Finding out what we really can change (2012)
• Implementing the changes (2012)
Last year we began by conducting focus groups and an on-line survey. Reger shared the
results to the survey questions.
Reger said that the big ideas resulting from the survey and focus groups are:
• Reduce energy consumption
• Preserve and protect natural resources
• Position central Ohio to attract economic opportunity
• Build sustainable neighborhoods
• Increase collaboration
• Use public investments to benefit the health, safety and welfare of all people
The public involvement process has begun in order to adopt the goals in July and identify
objectives.
Ferrigno asked if the detailed results of the survey were available, and Reger replied that
they are on line. Cage added that MORPC will be pushing out the survey results and goals
and would like to schedule times with each community to make a presentation.
6.
Proposed Resolutions:
•
TAC-1-10: “Expressing Appreciation to Patrick E. Blayney, P.E., FACEC, for His Service to
the Community and MORPC.” Lawler presented this resolution to Blayney, saying that
Blayney always wanted to get the job done! Bowman added that he always appreciated
Blayney’s desire for efficient meetings. Ferrigno said he was outstanding to work with.
Susan Banbury moved to accept Resolution TAC-1-10, and Clyde Seidle seconded. The
motion carried.
•
TAC-2-10: “Approving a Funding Loan Agreement with the Akron Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study.” Nick Gill explained that this resolution permits MORPC to borrow
STP funding from the Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) to fund the
Franklin County Clime Road project.
Blayney moved for approval, and Banbury seconded. The motion carried.
•
T-7-10: “Urging Congress to Permit All Urban Public Transit Systems to Have the Flexibility
to Use FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds for Operations.” Lawler said that there are
many transit authorities in Ohio as well as in other parts of the country that are
“hemorrhaging” their resources – laying off significant numbers of employees and having
significant cutbacks in service – all at a time when people are relying more on transit
than they usually do. One problem that the transit authorities face is that the federal
government provides money to the large transit authorities (like COTA) and they limit the
use of the money that the feds provide to just capital improvements, such as buses,
shelters, rail, but they cannot use it for their operations, which is what actually keeps the
service on the street. The vast majority of the transit systems’ expenses include paying
drivers, buying fuel, and other operating expenses. There is a move on across the
country to try to liberalize these funds so they can be used for other purposes. In fact, in
prior years, they did have more ability to use those funds for operations. COTA is not in
as bad of shape as are other transit authorities because of its recent tax increase. COTA
is still growing, although at a lower rate than they had hoped.
Staff is suggesting that we should adopt this resolution in support of all the other transit
authorities around the country, and just the idea that if the federal government is going
to provide funding to transit authorities it should also provide the flexibility for the local
folks to decide the best way to use those funds. This resolution is in support of
legislation that has been proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown.
Lawler explained that the CAC did not approve the resolution by a large majority. It felt
there needed to be a bigger fix at the state level and the long term capital needs of
transit should not be jeopardized for a short term operating problem.
Bradley added that the American Public Transportation Association indicated that about
80 percent of transit agencies are laying off workers and eliminating routes. Lawler
said that we are also aware of transit agencies leaving capital dollars on the table.
Seidle said that if approved, this change in policy does not have to last forever.
Blayney moved for approval, and Seidle seconded. The motion carried.
•
T-8-10: “Adopting ‘Principles for Managing MORPC-Attributable Federal funds’ and
‘Application Procedure for MORPC-Attributable Funding Programs.’” Nick Gill said that he
presented the information on this resolution at last month’s meeting and that we
received a few comments clarifying some items in the principles – nothing significant.
Gill also noted that the federal funds workshop was moved to June 9.
Banbury moved for approval with a second by Timothy Bell. The motion carried.
•
T-9-10: “Amending the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement
Program.” Gill distributed a replacement for the resolution attachment prior to the
meeting. MORPC was awarded about $28 million of ARRA funding to distribute to
projects that was obligated to projects by March 2010. Several projects came in under
cost, freeing up some ARRA funding. We are in the process of finalizing the exact
amount of funding, and we need to obligate those funds to another project. We
consulted with our Policy Committee and Administrative Committee to identify an existing
project that already has MORPC funding and replace that funding with this ARRA funding.
This resolution amends the TIP to do that.
Blayney moved to approve, and Seidle seconded. The resolution carried.
•
T-10-10: “Amending the State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2008-2011 Transportation
Improvement Program.” Gill said that this resolution adds the Safety Pilot Program to
the TIP. The funding comes from a grant in the amount of $10,000 that we received
from the Federal Highway Administration.
Bowman asked that MORPC coordinate with Columbus Public Service Department on
this. Lawler said that we will be working with the service and safety departments of
each community in which this pilot is undertaken.
Bowman moved to approve this resolution, with a second by Banbury. The motion
carried.
•
T-11-10: “Acceptance of the MORPC Fiscal Year 2011 Planning Work Program.”
Lawler presented the draft of this program at last month’s meeting. We did not
receive any comments from CAC or TAC members concerning it. This represents our
scope of work with ODOT for federally funded projects from July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 2011.
Seidle moved to approve, and Ted Beidler seconded. The motion carried.
•
T-12-10: “Certification of the MORPC Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process.”
Lawler explained that every year MORPC is required to certify that it is complying with
federal regulations. We also have a formal certification done by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration every four years, and this will
take place later this year. We have never had any findings against us in former
certifications. This resolution also provides the Title VI assurances that are attached
to the resolution.
Blayney moved to approve, and Bowman seconded. The motion carried.
7.
Funding Programs.
• Stimulus II: Jobs for Main Street. Gill reported that there is still no news on Stimulus II
funding for transportation projects.
•
8.
Project Status Report. Nathaniel Vogt reported that the I-270/SR-317 interchange
project and the US 23 at Winter and Peachblow roads intersection project were awarded
in April. He said he expects encumbrances in SFY 2010 for construction of Alkire Road,
Columbus Signals Phase A, and Clime Road Phase 1. Seidle asked if Columbus had
submitted final tracings for Hilliard-Rome Road. Vogt replied that he they had not
submitted them when he prepared the report last week. He said he would check on the
status and report to Seidle.
Other Business. Gill said that the Pickaway East-West Connector open house is May 25th.
Ferrigno adjourned the meeting at 10:24 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. Lawler
Secretary
2010 UPCOMING EVENTS
E
June
e, July & August
A
Webinars
Thurssday, June 3 – 1 p.m.: Se
ex in the City:: Design Stan
ndards and Regulations
R
th
hat Work for Sex Businessses [AICP CM
M
1.5]
Frida
ay, June 4 – 1 p.m.: TBA [A
AICP CM 1.5]
Frida
ay, June 11 – 1 p.m.: Bus Rapid System - The Insid
de Story of Ne
ew York BRT [AICP CM 1.5
5]
Wednesday, June
e 16 – 3 p.m.: APBP Webiinar - Policy Promotion:
P
Get Policy Makers on Boarrd with Pedesstrian and
Bicyccle Improvem
ments
Frida
ay, June 25 – 1 p.m.: Und
derstanding the Unservice
ed Workforce
e [AICP CM 1.5]
Wednesday, June
e 30 – 4 p.m.: Planning La
aw Review [A
AICP CM-Law 1.5]
Frida
ay, July 9 – 1 p.m.: Land Use
U Law [AICP CM-Law 1.5]
Wednesday, July 21 – 3 p.m.: APBP Webin
nar - Bicycle Boulevards
B
P
Planning
and Design
Frida
ay, August 6 – 1 p.m.: Able-ing your De
evelopment/Zoning Code
e: Implementiing the Amerricans with Disabilities and
Fair Housing Actss [AICP CM 1..5]
Frida
ay, August 13
3 – 1 p.m.: Wind
W
and Utilitty Corridors [AICP
[
CM 1.5
5]
Wednesday, Augu
ust 18 – 3 p.m.: APBP We
ebinar – Road Diets
For more info
ormation on the web
binars, plea
ase go to:
http
p://www.m
morpc.org//regional_d
dev/worksshop/work
kshop.asp
Mee
etings, Work
kshops and Other
O
Eventts
June
e 2010
June
e 9, 2010, 2:3
30 – 4:30 p.m.: MORPC-A
Attributable Federal
F
Fund
ding Application Workshop
p
MOR
RPC’s Scioto Conference
C
Room
R
Appliication Deadline: June 25
5
June
e 12, 2010, 9 a.m.: American Lung Asssociation Lun
ng Walk
Easton Town Center, www.lungusa.org
June 19, 2010, 10 a.m.: Riverfest Finale with Free Boating and Fishing
Alum Creek State Park, www.riverfestcolumbus.org
June 23, 2010, 1:30 p.m.: Round 25 SCIP/LTIP Application Workshop
July 2010
July 30, 2010, 6:30 p.m.: Rescheduled Riverfest Kick-off
Genoa Park
October 2010
October 5, 2010: Summit on Sustainability and the Environment
COSI
For additional information go to: http://www.morpc.org/info_center/calendar/calendar.asp
For additional information regarding events on the Green Community Calendar go to:
http://www.morpc.org/energy/businesses/resources.asp
Memorandum
TO:
Citizen Advisory Committee
Transportation Advisory Committee
FROM:
Nick Gill, Assistant Director, Transportation
DATE:
May 26, 2010
RE:
Proposed Resolution T-13-10: “AMENDING THE STATE FISCAL YEAR (SFY) 20082011 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM”
Proposed Resolution T-13-10 will add 13 projects to the TIP and modify nine projects that are
already included in it. These changes are necessary to ensure that these projects can advance using
the identified sources of funding.
Below is an explanation of the proposed changes to the TIP. If the project has a commitment of
MORPC-attributable funds, the application of MORPC’s Complete Streets Policy is discussed.
Attachment 1 includes a description of the Complete Streets elements included in each project. A
map of the project locations is included as the last attachment to the resolution.
Explanation of Proposed Changes
The City of Columbus has requested that MORPC revise the funding for the preliminary engineering
phase of Hard Road Phase A to show the environmental development and detailed design subphases. The construction phase has a commitment of MORPC-attributable funds in SFY 2014.
MORPC will monitor this project through development for compliance with its Complete Streets
Policy.
The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) has requested the following changes to the TIP:
•
COTA has requested the addition of funding sources for the new Paratransit facility,
renovation of its Fields Avenue facility, and the purchase of miscellaneous equipment to the
SFY 2008-2011 TIP. These projects have funding identified and are fiscally constrained as
shown in Attachments 1 and 2.
•
In addition, COTA has funding identified for 26 passenger shelters as part of its Section 5307
funding transportation enhancement requirement, as shown in Attachments 1 and 2.
Attachment 2 includes an ODOT Transit TIP Table showing each transit project.
The right-of-way costs are greater than anticipated for Phase 2 of the modifications to the Alum
Creek Drive and Groveport Road intersection, sponsored by Franklin County. The amendment would
significantly increase the funding for right-of-way. The right-of-way and construction phases are one
SFY later than previously scheduled on the TIP.
Proposed Resolution T-13-10
Memo
Page 2
Grandview Heights has asked MORPC to add the Goodale Boulevard at Yard Street intersection
project to the TIP. ODOT attributed federal transportation funding to the project.
Grove City has asked MORPC to accelerate its commitment of STP funds to the I-71 at SR 665
interchange modification from SFY 2013 to SFY 2011, when the city is scheduled to award the
project. Although this project has a commitment of MORPC-attributable funds, Resolution T-6-10
specifically exempted this project from the Complete Streets Policy. However, it must still comply
with MORPC’s Routine Accommodations Policy. The planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities are
shown in Attachment 1.
In May, the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) approved the 2010 listing of investments
by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) through its Major New Construction Program.
ODOT District 6 is requesting these changes to the TIP to include the commitments made by the
TRAC:
•
I-270 (South Outerbelt) from US 23 to I-71, Major Widening from 4 to 6 lanes. The
amendment would add funding for the environmental sub-phase of preliminary engineering.
ODOT has estimated that it would need construction funding in SFY 2018.
•
I-70 from Kelton Avenue to Faifield/Licking County line, Corridor Study. The amendment
would add funding for the environmental sub-phase of preliminary engineering. ODOT has
not scheduled construction or estimated construction costs.
•
I-270 at US 33/SR 161, Interchange Upgrade. The amendment would add funding for the
environmental sub-phase of preliminary engineering. ODOT has not scheduled construction
or estimated construction costs.
•
I-71 from Berkshire Road to Crall Road in Morrow County, Major Widening from 4 to 6 lanes.
The amendment would add funding for the environmental studies and detailed design.
ODOT has estimated that it would need construction funding in SFY 2014.
ODOT District 6 has also requested the following changes to the TIP:
•
I-270 from US 62/SR 3 to Trabue Road, Reconstruction/Bridge Deck Replacements. The
amendment would change the scope of the project by adding the reconstruction of segments
of I-270 between the bridges. The revised costs reflect the modified scope. Construction
funding would move from SFY 2010 to SFY 2011.
•
East Broad Street from Whitehall West limit to Whitehall East limit, Resurfacing. The
amendment would add a second federal funding source to the project. The total federal
funding for the project would not change.
•
US 36 at Perfect Creek, Bridge Deck Replacement. The amendment would account for a
significant increase in the estimated costs.
•
I-270 from Hamilton Road to Broad Street, Reconstruction. The amendment would add an
environmental development sub-phase and move some of the funding from the detailed
design sub-phase to the new sub-phase.
Proposed Resolution T-13-10
Memo
Page 3
•
US 33 at I-270 (NW Outerbelt), Bridge Deck Overlay. The amendment would account for a
significant increase in the estimated costs.
•
SR 161 at CSX RR grade crossing west of Linworth Road, Signalization. The amendment
would add this new project to the TIP.
•
SR 104 from Dyer Road to Frank Road, Resurfacing. The amendment would add the project
to the TIP.
Pataskala received Safe Routes to Schools funding for two projects. The amendment would add the
two projects to the TIP. The construction funding for the infrastructure project is scheduled for SFY
2012.
Pickerington received Safe Routes to Schools funding for a project to conduct enforcement and
install sidewalks. The amendment would add the project to the TIP. The construction funding for the
infrastructure project is scheduled for SFY 2013.
NTV:bsn
Attachment:
Proposed Resolution T-13-10
RESOLUTION T-13-10
“AMENDING THE STATE FISCAL YEAR (SFY) 2008-2011 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM”
WHEREAS, the Policy Committee of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) adopted
the SFY 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by Resolution T-13-07 and has
subsequently amended it; and
WHEREAS, the City of Columbus has requested the modification of one project on the SFY 20082011 TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the Central Ohio Transit Authority has requested the addition and/or modification of
projects to the SFY 2008-2011 TIP as shown in Attachments 1 and 2; and
WHEREAS, the Franklin County Engineer’s Office has requested the modification of one project on
the SFY 2008-2011 TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Grandview Heights has requested the addition of one project to the SFY 20082011 TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Grove City has requested the modification of one project on the SFY 20082011 TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the Ohio Department of Transportation has requested the addition and/or modification of
projects in the SFY 2008-2011 TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pataskala has requested the addition of two projects to the SFY 2008-2011
TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pickerington has requested the addition of one project to the SFY 2008-2011
TIP as shown in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the projects are consistent with the transportation policies, plans, and programs,
including the most recent Transportation Plan adopted by the Policy Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Citizen Advisory Committee, at its meeting on June 1, 2010 and the Transportation
Advisory Committee at its meeting on June 2, 2010 recommended approval of this resolution to the
Policy Committee; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION:
Section 1.
That the MORPC SFY 2008-2011 TIP be amended to include the project information
as shown in Attachments 1 and 2.
Section 2.
That it affirms that the fiscal balance of the SFY 2008-2011 TIP is maintained.
Resolution T-13-10
Page 2
Section 3.
That the determination of conformity between the TIP and the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) is hereby reaffirmed, as the projects are exempt from conformity
requirements or have been included in the most recent conformity approval.
Section 4.
That this resolution will be transmitted to ODOT and all local agencies listed as
sponsoring agencies in the attachments for appropriate action.
Section 5.
That the Policy Committee finds and determines that all formal deliberations and
actions of this committee concerning and relating to the adoption of this resolution
were taken in open meetings of this committee.
_________________________________________
Derrick R. Clay, Chair
MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
_________________________________________
Date
Prepared by:
Transportation Staff
Attachments:
1. Amended Project Information for the SFY 2008-2011 TIP
2. Amended Transit TIP Table
3. Guide to the MORPC TIP Project Listing
4. Project Location Map
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: Columbus
PID: 17585
Length:
1.2 mi
TIP ID:
273
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-CR061-01.100
Local Let:
AirQuality: SA
Scope: Major Widening/Bikeway, Bicycle Lane
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 131
Bike Facility: Bicycle Lanes, 1.2 mi.
Ped Facility: New 2 Sides
Description:
Hard Rd Phase A from Sawmill Rd to Smoky Row Rd, Major Widening/Bikeway, Bicycle Lane from 2
to 5 lanes, environmental work under PID #11079.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2010
PE ENVIR
STP-M
$171,200
2010
PE ENVIR
LOCAL
$42,800
2010
PE DD
STP-M
$955,200
2010
PE DD
LOCAL
$238,800
2011
ROW
STP-M
$473,600
2011
ROW
LOCAL
$1,526,400
LR*
CON
STP-M
$6,000,000
LR*
CON
LOCAL
$6,904,070
Total
$16,312,070
Agency: COTA
PID: 80948
Length:
mi
TIP ID: 1484
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-Paratransit Facility on Fields AveLocal Let:
AirQuality: E
Scope: Transit Activity
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1018
Bike Facility: Not Applicable
Ped Facility: Not Applicable
Description:
Paratransit Facility on Fields Ave, Transit Activity, construct a paratransit maintenance garage to
replace a temporary facility. FTA ALI Codes 11.31.01, T-0298 and 11.33.01, T-0346, T-0364, Also
funded under PID 85579
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2007
PURCHASE
SEC 5309
$534,478
2007
2007
PURCHASE
SEC 5309
$442,017
PURCHASE
Local-Transit
$110,504
2007
PURCHASE
Local-Transit
$133,620
2011
CON
SEC 5307
$4,607,342
2011
CON
Local-Transit
$1,151,835
Total
Agency: COTA
PID: NA
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-Transit EnhancementsScope: Transit Activity
Length:
$6,979,796
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1534
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1018
Bike Facility: Not Applicable
Ped Facility: Will be ADA compliant
Description:
Transit Enhancements, Transit Activity, Purchase 26 Bus shelters T-0425
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PURCHASE
SEC 5307
$144,964
2011
PURCHASE
Local-Transit
$36,241
Total
$181,205
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 1 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: COTA
PID:
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-Fields Ave Facility ImprovementsScope: Transit Activity
Length:
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1937
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1018
Bike Facility: Not Applicable
Ped Facility: Not Applicable
Description:
Fields Ave Facility Improvements, Transit Activity,
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
CON
SEC 5307
2010
CON
Local-Transit
$59,639
2011
CON
SEC 5307
$280,000
2011
CON
Local-Transit
$70,000
Total
Agency: COTA
PID:
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-COTA Misc Equipment 2011Scope:
Amount
2010
Transit Activity/Transit Purchase
Length:
$238,557
$648,196
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1943
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1018
Bike Facility: Not Applicable
Ped Facility: Not Applicable
Description:
COTA Misc Equipment 2011, Transit Activity/Transit Purchase, Fork lift - McKinley, Walk behind
Scrubber-Fields, Walk, Behind Scrubber-Essex, 101 Ton Elec/Hyd Press, Geared head engine lathe,
Metal Disintegrator, Rottler Resurfacing Machine, Pressure Blast
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PURCHASE
SEC 5307
$1,143,480
2011
PURCHASE
Local-Transit
$285,870
Total
Agency:
Franklin County
Co-Rt-Section:
Scope:
PID: 84502
Length:
FRA-CR007-03.79
$1,429,350
0.58 mi
Local Let:
Intersection Upgrade/New Bridge
TIP ID:
1790
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 958
Bike Facility: There will be accommodations. The type will be determined during design., 0.58 mi.
Ped Facility:
Description:
There will be accommodations. The type will be determined during design.
Alum Creek Dr at Groveport Rd (Phase 2), Intersection Upgrade/New Bridge, includes a bypass of
Groveport Rd around the intersection. The bypass includes a roundabout west and a roundabout
east of Alum Creek Dr, connected with app. 1670 ft. of roadway incl
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2009
PE ENVIR
HSIP
2009
PE ENVIR
LOCAL
$9,888
2011
ROW
HSIP
$2,700,000
2011
ROW
LOCAL
$300,000
LR*
CON
HSIP
$545,506
LR*
CON
HP
$570,000
LR*
CON
CMAQ-M
$1,363,734
LR*
CON
LOCAL
$6,344,045
Total
$88,994
$11,922,168
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 2 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: Grandview Heights
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-Goodale Blvd-Yard St
Scope: Intersection Upgrade
PID: 88298
Length:
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1941
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 992
Bike Facility: No information provided by sponsor.
Ped Facility: No information provided by sponsor.
Description:
Goodale Blvd at Yard St, Intersection Upgrade, construct a westbound to northbound right turn lane
at newly constructed Yard St, located approximately 900 feet west of Olentangy River Road.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
CON
TCSP
$237,500
2011
CON
LOCAL
$176,514
Total
$414,014
Agency: Grove City
PID: 79331
Length:
0.8 mi
TIP ID:
792
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-IR071-06.090
Local Let:
AirQuality: SA
Scope: Interchange Upgrade/Major Widening
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 421
Bike Facility: An 10' wide multi-use path is planned for the southern edge. Appropriate signal timing and signage
will be provided. The Grove City Trail System Plan identified alternate routes on the existing and
proposed network., 0.8 mi.
Ped Facility: An 10' wide multi-use path is planned for the southern edge. Appropriate signal timing and signage
will be provided.
Description:
I-71 at SR-665, Interchange Upgrade/Major Widening from 2 to 4 lanes, single-point urban
interchange (SPUI), multi-use path, turn lanes. Widen SR-665 from 2,000' W of existing
southbound ramp to Meadows Rd.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2005
PE
LOCAL
$872,500
2009
PE DD
LOCAL
$1,335,000
2010
ROW
HP
$5,000,000
2011
CON
HSIP
$5,450,000
2011
CON
LTIP
$4,750,000
2011
CON
ODOD
$2,045,913
2011
CON
IM
$3,660,860
2011
CON
HP
$5,608,292
2011
CON
STATE
$406,510
2011
CON
STP-M
$4,000,000
2011
CON
LOCAL
$1,550,252
Total
$34,679,327
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 3 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-IR270-52.160
Scope: Major Widening
PID: 25733
Length:
2.81 mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1117
AirQuality: SA
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 524
Bike Facility: Study will investigate facilities and include as appropriate.
Ped Facility: Study will investigate facilities and include as appropriate.
Description:
I-270 (South Outerbelt) from US-23 to I-71, Major Widening from 4 to 6 lanes, includes study of I270 between US-23 and I-71 and I-71 between I-270 and Stringtown Rd to address safety and
congestion issues. Also includes detailed design for PID 80707 (TI
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2005
PE
STATE
$311,000
2006
PE ENVIR
STATE
$1,161,130
2007
PE DD
STATE
$838,870
2009
PE ENVIR
STATE
$15,099
2010
PE ENVIR
STATE
$133,709
2011
PE ENVIR
IM
$2,250,000
2011
PE ENVIR
STATE
$250,000
LR*
CON
IM
$40,306,500
LR*
CON
STATE
$4,478,500
Total
$49,744,808
Agency: ODOT 6
PID: 76191
Length: 7.02 mi
TIP ID: 1323
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-IR270-02.600 (Recon)
Local Let:
AirQuality: E
Scope: Reconstruction
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: Bicycles Prohibited
Ped Facility: Pedestrians Prohibited
Description:
I-270 from 0.47 mi N of US-62/SR-3 to 0.32 mi N of Trabue Rd, Reconstruction, Replace bridge
decks and widen shoulders of 6 mainline bridges. Shoulders can accommodate bus bypass lanes if
warranted.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2004
PE
STATE
$4,528,932
2009
ROW
STATE
$10,000
2011
CON
BOND
$67,324,200
2011
CON
IM
$20,110,995
2011
CON
BR
$1,905,210
2011
CON
STATE
$2,446,275
Total
$96,325,612
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 4 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-SR016-05.350
Scope: Resurfacing
PID: 79317
Length:
1.69 mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1458
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: No changes to lane/shoulder widths or pavement markings.
Ped Facility: No changes to lane/shoulder widths or pavement markings.
Description:
E Broad St from Whitehall W limit to Whitehall E limit, Resurfacing, FY2011 urban paving project,
section 5.35-7.04.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
CON
STP-S
$124,080
2011
CON
NHS
$289,520
2011
CON
LOCAL
$107,800
Total
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: DEL-US036-26.37
Scope:
PID: 83890
Bridge Deck Replace
Length:
$521,400
0.02 mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1845
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: 8-ft wide shoulders on bridge.
Ped Facility: 8-ft wide shoulders on bridge.
Description:
US-36 at Perfect Creek, Bridge Deck Replace, 2.24 mi west of Knox County line. Replace existing
structure with precast reinforced concrete conspan arch. Additionally, this project includes
pavement resurfacing work and other ancillary safety improvements
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2009
PE DD
STATE
$100,000
2011
CON
BR
$519,200
2011
CON
STATE
$129,800
Total
Agency:
ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section:
Scope:
PID: 86067
Length:
FRA-IR270-37.00
$749,000
3.45 mi
Local Let:
Reconstruction
TIP ID:
1890
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: Bicycles Prohibited
Ped Facility:
Description:
Pedestrians Prohibited
I-270 from 0.36 mi W of Hamilton Rd to 0.92 mi S of Broad St, Reconstruction, Shoulders can
accommodate bus bypass lanes if warranted.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2010
PE
STATE
$104,636
2011
2011
PE ENVIR
IM
$1,170,000
PE ENVIR
STATE
$130,000
2011
PE DD
IM
$3,330,000
2011
PE DD
STATE
$370,000
LR*
CON
IM
$54,450,000
LR*
CON
STATE
$6,050,000
Total
$65,604,636
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 5 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-US033-02.57 L&R
Scope: Bridge Deck Overlay
PID: 85206
Length:
0.1 mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1919
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: Accommodation will be part of interchange study (PID 88310).
Ped Facility: Accommodation will be part of interchange study (PID 88310).
Description:
US-33 at I-270 (NW Outerbelt), Bridge Deck Overlay, includes expansion joint repair and/or
replacement; parapet, abutment, and pier patching; structural steel painting.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
CON
NHS
$1,620,000
2011
CON
STATE
$405,000
Total
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-SR161-Queue Cutter
Scope: Signalization
PID: 87525
Length:
$2,025,000
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1942
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 992
Bike Facility: Railroad signal coordination project. No existing facilities.
Ped Facility: Railroad signal coordination project. No existing facilities.
Description:
SR-161 at CSX RR grade crossing W of Linworth Rd, Signalization, Construction of a queue cutter
signal system.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2010
PE DD
STATE
$37,198
2011
CON
HSIP
$220,000
Total
Agency:
ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section:
Scope:
PID: 78167
$257,198
Length: 12.62 mi
FRA-SR104-06.53
Local Let:
Resurfacing
TIP ID:
1944
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: No changes to lane/shoulder widths or pavement markings.
Ped Facility:
Description:
No changes to lane/shoulder widths or pavement markings.
SR-104 from Dyer Rd to Frank Rd, Resurfacing, and SR-762 in Pickaway Co. from US-62 to US-23.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
CON
STP-S
$2,484,360
2011
CON
STATE
$568,480
2011
CON
LOCAL
Total
$41,360
$3,094,200
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 6 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-IR070-16.17
Scope: Corridor Study
PID: 76997
Length: 11.15 mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1945
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 1026
Bike Facility: Study will investigate facilities to include as appropriate.
Ped Facility: Study will investigate facilities to include as appropriate.
Description:
I-70 from Kelton Ave to Faifield/Licking county line, Corridor Study, Planning study to develop a
transportation operations and construction strategy that addresses the physical and operational
deficiencies of the project area.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PE ENVIR
IM
$4,500,000
2011
PE ENVIR
STATE
$500,000
Total
Agency: ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section: FRA-IR270-17.29
Scope:
PID: 88310
Length:
$5,000,000
mi
Local Let:
TIP ID: 1946
AirQuality: SA
Interchange Upgrade
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 239
Bike Facility: Study will investigate facilities to include as appropriate.
Ped Facility: Study will investigate facilities to include as appropriate.
Description:
I-270 at US-33/SR-161, Interchange Upgrade, Preliminary engineering for the interchange
reconstruction and expansion.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PE ENVIR
IM
$1,800,000
2011
PE ENVIR
STATE
$200,000
2011
PE ENVIR
LOCAL
$500,000
Total
Agency:
ODOT 6
Co-Rt-Section:
Scope:
PID: 86921
Length:
DEL-IR071-11.50
$2,500,000
8.9 mi
Local Let:
Major Widening
TIP ID:
1947
AirQuality: SA
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 272
Bike Facility: Bicycles Prohibited
Ped Facility:
Description:
Pedestrians Prohibited
I-71 from Berkshire Rd to Crall Rd in Morrow Co., Major Widening from 4 to 6 lanes, Full depth
pavement replacement and addition of third median lane. Widen mainline bridge at Crall Rd.
Replace decks, paint, and raise four overhead bridges.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PE ENVIR
IM
$459,500
2011
PE ENVIR
STATE
$40,500
2011
PE DD
IM
$4,009,500
2011
PE DD
NHS
$836,000
2011
PE DD
STATE
$654,500
LR*
CON
Federal
$60,077,631
LR*
CON
STATE
Total
$8,159,681
$74,237,312
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 7 of 8
Attachment 1 to Resolution T-13-10
Amended Project Information for the 2008-2011 TIP
Agency: Pataskala
PID: 88373
Length:
mi
TIP ID: 1948
Co-Rt-Section: LIC-SRTS Pataskala-Non-Infrastruct
Local Let:
AirQuality: E
Scope: Safety Program
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 994
Bike Facility: Non-infrastructure project.
Ped Facility: Non-infrastructure project.
Description:
Safe Routes to School, Safety Program, non-infrastructure SRTS enforcement, education,
evaluation, and encouragement.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
OTHER
SRTS
Total
$28,000
$28,000
Agency: Pataskala
PID: 88374
Length:
mi
TIP ID: 1949
Co-Rt-Section: LIC-SRTS Pataskala-Infrastructure
Local Let:
AirQuality: E
Scope: Sidewalks/Safety Improvement
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 994
Bike Facility: No exclusive bicycle facilities included.
Ped Facility:
Description:
Install new sidewalks.and pedestrian crossings.
Various locations in Pataskala, Sidewalks/Safety Improvement, Installation of sidewalks and school
crossings.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
PE DD
SRTS
$44,472
LR*
CON
SRTS
$435,528
Total
Agency:
Pickerington
Co-Rt-Section:
Scope:
PID: 88338
Length:
FAI-Pick SRTS-Sidewalks
$480,000
mi
Local Let:
Sidewalks/Safety Program
TIP ID:
1950
AirQuality: E
T-Plan Reference: Project ID 994
Bike Facility: No exclusive bicycle facilities included.
Ped Facility:
Description:
Install new sidewalks.
Various city streets in Pickerington, Sidewalks/Safety Program, and non-infrastructure enforcement.
TIP Year*
Phase
Source
Amount
2011
OTHER
SRTS
$10,800
2011
PE
SRTS
$25,000
LR*
CON
SRTS
$294,000
Total
$329,800
For a glossary and further explanation, see the attached Guide to the TIP Project Listing.
*Funding events in TIP Year before 2008 and after 2011 (i.e. LR=Long Range) are informational and NOT official amendments to the TIP.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Page 8 of 8
Ohio Department of Transportation ‐ Office of Transit Transit TIP Table T‐13‐10 Attachment 2
FTA ALI
Code
Project Description
New
MORPC
COTA
Paratransit Facility ‐ 11.33.01 Construction
New
MORPC
COTA
Fields Ave. Facility 11.44.03 Renovation
MORPC
COTA
11.32.10 Passenger Shelters
AMNT FUND
T‐0425
New
MORPC
COTA
New
MORPC
COTA
New
MORPC
COTA
11.42.20 Misc. Equipment
Security Cameras for 11.42.09 Park and Rides
Mobile Emergency Operations Center 11.42.09 Vehicle
PID #
80948
Expansion or
Replacement
Type
State
FY
Federal
Funding $
State State
Federal Funding
Funding Funding
Source
$
Source
Local
Funding $
Yes
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$4,607,342
Replacement Yes
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$280,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
Replacement Yes
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$144,964
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$0
$18,620
$0
5
Replacement
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$74,480
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
8
Expansion
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$240,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$60,000
1
Expansion
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$120,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$30,000
New
MORPC
COTA
Essex Conduit 11.44.02 Extension
1
Expansion
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$80,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$20,000
New
MORPC
COTA
Shelter solar lighting 11.92.02 at bus stops
80
Expansion
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$269,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$67,250
New
MORPC
COTA
Upgraded Downtown 11.92.02 Shelters (20 shelters)
20
Exempt Capital 2011
YES
$360,000
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
$0
$90,000
Replacement Yes
Local
Funding
Source
Total Line
Cost $
Dedicated Local
Tax
$5,759,177
$1,151,835
Dedicated Local
$70,000
Tax
$350,000
Dedicated Local
$36,241
Tax
$181,205
5307 ‐ Urban Formula
Expansion
26
Air
Quality
Fiscally
Constrained
Transit
System
Name
Accessible
MPO
Name
Quantity
Delete
Modify
Add
T#
Dedicated Local
Tax
Dedicated Local
Tax
Dedicated Local
Tax
Dedicated Local
Tax
Dedicated Local
Tax
Dedicated Local
Tax
$93,100
$300,000
$150,000
$100,000
$336,250
$450,000
AMNT = Dollar amount changed
FUND = Source of funding has changed
O:\Administration\RESOLUTIONS\2010\T‐13‐10 COTA_STIP_Amend 21T‐13‐10 COTA_STIP_Amend 21
5/28/2010
Guide to the MORPC TIP Project Listing
This is a guide to the headings and abbreviations used in the TIP project listing. It is organized
alphabetically by the name of each field shown in the listing.
Agency – The agency that is sponsoring the project.
COTA = Central Ohio Transit Authority
CRAA = Columbus Regional Airport Authority
DATA = Delaware Area Transit Authority
ODOT = Ohio Department of Transportation, with District number
ORDC = Ohio Rail Development Commission
AirQuality – How the project is assessed for the air quality conformity analysis
E = Exempt from the analysis
SA = Included in the system-wide analysis
ALI – FTA Activity Line Item code
Amount – Funds committed to a project phase from a particular source.
Bike Facility – Description of bicycle accommodations that are associated with the project.
Co-Rt-Section (County-Route-Section) - Identifies project by county, route and section mileage
designations, where applicable. Project phase or segment identification may also be indicated.
County – County in which the project is located:
D06 = Counties in ODOT District 6 (includes Delaware and Franklin).
DEL = Delaware
FAI = Fairfield
FRA = Franklin
LIC = Licking
MAD = Madison
PIC = Pickaway
UNI = Union
CTSS – Columbus Traffic Signal System
FTA – Federal Transit Administration
ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems
Length – Length of the project in miles, if known and applicable.
Local Let – If checked, the project has federal funding, and ODOT is allowing the local public agency
(LPA) to administer the project under ODOT supervision.
LR – Long Range, beyond the time frame of the current TIP.
NTCIP – National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol
Ped Facility – Description of pedestrian facilities or accommodations associated with the project.
Phase – A component of the project. Abbreviations:
CON = Construction
CON CT = Construction Contract
CON ENG = Construction Engineering (Inspection)
CON RR = Construction – Railroad Reimbursement
PE DD = Detailed Design
PE ENVIR = Environmental Study
OTHER = Other
PE = Preliminary Engineering
PLNG = Planning
PROG = Program
PURCHASE = Purchase of Capital
ROW = Right-of-Way Activities (including land acquisition and utility relocation)
STUDY = Study
UTIL = Utility Relocation
PID – The project identification number assigned by ODOT.
NA = Not Applicable (programming not necessary for planned funding)
NP = Not Programmed by ODOT (required before Federal or State funding authorization)
Route – Route designation and number or municipal street name. Abbreviations:
CR = County Route
IR = Interstate Route
SR = State Route
TR = Township Route
US = United States Route
Scope – The major activities included in the scope of the project.
Section – Distance in miles from start of the route in the county to the start of the project, based on
ODOT’s system mileage section as designated by ODOT.
SFY – State Fiscal Year. See TIP Year below.
Source – Origin of funding commitment. Federal sources are described by the purpose of the
particular source. Unless specified as state or local, all funding sources listed below are federal.
Abbreviations:
ARRA/FTA/COTA = American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Transit Funds directly to COTA
as FTA Section 5307 funds
ARRA/FTA/ODOT/DATA = American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Transit Funds from FTA
to ODOT to DATA as FTA Section 5311 (Rural Program) funds
ARRA-M = American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, Attributable to MORPC
ARRA-S = American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, Attributable to the State
BOND = Bond Funds
BR = Bridge Funds
BR-Off = Bridge Replacement Off System
BR-On = Bridge Replacement On System
CMAQ-M = Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement, Attributable to MORPC
CMAQ-S = Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement, Attributable to the State
ER = Emergency Relief
Federal = Federal Transportation Funds
HES = Hazard Elimination and Safety
HP = High Priority
HPR = Highway Planning & Research
HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program
IM = Interstate Maintenance
LOCAL = Local Public Agency Funds
LOCAL-PAY = Local Public Agency Funds to be Reimbursed from Non-Local Sources
Local Private = Local Private Sources
Local-Other = Other Non-General Revenue Local Sources (Public and/or Private)
Local-Transit = Local Public Transit Authority Funds
LTIP = Local Transportation Improvement Program (OPWC)
NCPD = National Corridor Planning and Development
NHS = National Highway System
ODPS Safety = Ohio Department of Public Safety Funds
SEC #### = Federal Transit Administration Funds by Section Number
SEC 5208 = Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems Integration Program
SEC 5307 = Transit Formula Block Grants
SEC 5309 = Transit Discretionary Funds
SEC 5310 = Transit Specialized Transportation Program
SEC 5311 = Transit Formula Block Grants for Rural Areas
SEC 5316 = Transit Job Access & Reverse Commute Program
SEC 5317 = Transit New Freedom Program
SCIP = State Capital Improvement Program
SIB = State Infrastructure Bank
SPR = State Planning and Research, Federal Source
SPR-S = State Planning and Research, State Source
SRTS = Safe Routes to School
STATE = State Transportation Funds
State Transit = State Transit Funds
STP-C = Surface Transportation Program, Attributable to County Engineers
STP-M = Surface Transportation Program, Attributable to MORPC
STP-S = Surface Transportation Program, Attributable to the State
TCSP = Transportation, Community, and System Preservation
TEA-M = Transportation Enhancement, Attributable to MORPC
TEA-S = Transportation Enhancement, Attributable to the State
T-Plan Reference – Associated identification number(s) for project(s) included in MORPC’s LongRange Transportation Plan, if applicable. Many projects are included in the plan as a “Non-ProjectSpecific T-Plan Activity.” Those projects or activities not specifically referenced in the Transportation
Plan, but consistent with Regional Transportation Goals and Objectives and/or strategies including:
repair, replacement, reconstruction, safety, studies, transportation demand management,
transportation efficiency, transportation enhancement, etc.
TIP Year – Each line of funding is listed with the state fiscal year in which the phase begins. State
fiscal years begin on July 1 of the previous calendar year; e.g., SFY 2010 begins July 1, 2009 and
ends June 30, 2010.
TIP ID – Identification number that MORPC has assigned to the project for the TIP.
37
MARION COUNTY
CONDIT RD
S RD
DUTCH CROS
RD
CROTON RD
CLOVER VALLEY
MILLER-PAUL RD
HARRIS ON RD
SUMM IT RD
MOUNTS RD
204
158
BALTIMORE
RD
CANAL
WINCHESTER
OP
OL
IS
BASIL WESTERN
RD
CARROLL NORTHE RN
LITHOPOLIS
WINC HEST ER
RD
SNYDER CHURCH RD
256
BASIL WESTERN
LIT
H
204
BUSE Y RD
1
0
33
RD
±
158
0
WINCHESTER RD
PICKERINGTON
RD
674
RD
BOWE N RD
RD
GENDE R
PICKERINGTON
LITHOPOLIS
OUTVILLE RD
YORK RD
PALMER RD
674
ELDER LN
40
204
MILNOR RD
BRICE RD
WATKINS RD
ROSEHILL RD
EB
IX
RD B Y
NO
PO
NT
IUS
RD
2
CARROLL
4
Miles
ER
R
ST
HE
158
1
0
MARCY RD
33
THIRD AVE
1ST AVE
ASHVIL LE FAIRFIE
LD RD
188
674
LP
O
IN
T
0
1
CRUMLEY RD
1941
RIDGE RD
#
*
1
0
0
1
0
1
23
0
1
71
OAK ST
BRYDEN RD
MAIN ST
MAIN ST
ST
TOWN
70
ND
ST
71
ST
U
MO
0
1
3RD ST
E
0
1
ST
FRO NT
AV
IVANT
LON G ST
40
40
L AVE
SULL
RIV
ER
STATE ST
BROAD
670
670
SCIOTO
70
3
670
AMANDA
5TH AVE
22
2ND AVE
23
GOODALE BLVD
33
CEN TRA
RD
This map prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Transit Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation,
and local communities.
WESTFALL RD
315
DELMO NT RD
TAYLO R AVE
LANCASTER
752
752
TAYLOR AVE
37
ALUM CREEK
MILLER AVE
RD
0
1
23
WHITT IER ST
KBOURNE RD
ST PA UL
C IA
The information shown on this map is compiled from various
sources available to us which we believe to be reliable.
n:\arcgis\core\tip\2008_2011\tip amndmt t 13 10.mxd may 10
DIXON RD
WAGGONER RD
REYN OL
DS BU RG
NEW AL
BA NY
RD
STELZER RD
BEVELHEIME R RD
RD
ULRY RD
ORT RD
ER
Planning Area
310
GRAN DVIEW AVE
CROM LEY RD
COUNT Y LINE RD
3C
LD
OIR
ER RE
SERV
Y RD
HO OV
TUSSIC STRE
ET RD
RD
HAMILTON
EBRIGHT RD
1
0
1
0
70
4TH ST
M
BRICE
HIG H ST
M
NTY
40
NEIL AVE
1
0
CO
1
0
VD
BL
RD
310
T
ES
ON
PIKE
CLARKS RUN RD
E
BLACK RD
REFUGEE RD
W
TH
ND
LO
RD
R
NO
LICKING COUNTY
HW
1
0
YS
REFUGEE RD
WIN
C
MATVILLE RD
RD
ER
A
(Construction not part of TIP)
Major Widening
23
COMMERCIAL
New Road Location
POINT â â â â â
ASHVILLE
New
Interchange
KIN
!
(
3
16
c
M
316
Minor Widening/Safety Improvement
SOUTH
!
Interchange Upgrade
(
!
(
207
BLOOMFIELD
Intersection Improvement
#
*104
#
* 56
Resurfacing/Maintenance
DARBYVILLE
316
)
Bridge
)
ââ âââ ââ
âââââââ
New Bikeway
FL
O
R
EN
Enhancement/Streetscape/Study/Other
56
23
C
E
CH
)FRANKLIN COUNTY Landscaping/Other
)
AP
EL
P100
100 100 100 100
Project
Identification
100
100
100
IK
PICKAWAY MORPC
E
COU
D
AIRBASE RD
Construction Phase
after FY 2011
BIG WALNUT
D
LE
16
MAIN ST
33
HAYE S RD
H
EA
DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS
104
161
310
REYNOLDSBURG
CEDA R HILL RD
PATASKALA
256
PICKAWAY COUNTY
23
37
16
CREE K RD
RD
LEGEND
SUNB UR
LE
E
1
0
RD
TS
PO IN
FIVE
URBANCREST
GROVEP
D
DURRETT
ASHVIL LE PIKE
WE LCH
SCIOTO DARBY RD
P IK
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Construction Phase
FY 2008 - 2011
1
0
R
RD
LOCKBOURNE
62
YR
LE
ROHR
RD
762
62
O
RD
N
IN
GT
O
OR
TH
W
RO
WE
TE
317
ORIENT
762
0â â â!(â â â â
1
JAMES RD
FAIRWOOD AVE
ES
GROVEPORT
317
CH
RD
Ohio Location Map
1945
D
R
665
IN
RD
BATTEE RD
LICKING COUNTY
LIS
PO
O
LAM BERT
RD
104
W
H
( 792
!
ZUBER RD
71
HOLTON RD
71
665
1
0
#
* 1790
270
RD
270
LIT
RD
RIVER
N
RU
RD
CASSADY AVE
KENNY RD
1117
62
BEATTY RD
WHITEHALL
OBETZ
SHOOK RD
RD
RD
N
HIGH ST
EK
NO
O
RT
ING TO
WN
HOOVER RD
RE
ERT
STR
O
IOT
SC
YC
M
WILLIA MS RD
OBETZ
RD
RD
ST
BRO AD
REFUGEE RD
WATKINS RD
23
TE
S TA
1890
317
104
1
0
3
RB
O
U
SS
270
S
STONE QUARRY
JUG RD
NEW
ALBANY
GAHANNA
70
1944
0 GROVE
1
CITY
DA
665
FR AN
K RD
D
PL
AIN
MORSE RD
RD
B IG
MADISON COUNTY
KROPP RD
71
PARSONS AVE
D
HOOVE R RD
RD
DEMOREST RD
ER
HOLT RD
DN
R
IRE
ER
STIMM EL
RD
RD
1
0
62
LIVINGSTON AVE
LOCK BOURNE
RD
ILL E
OWAY
RD
GA LL
EEK DR
AR
G
ALKIRE RD
K
AL
BRIG
GS
CLIM
AN
62
161
RD
1
0
40
AVE
NC
GE RD
TAYLOR RD
BEXLEY
DU
FANCHER RD
CENTRAL COLLE
HAVENS CORNERS
ALUM CREEK
DR
VE
EA
E
AV
SPORTSMAN CLUB
RD
JOHNSTOWN
161
K
AR
CL
1458
LANE RD
DUTCH
62
MINK ST
Y
GU
HA
D
MURNAN RD
CR
DARB Y
HALL RD
1323
0
1
62
CLEVE LAND AVE
3
1
0
37
AVE
TER
C AS
LAN
0 1937
1
) 1484 #
*
40
HARRISBURG
56
3 B'S & K RD
OLD STA
TE RD
Y
SOUTH SECT ION
LINE
RD
KARL RD
AVERY
RD
LEAP RD
MAIZE RD
COLUMBUS
670
1
0
SULLIVANT
270
71
D
40
BIG
G
EASTON
WAY
670
1
0
3
HUDSO N ST
GRANDVIEW
HEIGHTS 1941
NR
FEDER RD
OP
OLD
STAT
E
PKWY
SAWM
ILL
D
RD
MINERVA
PARK
RIVERLEA
CENTER VILLAG
E RD
DUBLIN-GRANVILLE
23
DR
142
JEFFERSON-KI
OUSV ILLE RD
R
UE
MORSE
WEBER RD
LE
AB
TR
SO
R
BB A
NORTH
BROADWAY RD
LANE AVE
ROBERT S RD
WIL
HU
70
315
UPPER
ARLINGTON
RENNER
RD
COOKE
RD
KIN
RD
71
MC
IT
Y
HILLIARD
E
HILLIARD-ROM
RD
AM
1
0
FISHINGER RD
270
CREEK RD
E
23
23
LANE RD
DEMPSEY RD
161
1
0
CASE RD
1
0
DUBLIN RD
VIS
DA
WORTHINGTON
161
WOODTOWN RD
WALNUT ST
710
BETHEL RD
RD
RD
1942
)
COLUMBUS
605
33
RD
DAVIDSON
CRE EK
RD
TUTTLE
RD
N
TRUE MA
BLVD
LUCAS RD
COSGRAY RD
KE
R
1946
HAYDEN
RUN RD
DARBY
ALTON &
W
AL
270
37
DELAWARE COUNTY
FRANKLIN COUNTY
COLLEGE AVE
MAIN ST
HARTFORD updates to this map and project listing.
WESTERVILLE
SAWMILL RD
MADISON COUN
TY
RD
DARBY
RING S RD
WILCOX RD
MS
SCIOTO
33
PARK RD
HARD RD
D
FRANTZ RD
IA
ER RD
42
)
1
0
)
DUBLIN
POLARIS
750
315
273
1919
PO
ST
R
161
1
0
D
PKWY
Please check www.morpc.org for
HARLEM
RD
SUMMIT VIEW
RD
D
R
33
3
DS
UN
HARTF ORD RD
37
O
N
TO
LE
1
0
D
36
VANS
VALLE
Y RD
POWELL RD
257
GR
IR
FA
)
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
111 Liberty Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
657
HO
614.228.2663
ME
RR
D
February 2010
P
AP
RR
DR
1845
OLD 3C HWY
RD
RD
D
YR
E
RN
WA
UNION COUNT Y
PLAIN
CITY
745
BRA
N
G
1
0
GALENA
HARLEM
RD
E
RS
RD
CIT
E
NV
CO
ORANGE RD
RD
LIBERTY
AIN
736
750
K RD
RD
PL
GLIC
& CROY
42
POWELL
71
ICA
Y
1
0
RD
VE R
HARRIOT
RD
HYLA ND
PK
W
R
SUNBURY
LEWIS CENTE
R RD
Y RI
TANG
L
WELLS RD
1
0
OLEN
RIA
SCIOTO RIVER
ST
315
HOME RD
RD
DU
PEACHBLOW RD
HYATTS RD
23
JEROME
1
0
33
IN
CHESHIRE RD
745
HARRIOTT RD
BU
ER
RD
3
AF R
NT
CE
STATION
RD
OIR
RESE RV
CREE K
257
36
ALU M
61
DILEY RD
LIBERT Y RD
RD
RD
LS
BE RLIN
REED RD
MIL
GE OR
GE SV
RD
1
0
42
257
BASIL RD
37
1
0
42
G
0
1
AIRPORT RD
PE NN RD
OSTRANDER
1947
BOWTOWN RD
656
KS RD
NE
WHITE STO
1
0
DELAWARE
36
FREDRIC
E
42
521
521
A RD
GALEN
RD
D RD
BURNT PON
SPRINGDALE
A ND
1
0
KIN
1
0
NE RD
FAIRFIELD COUNT
Y
RD
JACKS ON RD
OSTR
D
RR
WATKINS RD
PIK
KILBOUR
71
203
37
MORROW COUNTY
DELAWARE COUNTY
RD
LONG RD
UB
URYH
KILLB
LEONARDSBURG
LOTT RD
R
RIVE
EET RD
36
OR
42
23
37
ER R
D
YL
TA
1
0
1
0
ST CLAIR AVE
TROY RD
DILDINE RD
MINK STR
Resolution T-13-10
Amendment to the TIP
Project Location Map
ASHLEY
RD
OR
RADN
RD
Y PI KE
257
MAGNETIC
SPRINGS
KA IS
229
STEAM TOWN RD
S RD
SHORTEE
RD
WALNUT CREEK PIKE
TAW
AY
229
HORS ESHO E
4
THOMAS RD
KIN NE
203
SFY 2008-2011
Transportation Improvement Program
NORTON RD
HILL RD
CURT IS RD
47
STYGLE R RD
WHITTIER ST
RESOLUTION T-14-10
ADOPTION OF THE REVISED CENTRAL OHIO REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ARCHITECTURE
WHEREAS, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) encompass a broad range of wireless and wire
line communications-based information and electronics technologies integrated into transportation
infrastructure and vehicles that improve transportation safety and mobility and enhance productivity;
and
WHEREAS, in 1980 MORPC began funding regionally significant initiatives that would later be called
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies; and
WHEREAS, in 1997 MORPC assumed a leadership/facilitator role in the development of a regional
ITS plan by completing the Early Deployment Study for the Columbus Metropolitan Area through a
federally funded program; and
WHEREAS, in 1998-1999 MORPC led a consensus-building effort that resulted in the ITS Integration
Strategy for Central Ohio, which was adopted by Resolution T-18-99; and
WHEREAS, TEA21 required all federally funded ITS projects to be consistent with a regional ITS
architecture (an ITS plan for the region) that itself must be consistent with the National ITS
Architecture and applicable standards; and
WHEREAS, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and local ITS
stakeholders MORPC revised the ITS Integration Strategy for Central Ohio to conform to the National
ITS Architecture and to rename it as the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture, ensuring that ITS
projects in central Ohio continue to be eligible to receive federal funding; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 by Resolution T-5-04 the Policy Committee of the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission adopted this Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture; and
WHEREAS, the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture document has been revised to reflect the current
needs and vision of the region; and
WHEREAS, the Citizen Advisory Committee, at its meeting on June 1, 2010 and the Transportation
Advisory Committee at its meeting on June 2, 2010 recommended approval of this resolution to the
Policy Committee; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION:
Section 1.
That as the custodian of the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture (Architecture), it
adopts the 2010 revision to the Architecture as the federally required regional
architecture for the MORPC Transportation Planning Area.
Resolution T-14-10
Page 2
Section 2.
That it directs MORPC staff to review and update the Central Ohio Regional ITS
Architecture at least once during the cycle of each future update of the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan.
Section 3.
That it directs staff to promote the concepts identified within the Architecture as “ITS
Needs in the Region” with implementing agencies around the region and to work with
them to identify funding for ITS projects.
Section 4.
That this committee finds and determines that all formal deliberations and actions of
this committee concerning and relating to the adoption of this resolution were taken in
open meetings of this committee.
_______________________________________
Derrick R. Clay, Chair
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
________________________________________
Date
Prepared by:
Transportation Staff
Attachment:
Overview of April 2010 Revision
Note:
To view the entire Regional ITS Architecture Document, click here.
Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture Overview of April 2010 Revision What is ITS?
“Intelligent Transportation Systems” (ITS) use detection and communication tools and technologies to help
transportation system operators to operate the system more safely and efficiently in real-time, and to provide
information to the public. ITS is not confined to just the technologies, but also includes institutional
arrangements to share information and cooperate in carrying out services, such as monitoring or emergency
response.
ITS is often seen as a solution to reduce congestion, increase traffic flow, improve safety, and improve air
quality.
Examples of ITS projects in our transportation area
Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System (CMFMS), including its dynamic message signs, the
closed-circuit TV cameras, and the ramp meters on the entrance lanes to freeways.
Transit Automatic Vehicle Locator Systems (AVL)
Traffic signal coordination (and possible future signal priority for transit within the City of Columbus)
Although central Ohio contains numerous jurisdictions and agencies, MORPC’s vision and that of the traveling
public is of a single transportation network in which all stakeholders share an interest, making the integration
among systems a cornerstone. This is where the ITS architecture comes into play.
What is a Regional ITS Architecture?
This ITS Architecture is “a regional framework that ensures that there are institutional agreements as well as
technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects in a region.”
The ITS Architecture Document identifies the organizations that provide ITS systems and those that have an
interest in them. It also defines the different operating systems, the functions they perform, what information
is exchanged, and how it is exchanged.
The ITS Architecture is a “living” document which may be
amended between full updates.
Core ITS stakeholders are those agencies which have
invested a large amount of time and money in local ITS efforts
and have expressed interest in regional ITS integration. The
core stakeholders in the central Ohio region assist MORPC in
updating the document. For central Ohio, these agencies
include, besides MORPC, the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT), the Franklin County Engineer’s Office
(FCEO), the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), and the City
of Columbus.
Once updated, the ITS Architecture is approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is MORPC’s
Policy Committee.
The process chart below gives a better understanding of how the ITS architecture is developed.
Process of regional ITS architecture development
Step 1: Identify regional needs, define core
stakeholders (who own & operate ITS systems &
who have interest in regional transportation
issues) and decide on the champion (MORPC).
Step 2: Collect all the information about existing
systems, the needs for systems and the services
that could address them, the roles and
responsibilities of each agency/stakeholder and
the primary functions of the ITS systems.
Step 3: Define how the different projects/systems
interact with each other and how and which
information is shared between the systems and
disseminated to the users.
Step 4: Evaluate projects, develop priorities of how
and when projects get implemented, and identify
agency cooperation agreements.
Step 5: Use in transportation planning process and
programming (MTP, TIP, local CIPs)
Primary reasons for developing and maintaining a regional ITS Architecture
To identify and ensure the integration opportunities among regional transportation systems
To encourage stakeholder involvement and interest in participation
To assist in identifying gaps in existing services that might need to be addressed
To assist in estimating the amount of funding needed and help with prioritizing the various projects as well
as the efficient structuring of project implementation
To serve as an educational tool and improve stakeholder information exchange
To ensure that ITS projects listed on the TIP are clearly described in the architecture
The architecture is a federally mandated document. Any ITS project in the region must conform to the
architecture to be eligible to receive federal funding.
Maintaining and updating the regional ITS Architecture
MORPC is responsible for maintaining and updating the regional ITS architecture. Every time an ITS project is
implemented, the responsible agency must inform MORPC about how the project fits into the ITS architecture.
A change request form is submitted and shared with the members of the Freeway Management System (FMS)
Policy Committee who serve as the architecture maintenance working group. MORPC, together with the
working group members, make the decision about approving a change request.
A full update of the regional ITS architecture is undertaken by MORPC during each 4-year cycle of preparing
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). As part of this revision MORPC surveys all members to identify
new and upcoming projects and makes appropriate changes to the ITS database.
Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture
April 2010
Prepared by:
The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
111 Liberty St, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
2 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Acknowledgements
MORPC would like to express their thanks to all the stakeholders involved for their time and valuable input in developing this document and
for supporting ITS integration in our region. The various jurisdictions, governments, and agencies were very much engaged in the long
process of updating the regional ITS architecture.
Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010 |3
Glossary / Definitions
Components
The sausage diagrams are organized into four components: Center, Vehicles, Travelers, and Roadside. Each component represents a
possible information connection between ITS technology, information, services, and stakeholders.
Elements
Elements are the basic building blocks of the overall ITS Architecture and represent pieces of each subsystem. An element is defined as a
physical entity that performs a particular function, such as a 511 call center or dynamic message signs. The different stakeholders own,
maintain, and operate each element.
Functional Requirements
Functional requirements are high-level functions, tasks, activities, or services to be performed by systems to address the needs or problems
of the region. The stakeholders define the level of detail.
Information or Architecture Flows
Information or architecture flows are developed based on market packages. The flow diagrams define the information shared between
elements and subsystems and show specifically how that information should flow between them in order to provide the most efficient and
effective transportation service. Page 36 illustrates such a flow diagram and how to read it.
Market Packages
Market Packages identify the pieces of the physical ITS Architecture required to implement a particular service. Market packages consider
all the elements and information connections and organize them to provide the most effective transportation service. Market packages are
organized by the service they provide.
Operational Concept
The operational concept provides for a “big picture” view of the goals, objectives, and desired capabilities of each system (existing or
planned) in a region, without indicating how the systems will or can be implemented. An operational concept documents the stakeholders’
roles and responsibilities in the implementation and operation of regional ITS elements and services.
4 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Sausage Diagram
A sausage diagram represents an overview diagram which depicts all possible ITS subsystems that can be deployed onboard a vehicle, at
central locations, along the roadside, and at remote sites. The “sausages” in the diagram describe communications technologies and how
subsystems in the architecture are connected. Page 33 illustrates such a diagram.
Sequencing of Projects
The scheduling of projects is necessary to successfully implement the regional ITS architecture. The sequencing recognizes that in order to
initiate some projects, other projects may have to be completed first. Understanding project sequencing also helps stakeholders to visualize
how the region’s ITS projects will fit together over time, and to visualize their interdependencies.
Subsystems
Subsystems are pieces of the ITS Architecture that provide a particular transportation service, such as managing traffic or responding to
emergencies. They are not physical entities such as Traffic Management Centers; instead, they are groupings of elements that all provide a
particular service.
Terminators
Terminators are physical entities, representing people, systems, and the general environment that interface with intelligent transportation
systems. A terminator defines the architecture boundaries, meaning it is either the beginning or the end of the line for the information or
service that is being conveyed by the system. Terminators communicate with the system, provide and/or receive data, but are not
themselves part of the system. Examples could be the weather service, which would provide data to the Highway Traffic Management
Center for incident management but doesn’t request data from the center.
Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010 |5
Acronyms
AASHTO
APC
ATIS
AVL
CAD
CCTV
CMAQ
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Automatic Passenger Counter
Advanced Traveler Information System
Automatic Vehicle Location
Computer-Aided Dispatching
Closed-Circuit Television
Congestion Management and Air Quality Program
CMFMS
COMBAT
COTA
CRAA
CTSS
DMS
DOT
Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System
Central Ohio Management Based Applied Technology Program
Central Ohio Transit Authority
Columbus Regional Airport Authority
Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System
Dynamic Message Signs
(United States) Department of Transportation
EMA
FCEO
FHWA
FIRST
FMS
GIS
GPS
HAR
Emergency Management Agency
Franklin County Engineers Office
Federal Highway Administration
Columbus Freeway Incident Response Service Team
Freeway Management System
Geographic Management System
Global Positioning System
Hazard Advisory Radio
HazMat
HOV
HRI
ISAP
ISTEA
Hazardous Materials
High Occupancy Vehicle
Highway Rail Intersection
Isolated Signal Assessment Project
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
6 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
ITS
Intelligent Transportation Systems
JPO
LCATS
MORPC
MPO
MSA
ODOT
ODOT
ODPS
OEPA
ORDC
OSC
OSU
PUCO
RWIS
SAFETEA-LU
SOV
STIP
T&P
TEA 21
TERT
TIP
TMC
Joint Programs Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems
Licking County Area Transportation Study
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Department of Public Safety
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Rail Development Commission
Ohio Supercomputing Center
Ohio State University
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
Road & Weather Information System
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan
Transportation and Parking
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century
City of Columbus Traffic Emergency Response Team
Transportation Improvement Plan
Traffic Management Center
TTI
VMT
Texas Transportation Institute
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010 |7
The ITS Architecture document is structured into three main sections, plus appendices:
PART I: Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
PART II: Update and Usage of the ITS Architecture ........................................................................................ 29
PART III: Maintenance Plan........................................................................................................................................ 46
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................................... 55
8 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
PART I: Background
Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010 |9
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................................................10
1.1 Need for ITS in Central Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................................10
1.2 Benefits of ITS for Central Ohio .......................................................................................................................................................................11
1.3 MORPC’s Role in ITS Planning .........................................................................................................................................................................15
1.4 Funding Opportunities for ITS ..........................................................................................................................................................................15
2.
About the Regional ITS Architecture ..................................................................................................................................................................17
2.1 History of ITS Architecture in Central Ohio......................................................................................................................................................17
2.2 Geographic Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................................19
2.3 Regional Stakeholders .....................................................................................................................................................................................19
3.
Member Project Spotlight ...................................................................................................................................................................................20
3.1 ODOT Project: Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System ........................................................................................................20
3.2 City of Columbus Project: Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrades ...................................................................................................21
3.3 COTA Projects: AVL, Real-Time Information, SMART Card, Automated Passenger Counters ......................................................................22
3.3.1 Transit Automatic Vehicle Locator System ..............................................................................................................................................22
3.3.2 Real-Time Bus Arrival Information System ..............................................................................................................................................23
3.3.3 SMART Cards and Automatic Passenger Counters .................................................................................................................................23
3.4 Franklin County Project: COMBAT ...................................................................................................................................................................24
3.5 Cross-Jurisdictional and Cross-Agency Project: Signal Priority / Signal Pre-emption...................................................................................25
4.
Deployment Trends .............................................................................................................................................................................................26
1. Introduction
In May 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's
Transportation Network, which provides the framework for government officials, the private sector, and most importantly, the citizen, to
take the necessary steps to make today's congestion a thing of the past. The objective of the initiative is to reduce congestion, not simply to
slow its increase. The U.S. DOT developed a six-point plan for addressing congestion relief that can be found on the DOT Web Site
(http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf). With this initiative, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) focuses on a number of
high-priority efforts to help reduce congestion and to improve coordination between the different transportation systems and agencies. The
components that are aimed at addressing the topic of congestion relief are often related to the application of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). Intelligent Transportation Systems refer to an assortment of technologies, systems, and transportation management
concepts that collectively aim to save time, lives, and money.1
The current transportation bill SAFETEA-LU continues to place much emphasis on ITS as an alternative solution to reduce congestion,
increase traffic flow, and improve air quality. Because congestion levels in central Ohio have not yet reached the same level as in metro
areas of similar size, it is even more imperative to act now to avoid these issues in the future. Increasing growth in population and land use
will inevitably lead to more traffic and worsened travel conditions. Most travelers are unconcerned by who owns and operates the various
components of the transportation system; they only want it to work seamlessly and efficiently. Consequently it is important that the
operation of the transportation system be as integrated as possible. In order to foster system integration and agency cooperation, MORPC
has taken on the role to house, update, and maintain the regional ITS architecture for central Ohio.
1.1 Need for ITS in Central Ohio
The Columbus metropolitan area has been the fastest growing metropolitan area in Ohio for some time. In fact, Delaware County, north of
Columbus, was the 10th fastest growing county in the nation over the last decade. Commute patterns connect this county to Franklin
County and the City of Columbus, resulting in urban sprawl. Today, central Ohio continues to battle the growth patterns established by the
interstate system’s presence. Currently, the population of the 12-county central Ohio region is just over 2 million and it is expected that over
235,000 new people will be added to the region by the year 2030 (MORPC population priojections; 2008 Census data). Based on national
transportation trends, these new community members will likely use personal vehicles as their major mode of transportation, leading to
additional vehicles on the roadways. The continued spatial diffusion and specialization of facilities results in people covering greater
distances to reach shopping, educational, and entertainment centers. Spare-time activities, for example, play an important role in today’s
life-style and result in additional travel complexity and an expansion of activity space. Due to the growing demand for space, more and more
recreation centers and shopping malls are being built in suburban areas.
Overall, travel times are increasing and more people are experiencing traffic congestion as they travel further distances to outlying low
density residential developments. The growth in central Ohio continues to exceed forecasts and expectations in both land expansion and
travel projections. According to the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 53 percent on the
1
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/index.htm
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 11
freeways and by 60 percent on the principal arterials between 1985 and 2005. The growth is important, but so, too, is the portion of the
travel that is congested. In 2005, nearly 59 percent of drivers in central Ohio were driving on congested roadways during peak travel times.
Table 1 lists various statistics related to travel growth in central Ohio.
Table 1: Columbus, OH Urban Area Traveler Statistics
Freeway
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Daily VMT (1000s)
Lane Miles
Principal Arterial
Daily VMT (1000s)
Lane Miles
Other Measures
Congested Travel (% of peak VMT)
Fuel Consumed (1000s of Gallons)
Fuel Consumed per Person (Gallons)
Congestion Cost ($ Million)
Congestion Cost per Person ($)
6,960
750
9,030
770
10,650
810
12,000
860
14,960
955
Increase 1985-2005
Value
%
8,000
53%
205
21%
4,175
1,085
5,810
1,245
7,735
1,365
9,300
1,685
10,440
2,120
6,265
1,035
60%
49%
14
1,490
4
23
65
30
4,752
12
89
230
43
8,938
18
188
389
43
10,677
18
266
461
59
15,513
24
409
620
45
14,104
20
386
555
76%
91%
83%
94%
90%
Source: TTI, Urban Mobility Report 2007
These statistics show the importance of curbing congestion levels. Unfortunately, as growth continues and needed expansion of
transportation infrastructure spreads beyond the core of the city, the ability to meet the region’s infrastructure needs falls behind. New
roadways are not being built fast enough, nor are they financially feasible. The region has therefore turned planning efforts towards ITS.
1.2 Benefits of ITS for Central Ohio
Traffic congestion results in lost productivity, money, time, and fuel inefficiency. ITS technologies are developed in an effort to relieve
congestion issues. Implementing ITS can result in innumerable benefits. Listing all of them is well beyond the scope of this document.2
However, key benefits of ITS relating to central Ohio include: A) Enhanced Safety; B) Reduced Congestion; and C) Improved Air Quality and
Reduced Fuel Waste. It is important to note that many of these benefits are a result of coordination between various ITS elements. Systems
operating independently would not have the same level of impact as integrated systems sharing resources and information.
2
A more in-depth breakdown of the benefits of ITS can be found on the ITS Benefits and Costs Database: http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov.
12 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
A. Enhanced Safety
Safety is not only a major objective of ITS but also a way to evaluate ITS performance (FHWA 2005). According to the FHWA ITS Benefits and
Costs Database, freeway management systems can reduce crashes by 15 to 50 percent. This significant reduction in incidents results from
the integration of various ITS systems. According to FHWA, which surveys cities that deploy ITS, this type of safety-enhancing technology
results in the greatest safety improvements. For example, closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras allow Freeway Management System
(FMS) operators to detect crashes and stalled vehicles swiftly and provide fire and police dispatchers with accurate incident location
information. Similarly, freeway reference markers allow motorists who are reporting a crash to provide precise location details, decreasing
emergency response time.
A study conducted by FHWA shows that secondary incidents account for 20 percent of all crashes (ODOT, 2007). Because the majority of
freeway crashes are secondary, meaning they occur due to congestion caused by an earlier crash, decreasing incident clearance time even
by as little as one minute can have significant safety impacts. Ohio QuickClear is a committee formed by the Ohio Departments of Public
Safety and Transportation with the objective to quickly react to roadway incidents in order to maintain the safe and effective flow of traffic
during emergencies, and to prevent further damage, injury, or undue delay of the motoring public.
Dissemination of timely traveler information can also help reduce secondary crashes. QuickClear demonstrates the benefits of ITS by using
technology like real time photo images to coordinate response agencies to clear incidents. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) located on police, fire, and maintenance and construction vehicles also help clear incidents and roadway debris
more quickly.
B. Reduced Congestion
The number of vehicles on roadways is rapidly increasing across America, and it is no longer practical or feasible to build our way out of the
growing congestion problem. Despite newly constructed roadways, traffic delays continue to grow. According to the Urban Mobility Study,
travelers in Columbus experienced 30 hours of traffic delay due to congestion in 2007.
Figure 1 compares the growth in total delay to the growth in delay per traveler. As mentioned before, growing congestion means that
transportation funding that is spent on expansion will “buy less capacity than in the past” (Patrick Conroy, 2000). We therefore need to look
towards managing our traffic by organizing the flow of our current road systems with ITS technologies for all modes of transportation
(Patrick Conroy, 2000).
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 13
Figure 1: Growth in Delay per Peak Traveler and Growth in Total Delay
Source: TTI, Urban Mobility Report 2007
By using lower cost technology, ITS systems battle congestion in the region by managing and organizing roadway demands. Central Ohio
has deployed several ITS technologies such as AVL, signal synchronization, and ramp meters. According to ITS America3, congestion
reduction has been a significant national benefit of ITS technology. For example, traffic signal control saved drivers between 8 and 20
percent in delay time, and roadway sensors cut travel time between 10 and 45 percent during congestion periods (ITS America, 2007).
C. Improved Air Quality and Reduced Fuel Waste
A major environmental challenge facing many large cities is the need to improve air quality to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standards and protect citizens’ health. In order to comply with EPA emission standards, many regions, including central Ohio, have placed
importance on projects that mitigate bad air quality. In 1997, the U.S. EPA declared 12 metro areas in Ohio to be in “non-attainment” of air
quality standards, as shown in Map 1. This designation declares that the air does not meet the minimum national ambient air quality
standards set by the U.S. EPA to protect public health and, therefore, is hazardous to the population. However, by the end of 2009 all
counties in Ohio except those in the Cincinnati metro area had been redesignated as being in attainment. The Columbus metro area was
redesignated on September 15, 2009.
3
ITS America is a not-for-profit organization representing over 400 private and public sector organizations involved in the development and deployment of ITS
technologies (http://www.itsa.org/).
14 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Map 1: Ohio 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas,
with status as of May 2010
There are two main factors that contribute to the air pollution in central
Ohio: ozone and fine particles. Ozone is a gas and a component of smog.
Ozone pollution is mostly caused by cars, lawnmowers and other gasolineburning engines. Ozone pollution occurs when the chemical emissions
from these sources combine with sunlight.
Unlike ozone pollution, particles do not need sunlight to form. Fine
particles are tiny solid particles and liquid droplets measuring less than 2.5
micrometers in size, or 1/20th the width of a human hair. Particle pollution
comes from motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities and
residential fireplaces. Excess fuel burned in cars due to traffic delays is a
leading cause of poor air quality. According to the 2009 Urban Mobility
Report, the Columbus urban area wasted over 14.5 million gallons of gas
due to traffic delays in 2007. Strategies such as encouraging travelers to
use transit, reducing vehicle idle time at intersections through signal
coordination, and improving incident clearance time have been
implemented in central Ohio to reduce fuel consumption and its negative
impact on air quality.
ITS systems are vital to meeting emissions standards because the
technology can improve traffic flow and, therefore, reduce excess fuel
consumption. The fact that the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) currently provides all funding for ITS
projects demonstrates the direct, positive impact ITS systems have on our
air quality, reduced fuel consumption, and travel costs.
Source: Ohio EPA
There are numerous sources of funding that have traditionally been used
to finance transportation from a variety of federal, state, and local funds;
however, MORPC’s practice is to fund ITS projects with Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds,
demonstrating the direct correlation between ITS and its positive impact on
Central Ohio’s air, and allowing Surface Transportation Program dollars to
be used for other projects (MORPC 2007).
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 15
1.3 MORPC’s Role in ITS Planning
One of the most obvious differences between ITS and conventional transportation solutions is the level of interdependency that exists
between projects, and the degree to which information, facilities, and infrastructure can be shared with mutual benefit. Since opportunities
for system integration and operational coordination extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries, it is important to have the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) involved in planning for both system and inter-jurisdictional integration.
MORPC has been involved in ITS planning for a long time and has conducted a number of studies regarding the application of ITS systems
in the region. These efforts include the involvement in Operation TimeSaver (1993), the Central Ohio ITS Early Deployment Study (1997),
the development of the Integration Strategy for Central Ohio (1999), a program assessment for Paving The Way (2007), a feasibility study of
an Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) (2009), as well as project specific studies related to a centralized
transportation/emergency management center, and freeway management and signal system operational analyses. ITS has been and will
continue to be an integral part of transportation planning in central Ohio. The goal of the planning process is to ensure that there is
informed decision making pertaining to the investment of public funds for regional transportation systems and services. Through the use of
the region’s ITS architecture, MORPC is empowered to do this. Projects and activities in which MORPC is or has recently been involved
include participation in regional and local ITS meetings, such as the Freeway Management System Policy Committee; ; assisting the city of
Columbus with their Traffic Signal Assessment; working on implementing a regional multi-modal traveler information system; and
highlighting ITS projects in the TIP to ensure that funding is adequately addressed.
1.4 Funding Opportunities for ITS
Communities throughout the United States are facing hard decisions on how to preserve and improve their transportation systems, and the
Columbus area is no exception. There are numerous sources of funding that have traditionally been used to finance transportation from a
variety of federal, state, and local funds. In central Ohio, the ITS projects are generally funded with CMAQ funds. The maintenance of these
systems, however, is financed through other funding sources.
All ITS projects using federal funding in central Ohio must conform to the Regional ITS Architecture. According to FHWA rule 23 CFR 940.9,
any agency requesting federal dollars for an ITS project through MORPC or the state must conform to the regional architecture before
funding will be allocated. ODOT and the Ohio Division of FHWA recently developed a document titled “Ohio Procedures for Implementing ITS
Regulations (23 CFR 940)” which describes the various steps an agency needs to follow when designing and implementing ITS projects
funded through federal dollars.4 Table 2 provides examples of major, minor, and non-ITS projects. One of the project sponsor’s
responsibilities would be to ensure that a systems engineering process is used in addition to the architecture conformity requirement. This
approach will permit ODOT and FHWA to establish concurrence in the level of ITS assessment and documentation needed. As part of this
process, MORPC will provide ODOT district offices every two years with regionally planned ITS projects identified through the Transportation
4
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2008%20Presentations/12B.pdf
16 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Improvement Program. In return, the project sponsors have to notify MORPC of any changes or updates to the architecture. This updating
procedure will help with the maintenance of the document.
Table 2: Examples of major, minor and non-ITS projects
Major ITS
Minor ITS
Non ITS

























Freeway Management Systems (FMS)
Traffic Signal systems scoped to be centrally controlled
Integration of ramp meters with traffic signals on adjacent arterials
Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) systems
Automated toll collection systems
Integrated Transit Corridors
Traffic signal projects that require the integration of signal systems with FMS or RWIS systems
An ITS system that involves multiple political jurisdictions
An ITS project that involves interagency systems
Roadway Weather Information System (RWIS)
Roadgrip Sensor System
Transit Signal Priority Systems
Various surveillance or control systems that could functionally be integrated into a FMS
Highway Rail Intersection (HRI) warning systems
Emergency vehicle preemption systems
Parking Management Systems
System expansions that do not add new functionality
Closed loop signal systems not integrated with other devices or systems (Emergency vehicle preemption is considered to
be another system)
Routine maintenance and operation of existing systems
Signal retiming even if multi-agency or multi-jurisdictional
Traffic signals which are either isolated, time based coordinated, or interconnected but not centrally controlled
Speeding or red-light running electronic enforcement systems
Cameras installed solely for the purpose of traffic or data collection (except if it could functionally be integrated into a
system for surveillance purposes)
Weigh-in-motion systems (unless integrated into an FMS)
Count and classification systems (unless integrated into an FMS)
Source: Based on ODOT’s Traffic Engineering Manual, Part 13 2007
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 17
2. About the Regional ITS Architecture
Although central Ohio is divided between numerous jurisdictions and agencies, MORPC’s vision is to establish ONE transportation network
in which all stakeholders share an interest. In order to accomplish this objective, we need to ensure that ITS systems are integrated. The
regional architecture helps to facilitate integrated ITS deployment and serves as a regional framework that ensures that there are
institutional agreements as well as technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects in a region. The ITS architecture identifies
the organizations that provide ITS or those that have an interest in them. The architecture also defines the different operating systems, the
functions they perform, what information is exchanged, and how it is exchanged. The document is based on the national ITS architecture
which identifies the appropriate ITS standards. A regional architecture is necessary not only for the receipt of highway trust fund dollars, but
also for successful regional ITS integration. Figure 2 illustrates the various functions
Figure 2: Functions described in the ITS Architecture
described in the ITS architecture.
The national ITS architecture was developed to provide a unifying framework for ITS
infrastructure deployment to ensure that technologies can work together smoothly and
effectively. Likewise, standards are being developed to support interoperability by
specifying how systems and components interconnect. Appropriate guidance, training,
and technical assistance are necessary to promote understanding and effective use of
these tools, and ultimately, to achieve integrated ITS deployment.
A regional ITS architecture is developed and maintained for a variety of reasons. Such
a document can, for example, help detect and ensure integration opportunities among
regional transportation systems and encourage stakeholder buy-in. By knowing which
types of IT systems are in place, gaps in the exchange of information can be identified.
A document that lists all existing and planned systems and demonstrates the
Source: FHWA 2007
information flow between them can also help with the estimation of funding needs.
Implementations of projects can then be efficiently structured. In addition, the regional
ITS architecture often serves as a tool to educate both public and members of the importance of ITS and to help with good information
exchange.
2.1 History of ITS Architecture in Central Ohio
In 1999, MORPC completed the first regional ITS architecture-type documentation for central Ohio, entitled ITS Integration Strategy for
Central Ohio. The report was developed prior to FHWA’s decision to require “architecture” documents for metropolitan areas implementing
ITS projects. Paying close attention to federal recommendations made for the Integration Strategy, as well as to the needs of central Ohio,
an updated ITS Architecture was developed. In April 2004, five years later, MORPC developed a formal regional ITS architecture that
18 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
focused on integration strategies for central Ohio in compliance with the FHWA’s ruling. The regional ITS architecture guidance document,
Developing, Using, and Maintaining an ITS Architecture for Your Region, was used as a tool in establishing a process and ensuring that
federal requirements were met. Included as part of MORPC’s update to the ITS Integration Strategy for central Ohio was the updated
software called “Turbo Architecture” (FHWA, Turbo Architecture 4.0, 2007). MORPC utilized this software package to generate more
detailed listings of the system inventory and system interconnections. This tool also helped to identify relevant standards for the region.
Figure 3: Process of Regional ITS Architecture Development
Source: FHWA, Regional ITS Architecture Guidance 2006
This updated document also utilizes the Turbo Architecture software (version 4.0) and is based on National ITS Architecture Version 6.0.
The information included in this document was collected via both stakeholder interviews and an extensive online survey (see Appendix A).
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 19
2.2 Geographic Scope
The regional ITS architecture is based on the MPO transportation planning area. This area includes Franklin and Delaware counties as well
as part of Licking and Fairfield counties, as shown in Map 1. The major interstate and state routes through the region include I-71, I-70, I270, I-670, and SR 315. However, the identification of ITS projects expands
Map 1: Central Ohio Geographic Boundaries
beyond these boundaries to ensure that operational needs for integration and
information sharing are met on a regional basis. The Columbus Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) encompasses an eight-county region and members of this
region were interviewed for the update of this document.
This document is intended to address regional ITS needs and goals over a 10year horizon. MORPC feels this is a sufficient time period to include most of the
region’s integration opportunities. Because a 10-year forecast is likely to
change, the regional architecture will be reevaluated as part of the 4-year
development of the transportation plan.
Source: MORPC, 2007
While this regional ITS architecture is built only around the central Ohio region,
ITS systems might go beyond the geographic scope of this area and extend into
regions with their own ITS architecture. The Licking County Area Transportation
Study (LCATS) currently does not hold a regional ITS architecture for the Newark
area. In the future, MORPC could collaborate with LCATS to create a regional ITS
architecture together.
2.3 Regional Stakeholders
All members of the MPO planning area are considered immediate ITS stakeholders. Of these members there are four “core” stakeholders
who have invested a large amount of time and money in local ITS efforts in the past and have expressed an interest in regional ITS
integration. These agencies are: ODOT, the city of Columbus, Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) and Franklin County. The expansive
group of stakeholders with existing or potential ITS needs include all other counties, cities, and villages, safety and security agencies, and
the Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA), among others. Appendix B: Central Ohio ITS Stakeholders includes a list of all stakeholders
and associated elements that were included in this version of the regional ITS architecture.
20 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
3. Member Project Spotlight
The goal of this section is to highlight some agencies that have successfully integrated ITS projects with other central Ohio stakeholders. As
mentioned previously, it is essential to deliver/implement ITS while integrating projects with one another. The following projects illustrate
how system integration and inter-agency cooperation can lead to a more effective transportation system.
3.1 ODOT Project: Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System
ODOT, based on their knowledge and vision of the Ohio freeway system, developed solutions to traffic management that were ITS in nature.
Their data analysis supports the idea that congestion will continue to grow, and that roadway expansion is no longer the solution. As an
alternative to road construction, ODOT is a strong supporter of using ITS
Figure 4: Screenshot of ODOT’s FMS Technologies
to solve congestion problems. Their objective in creating the Columbus
Metropolitan Freeway Management System (CMFMS) was to focus on
incident-related congestion rather than congestion due to chronic
capacity issues.
Source: ODOT 2007
The CMFMS is arguably the most visible ITS project in the region. It is
designed to enhance incident management, traveler information, traffic
management, and traffic data collection. The CMFMS essentially
influences all transportation and emergency management operations in
central Ohio. It utilizes ITS elements, such as remote cameras, freeway
service patrols, variable message signs, ramp meters, vehicle detectors,
and a feed from the Columbus Police CAD system to provide a complete
picture of traffic status in the region (see Figure 4). These elements are
all aimed at reducing congestion, decreasing the number of crashes,
and reducing the response time to incidents. All phases of the CMFMS
were completed in 2007. In addition, ODOT makes the information
available to the public via an online portal called “BuckeyeTraffic.”
As part of the CMFMS, ODOT has implemented a Freeway Incident Response Service Team (FIRST) to detect and respond to minor incidents
in the Columbus area, such as property damage crashes, flat tires, stalled cars, and debris in the roadway. Utilizing ITS technology, these
vehicles help detect and clear roadside incidents, allowing motorists to reach their destinations quickly and safely. The FIRST team is an
excellent example of how ITS integration can benefit both the general public and stakeholders.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 21
3.2 City of Columbus Project: Computerized Traffic Signal System Upgrades
The City of Columbus Public Service Department strives to make roadways more efficient and to reduce gas consumption, auto emissions,
and traffic stops. It is the Department’s objective to reduce the number of traffic crashes on area roads and freeways. To accomplish this
goal, the city utilizes ITS, such as traffic signal computers, to manage, coordinate, and operate its traffic signals.
Figure 5: City of Columbus Signal System
The City of Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System (CTSS)
was established in the 1980’s and has control of nearly 1,000
intersections in Columbus and the surrounding areas (see Figure 5).
This Columbus system is a backbone ITS system for the central Ohio
region and is made up of several components. The heart of system
operations lies in the COMPUTRAN central control system, and
secondary pieces of the system include the numerous closed-loop
operations throughout the region.
The Columbus system is unique because it utilizes CCTV to monitor
downtown intersections and corridors paralleling freeway sections,
and shares these images with ODOT. The City’s system is one
project in the region that has potential for cross-jurisdictional and
cross-agency coordination: the CTSS is currently co-located in the
city of Columbus Traffic Management Center with ODOT’s CMFMS,
and the City also has established design, monitoring, and
maintenance relationships with several jurisdictions with which it
shares borders.
Together with MORPC, the City of Columbus assessed its signal
operations in 2005. Based on the results, the city is now upgrading
the signal technology to move from a proprietary system to an open
Source: City of Columbus 2004
architecture, which allows for better signal coordination across
jurisdictions. Within this effort, Columbus will be replacing coaxial cables with both wireless and fiber optic technology. The construction of
this large ITS project is 100 percent funded through MORPC. Construction of the first phase of the system is beginning in 2010. The City
has recently hired a consultant to conduct the design of the second phase of the system.
22 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
3.3 COTA Projects: AVL, Real-Time Information, SMART Card, Automated Passenger Counters
Central Ohio’s population is projected to grow by 36 percent by 2030, and public transit needs to be prepared to accommodate such
growth. COTA has recognized that they have not been able to keep pace with population and job growth in the last few years. COTA sees the
implementation of ITS as a major part of their solution to provide effective and efficient transit. From 2005 to 2006, COTA sought input
from all levels of government, the community, and planning agencies to plan for future transit needs. Their summary of this input and the
goals of COTA are outlined in their Long-Range Transit Plan which includes many ITS components (COTA, 2006). Some of these components
are profiled in the following paragraphs.
3.3.1 Transit Automatic Vehicle Locator System
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems use on-board computers and a Global Positioning System (GPS) to monitor vehicle locations.
Because of its ability to provide exact vehicle locations in real time, the AVL system is considered the nexus for the implementation of most
other transit ITS systems. One important aspect of obtaining exact vehicle locations in real time is the ability to use this information to
monitor the vehicles’ schedule adherence in real time. The drivers are constantly aware if
Figure 6: COTA Radio Room
they are running late, early, or on time; thus, they can instantly adjust their speeds to
maintain schedule adherence. By maintaining schedule adherence, buses are then able to
reach their stops on time, allowing timely transfers. This will translate into convenient,
efficient, and reliable transit. Transit vehicles equipped with AVL technologies have the ability
to function as traffic probes, as their location and speed information is instantaneously
shared with traffic engineers.
COTA has equipped 100 percent of its fleet with AVL capability and is currently utilizing this
technology in conjunction with its dispatching service to improve performance and schedule
adherence. Recently, this system established geographic coordinates for all stops in the
system, which facilitated the implementation of automated vehicle annunciators. The AVL
Source: COTA 2006 Short Range Transit Plan
system will also facilitate the implementation of “real-time” information terminals at key
transit locations and “next bus” arrival message signs at park-n-rides and selected bus
shelters. COTA’s AVL system is proprietary and cannot be shared with other entities. In order to allow for an open architecture and future
sharing of data with other systems, COTA is updating the system to use newer web-based technology.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 23
3.3.2 Real-Time Bus Arrival Information System
The purpose of bus information systems is to communicate bus arrival times
using AVL/GIS technology to the general public at bus stops. COTA is currently
planning for dynamic message signs at selected bus shelters and transit
centers that display the estimated arrival times of each line. COTA already
provides its passengers with a real-time Bus Tracker system on their website
at http://www.cota.com/Bus-Tracker.aspx (also see Map 2).
Map 2: Screenshot of COTA’s Real-Time Location Map
Travelers can see exactly how far the bus is from the target bus stop and
calculate arrival time. This information is used to assist riders in making pretrip and en-route (including in-vehicle) trip decisions. A significant advantage
of real-time bus arrival information systems is that most passengers believe
that their waiting time has been reduced, resulting in improved perception of
transit reliability.
3.3.3 SMART Cards and Automatic Passenger Counters
SMART Cards are a substitute for paper money that utilizes ITS technology.
Instead of paying cash
Source: COTA 2007 http://cota.com/realtime.asp
Figure 7: Automatic Passenger Counter
while
boarding,
passengers can load their cards with coins or paper money at various kiosk locations
and then use the magnetic stripe cards like a credit card. Offering smart cards quickens
boarding times and reduces fare box maintenance. COTA is currently studying this
payment method to make it available in the near future.
Source: COTA Long-Range Transit Plan 2006
Automatic Passenger Counters are another application of ITS providing a valuable
service for the transit system. Using sensors, the program identifies the passengers at
boarding and alighting, allowing COTA to plan bus routes that meet passenger demands
and to make necessary adjustments for service frequency. The use of Automated
Passenger Counters enables COTA planners to increase the level of service without
increasing operating expense (see Figure 7) . A sensor-based technology is currently
deployed on COTA buses.
24 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
3.4 Franklin County Project: COMBAT
The Franklin County Engineer’s Office, together with the city of Columbus, has implemented the jointly operated Central Ohio Management
Based Applied Technology (COMBAT) program. COMBAT tracks city and county vehicles (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Screenshot of COMBAT’s vehicle tracking system
This innovative vehicle management system is
vital to know the location and progress of all
maintenance trucks, particularly during a snow
emergency, so that forces can be coordinated
and mobilized jointly. COMBAT equipment
provides snow plow dispatchers with the
following
information:
Unit
and
driver
identification; Vehicle location (within three feet);
Speed; Rate of salt application; Rate of de-icing
liquid application; Plow up or down position;
Pavement
and
air
temperatures;
and
Emergencies.
COMBAT has been fully active since 2009 and
involves 75 city and 34 county snow plows, 24
city street sweepers, and nine city and 16 county
mowers. The Franklin County Engineer’s Office
has supervised the $4.1 million start of COMBAT,
which was installed by Interfleet, Inc. of Toronto,
Canada. Funding was provided by the FHWA, the
city of Columbus, and Franklin County.
Source: Franklin County Engineer’s Office 2007
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 25
3.5 Cross-Jurisdictional and Cross-Agency Project: Signal Priority / Signal Pre-emption
A traffic signal preemption system is an electrical device that allows a traffic control signal to respond uniquely to the approach of a
particular type of vehicle or the occurrence of an unusual condition at or near a highway intersection. Such systems are designed to
increase safety, reduce emergency response times and enhance public transit operations. These systems may be used for the preemption
of normal traffic control signal operation by the approach of emergency vehicles, or may be
Figure 9: Transit Signal Priority
used to modify the length of the green light time to allow for more efficient transit operation.
Signal preemption interrupts normal signal operations to transfer right of way to the
direction of an approaching emergency vehicle, but a green indication is not always
guaranteed immediately after preemption is requested.
Source: COTA 2007 Short Range Transit Plan
By giving signal priority to transit,
travel time and delay are
shortened,
translating
into
improved passenger convenience
and cost savings. Once COTA has
updated their AVL systems, the
agency plans to work with the
individual jurisdictions to allow for
signal priority.
Figure 10: Signal Pre-emption for Emergency Vehicles
This ITS-based project benefits not
only the public and COTA, but also integrates COTA into the city of Columbus and
other local agencies through coordination of traffic signal operations.
How fast this technology can be implemented depends primarily on Columbus’
time schedule to upgrade the current signal system and to develop the capability
to program these features. COTA continues to maintain a working relationship
with Columbus that will foster this development when the appropriate resources
become available.
Source: FHWA 2009, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov
26 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
4. Deployment Trends
The Federal Highway Administration has been collecting information on ITS deployment and integration since 1996, with the most recent
data available from 2007. The FHWA’s report Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems
Infrastructure in Columbus is an important tool in measuring the efficiency of transportation systems in central Ohio. Surveys were
administered to 108 large metropolitan areas (including Columbus, Ohio), state departments of transportation, and over 2,300 local
agencies regarding the deployment of their ITS. The results of the 2007 Deployment Tracking Survey, as well as previous surveys, can be
accessed via the FHWA website: http://www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/about.asp. These results are used to report deployment progress
across the nation for a variety of purposes including program management, research, outreach, and education.
The survey was broken down into eight ITS component areas to match the ITS taxonomy, as shown below. The bold highlighted “Electronic
Toll Collection” component does not apply to central Ohio and was therefore left out of the deployment and integration calculations for all
listed cities in Figure 11 and Figure 12.
Arterial Management
Emergency Management
Freeway Management
Highway Rail Intersections
Electronic Fare Payment
Incident Management
Electronic Toll Collection
Transit Management
The city of Columbus is ranked the 16th largest city in the nation with a population of 754,885 (U.S. Census Population Estimates, 2008). In
order to establish realistic goals for the region, central Ohio deployment trends will be compared to cities of similar size based on
population estimates from the U.S. Census. These cities are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: US Cities Ranked by Population
Rank
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Geographic Area
City
Jacksonville
Indianapolis
Austin
Columbus
Fort Worth
Charlotte
Memphis
State
Florida
Indiana
Texas
Ohio
Texas
N.C.
Tennessee
Population Estimates
As of July 2008
807,815
798,382
757,688
754,885
703,073
687,456
669,651
Source: US Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates
The 2005 results of the deployment survey placed central Ohio above the national average in deployment (see Figure 11). All of the
following deployment averages were calculated using data from the Texas Transportation Institute’s Annual Urban Mobility Report. Despite
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 27
the fact that Columbus is 1.5 percent above the national average in deployment, current ITS deployment fulfills less than one-third of its
potential. Austin, the city closest in population to Columbus, exceeds central Ohio’s deployment average by nearly 10 percent.
Figure 11: Average ITS Deployment in Large US Cities in 2005 (%)
Detroit, MI
33.65
Jacksonville, FL
24.78
San Francisco, CA
25.67
Columbus, OH
Memphis, TN
Emergency Management
4.25
5.00
Highway-Rail…
0.00
38.93
Source: TTI, Urban Mobility Report 2007
18.60
15.88
32.75
Transit Management
10.99
National Average
Incident Management
27.49
National Average (%)
50.00
49.00
55.50
22.50
Freeway Management
29.03
Austin, TX
30.30
35.30
34.25
Arterial Management
Electronic Fare Payment
22.28
Indianapolis, IN
Figure 12: Average ITS Deployment in Columbus (2005)
42.25
Columbus Average (%)
Source: FHWA, ITS Deployment Tracking 2005
To better understand where specifically Columbus can improve on ITS deployment, Figure 12 breaks down the Columbus average into the
seven components listed on the previous page. One area for improvement lies in the field of Incident Management, where Columbus lags
three percent behind the national average and is reaching only 15 percent of its full deployment potential. Freeway management holds the
greatest possibility for improvement.
Understanding ITS integration is particularly important when creating an ITS architecture. MORPC staff can use the FHWA study results to
establish what critical integration links are missing in the region and to plan for future ITS projects to fill those gaps. Figure 13 was created
by FHWA and illustrates the amount of integration present between ITS components in central Ohio based on the 2006 study results. The
shading in the diagram quantifies the amount of integration present between components. For example, a half-shaded circle represents a
50 percent level of integration. The overall integration rating for Columbus has improved. Since 1996, the U.S. DOT has produced four
28 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
reports rating the ITS integrated deployment in the metropolitan surveyed metropolitan areas. Ratings are determined by assigning a high,
medium, or low rating to both deployment and integration, then combining the two for an overall rating. In 2002, Columbus was classified
as having a low level of integrated ITS deployment, but since 2003, the rating has changed to medium. A medium rating is awarded if three
to five integration links are present between the different systems such as Freeway Management or Emergency Management.
Figure 13: Columbus Integration Links from FHWA 2007
Source: FHWA, Tracking ITS Deployment 2007
PART II: Update and Usage of the ITS Architecture
30 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Table of Contents
5.
Approach..............................................................................................................................................................................................................31
5.1 Updating the ITS Architecture and Addressing Member Recommendations ...............................................................................................31
6.
The Sausage Diagram.........................................................................................................................................................................................33
6.1 Central Ohio Market Packages ........................................................................................................................................................................36
6.2 Regional Architecture Information Flows ........................................................................................................................................................37
7.
Regional Projects ................................................................................................................................................................................................39
8.
Using the Regional ITS Architecture...................................................................................................................................................................41
8.1 Using ITS Architecture in Project Definition ....................................................................................................................................................42
8.2 Issues/Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................................................44
8.3 Improve Communication ..................................................................................................................................................................................45
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 31
5. Approach
In 1999, MORPC created the first ITS Integration Strategy for Central Ohio. Although this document successfully served as a framework for
regional ITS integration, there were key elements missing in order to classify it as a true Regional ITS Architecture. The FHWA reviewed
MORPC’s Integration Strategy in 2002 and offered recommendations for upgrading the Integration Strategy to a Regional ITS Architecture in
their Architecture Assessment document. The next version of the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture in 2004 was created using the
1999 ITS Integration Strategy as a template and customizing it to better fit the changing needs of the region while addressing the FHWA
Architecture Assessment recommendations. Version 5.0 of the National ITS Architecture was not released until the latter stages of
developing this document, therefore the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture conformed to version 4.0 and utilized Turbo Architecture
Version 2.0. The new assessment provided by FHWA for the updated architecture was again considered when writing this version of the
regional architecture.
5.1 Updating the ITS Architecture and Addressing Member Recommendations
As the MPO for the region, MORPC has assumed the role of developing and maintaining the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture. MORPC
fits the role of champion based on the following characteristics:
Understanding of the subject (regional ITS architecture including familiarity with the National ITS Architecture);
Knowledge of local ITS systems and projects;
Vision for interconnectivity, partnership, and regional integration;
Consensus builder (facilitator); and
Executive level access to resources to gain support for various regional efforts.
MORPC develops, maintains and houses the regional ITS architecture. However, the regional core stakeholders assist in updating the
document. Core stakeholders are those agencies which have invested a large amount of time and money in local ITS efforts and have
expressed interest in regional ITS integration. For central Ohio, those agencies include the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the
Franklin County Engineer’s Office (FCEO), the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), and the city of Columbus. Once updated, the ITS
Architecture needs to be approved by the policy board by resolution. The 2010 Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture is now the third
update to the document, which was first initiated by MORPC in 1999. The architecture is a living document and MORPC updates it every 4
years in conjunction with Transportation Plan. The process of how to develop such a document is demonstrated in Figure 3.
The first step to creating the update to the regional ITS architecture was to identify the various stakeholders and the existing and planned
ITS systems in the region. All MORPC members and regional transportation agencies were surveyed via an online questionnaire (see
Appendix A). The core stakeholders were interviewed separately since they hold the major ITS technologies and projects in the region.
However, other agencies were interviewed via phone as a follow-up to the survey.
32 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
The various stakeholders and ITS elements were then inserted into the Turbo Architecture, version 4. Turbo Architecture is a software
application that aids in the creation of regional and project architectures using the National ITS Architecture as a starting point. Not only is
use of the software highly recommended by FHWA, but Turbo Architecture will also ease the process of future updates. The software can
help greatly in determining the local needs to be addressed in the document. Many of the needs outlined in the 2004 regional architecture
were still apparent during the update process and were therefore included in this updated version.
After all existing and planned stakeholders and ITS elements in the region were entered into the electronic Turbo Architecture file, the data
were shared with all Central Ohio agencies via the Internet for feedback. Following the comment period, existing and planned market
packages were developed with the help of a consultant team and made available online. A one-day workshop was held at the beginning of
2009 to discuss the drafted market packages and finalize flow diagrams based on the feedback of each stakeholder. The operational
concepts and functional requirements were also described. All this information, including project documents and interagency ITS
agreements, is online at http://www.morpc.org/transportation/highway/its.asp. The sequencing of projects was completed by referencing
the latest Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and is listed below.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 33
6. The Sausage Diagram
One of the most recognized architecture representations is the so-called Sausage Diagram as shown below. This overview diagram depicts
all possible ITS subsystems that can be deployed onboard a vehicle, at central locations, along the roadside, and at remote sites. The
"sausages" in the diagram describe communications technologies and how subsystems in the architecture are connected. It is therefore
also often referred to as the interconnect diagram that illustrates the four subsystems: Travelers, Centers, Vehicles, and Roadsides. Each
component of the diagram and its meaning is described in greater detail in Figure 15.
Figure 14: National ITS Architecture Sausage Diagram Version 4.0
Source: US DOT 2006 Turbo Architecture
34 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Figure 15: Defining the Sausage Diagram
Subsystem
Subsystem
Subsystem
Subsystem
Subsystem
Subsystem
A
The Sausage Diagram is made up of 4
components. These components
illustrate the possible entities for
information connections between ITS
systems. The components are:
Travelers. Equipment used by travelers to
access ITS services pre-trip and en-route.
These are owned and operated by the
traveler and/or owned by transportation
and information providers.
Centers. Centers provide management,
administrative, and support functions for
the transportation system. They each
communicate with other centers to
enable coordination between modes and
across jurisdictions.
Vehicles. ITS related elements on vehicle
platforms. These are general driver
information and safety systems applicable
to all vehicle types. The four fleet vehicle
subsystems add ITS capabilities unique to
these special vehicle types.
Roadside = Intelligent infrastructure
distributed along the transportation
network that performs surveillance,
information provision, and plan execution
control functions and whose operation is
governed by center subsystems. Roadside
subsystems also directly interface to
vehicle subsystems.
Each component has
several subsystems.
Subsystems can be defined
as pieces of ITS that
perform a particular
function or provide a
particular service.
Examples of subsystems
are Remote Traveler
Support as part of the
Traveler component; Traffic
Management as part of the
Center component;
Emergency Vehicle as part
of the Vehicle component;
and Parking Management
as part of the Roadside
component.
Elements
B C D
Each subsystem consists
of several elements.
Elements are often
referred to as the
building blocks of ITS
Architecture. They are
pieces and technologies
of the architecture that
perform the function of
their subsystem.
Examples of elements
are AVL technologies,
511 systems, or transit
smart cards.
Market Package
Different elements of the
various subsystems
communicate with each
other to perform a
specific function or
transportation service.
These are referred to as
Market Packages.
Market Packages
organize the various
elements and
information connections
in such a way as to
provide the most
efficient transportation
service.
Examples of Market
Packages are Archived
Data Management,
Transit Management,
Commercial Vehicle
Operations, or Traffic
Management.
The various subsystems
and elements not only
communicate with each
other within their
component but also with
elements of other
components. These
information connections
are illustrated in the
sausage diagram as long
pink bars.
These connections can
be established through
various ways: wireless
communication; vehicle
to vehicle
communication; or
dedicated short-range
communication.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 35
The central Ohio ITS sausage diagram is a tailored version of the National ITS sausage diagram, altered to custom fit the needs of the
region. The connections developed provide a framework for the exchange of information between stakeholders. A complete list of all
connections can be found on the MORPC ITS Architecture website.
Figure 16: Central Ohio ITS Sausage Diagram, 2007
Source: Central Ohio ITS Turbo Architecture Image
36 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
6.1 Central Ohio Market Packages
The market packages of the National ITS Architecture were customized to reflect the unique systems and connections of the Central Ohio
region. Each market package is shown graphically, with the market package name, the entity from the National ITS Architecture, and the
specific
Central
Ohio
elements
Figure 17: Example Customized Market Package
associated with the entity. In addition,
the market packages show the
information flows that move between
elements.
Figure 17 is an example of a market
package for Transit Security that has
been customized for the Central Ohio
Region. This market package shows the
6 subsystems (Emergency Management,
Information Service Provider, Transit
Management, Transit Vehicle Subsystem,
Remote Traveler Support, and Security
Monitoring)
and
the
associated
elements. Information flows between the
subsystems indicate what information is
being shared.
The market packages can be found on
the MORPC web page by visiting:
http://www.morpc.org/its.
Market packages are grouped by
functional
areas
(e.g.
Traffic
Management,
Maintenance
and
Construction, Public Transportation) and
each set of customized market packages
can be viewed by clicking on the Market Package Identifier under the Market Package heading. It is important to note that while the market
package table on the web page shows all of the market packages from the National ITS Architecture, only those selected for the Central
Ohio region are hyperlinked.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 37
6.2 Regional Architecture Information Flows
While it is important to identify the various systems and stakeholders as part of a regional ITS architecture, a primary purpose of the
architecture is to identify the connectivity between transportation systems in the region. The customized market packages represent
services that can be deployed as an integrated capability, and the market package diagrams show the information flows between the
subsystems
and
terminators
Figure 18: Example of element detail showing interfaces
(elements within the region) that
are most important to the
operation of the market packages.
How these systems interface with
each other is an integral part of the
overall architecture.
There are 126 different elements
identified as part of the Central
Ohio Regional ITS Architecture.
These elements include city,
county, and state traffic operations
centers, transit centers, transit
vehicles, public safety dispatch
centers, media outlets, and others.
Interfaces have been defined for
each element in the architecture.
For example, the Columbus Traffic
Management Center interfaces
with 43 other elements in the
region
ranging
from
field
equipment to transit centers.
Some of the interfaces are far less complex. For example, the City of Columbus CCTV has interfaces with only two other elements in the
architecture (see Figure 18).
Elements and their interfaces are accessible via the MORPC ITS Architecture web page (www.morpc.org/its) by clicking on the “Inventory by
Entity” button. Elements will be listed alphabetically in the column on the right. By clicking on an element, the element is described in
greater detail, including element definition, stakeholder information, current element status, and interfaces.
38 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Architecture flows between the elements define specific information that is exchanged by the elements. Each architecture flow has a
direction, name, and definition. Most of the architecture flows match one from the National ITS Architecture. In some cases, new “user
defined” flows have been created for interfaces or connections that are not expressed in the National ITS Architecture. These architecture
flows define the interface requirements between the various elements in the regional architecture.
An example of the architecture flows between two elements is shown in Figure 19. In this interface, the flows that go between the Columbus
Traffic Management Center and the Buckeye Traffic Website are shown. The architecture flows on this interface are shown as existing,
signifying that these two elements currently share information.
Figure 19: Example of architecture flows between elements
Each of the individual
element interfaces can be
accessed on the MORPC
Regional ITS Architecture
web
page
(www.morpc.org/its)
by
clicking on the “Inventory by
Entity” link. Select the
element whose interfaces
the entity reviews in order to
bring up the ITS element
detail page.
Once on the ITS element
detail page, scrolling down
to the “Interfaces” and
clicking on an interfacing element leads to a page with more detailed information about the particular interface (including links to pages
describing the architecture flows). Clicking on an element listed in the “interfaces” section of any ITS element page will lead to a set of
interfaces to that element similar to the example diagram shown above. Each architecture flow is defined, and any standards associated
with that architecture flow are noted.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 39
7. Regional Projects
The regional ITS architecture defines a number of planned elements, interfaces, and information flows. As regional plans are developed,
these parts of the regional ITS architecture will be implemented by a series of projects. Table 4 provides a summary of regional projects that
have been identified. These represent a very small percentage of the interfaces of the Regional ITS Architecture. Over time, additional
projects will be developed to address further aspects of the architecture. In general terms, the projects listed in the table are not
implemented independently of each other but have a sequencing that relates to the dependencies of the projects.
The H/M/L column represents the following information about the importance in sequencing of the project:
H = High Priority
M = Medium Priority
L = Low Priority
Table 4: Regional Projects
Primary Project Type
TIP ID
AGENCY
931
Columbus
Signal Phase A
151
Columbus
Signal Phase B
COTA 1 Bus Purchase
Computer Aided
Dispatch / Transit
CAD/AVL Enhancement
Install fiber-optic cable, conduit, and field devices along the interstate system to
serve as a communications backbone for the new traffic signal system in the
region.
Following the framework laid out in the CTSS study, replace the CTSS central
computer system and central control software adding up to 350 intersections and
installing up to 20 new pan-tilt-zoom surveillance cameras to the new system.
Construction of ADA ramps.
Transit Purchase of replacement bus (old COTA ITS for $160,000 with MORPC
CMAQ).
Computer Aided Dispatch/Advanced Vehicle Location includes Electronic Manifest
Interface, Vehicle Component Monitoring and Common Logon. This project needs
to be completed to support future ITS projects.
Priority
H
H
729
COTA
1396,
0325
COTA
N/A
COTA
Consulting Services for Systems Engineering Design and Specifications for the ITS
Communications System (CAD/AVL) replacement project.
H
1376
Columbus
SFY08-11, Program Administration, to keep motorists informed on the progress of
transportation construction throughout Central Ohio and to improve planning and
communication of construction projects.
H
Install On-board computers in each bus. This will allow for expansion of the
system to provide: 1) Real-time dispatching, 2) On-board mapping, 3) Electronic
fare collection, 4) AVL, 5) Passenger information regarding community services
available.
H
Paving the Way
447
On-Board Computers
Project Description
DATA
H
H
40 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Primary Project Type
TIP ID
AGENCY
Regional Advanced
Traveler Information
System (ATIS)
N/A
MORPC, ODOT,
and others
Project Description
Priority
Implement a regional traveler information system for the central Ohio region that
provides information on transportation modes, routes, times, and costs
H
Signal Phase C
Expand the CTSS to include up to 235 additional intersections and up to 12 new
pan-tilt-zoom surveillance cameras. Some coaxial cable will be replaced with
fiber-optic cable throughout the system. Construction of ADA ramps.
M
Signal Phase D
Following the framework laid out in the CTSS study, continue the transition of
traffic signals on the CTSS from coaxial communications to the proposed fiberoptic communications network. Major work components are the construction of
fiber-optic network along the arterials for the communications network to outlying
intersections. Any remaining intersections should be migrated to the new system.
Construction of ADA ramps.
M
Smart Card/Electronic Fare Payment Preliminary Engineering Design Study.
M
Smart Card implementation and Fare Box replacement
Conduct timing studies on major signal locations to improve signalization within
Franklin County.
M
102
932
COTA Smart CardAssessment
Columbus
Columbus
N/A
COTA
COTA Smart Card
Regional Signal System
Timing Upgrade
1532
COTA
1373
Franklin County
US-40 at Columbia Rd
Signalization
1755
ODOT 5
US-62 at Walton Parkway
Signalization
N/A
New Albany
COTA Traveler
Information
N/A
COTA
Signal Assessment
Access to Intersection
Information
N/A
Franklin County
N/A
OSU T&P
Signalization
interconnect
N/A
New Albany
M
Project includes signalization of another intersection outside the planning area,
on SR-37 in Fairfield County.
M
Install new traffic signalization system including posts and mast arms and
associated pavement improvements.
M
Dynamic Message Signs at Park-n-Rides and Transit Centers with bus arrival
information.
L
Isolated Signal Assessment Project (ISAP)
Install Econolite Software to provide read-only access of intersection information
back to OSU T&P and Public Safety dispatch areas.
Project proposes to interconnect 21 signalized intersections on New Albany's
arterial street system, install a traffic signal master computer and closed circuit
television monitoring at select locations.
L
L
L
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 41
8. Using the Regional ITS Architecture
MORPC’s primary planning document is its2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Last updated in 2008, the plan is the long-range,
comprehensive multimodal transportation-planning document for the Central Ohio region. It defines the overarching goals for transportation
in the region, establishes the existing and future transportation needs of the region, and allocates projected revenue to transportation
programs and projects that address those needs. The plan functions in the long-range in that it recommends major projects, systems,
policies, and strategies designed to maintain the existing transportation system and serve the region’s future travel needs.
The MORPC Regional ITS Architecture defines and supports the ITS project development cycle. This cycle begins with project definition,
followed by procurement, leading to implementation. Properly maintained, the information in the Regional ITS Architecture can assist in all
three of these cycles of the project development process.
Project definition may occur at several levels of detail. Early in the planning process, a project may be defined only in terms of the
transportation services it will provide, or by the major system pieces it contains. Prior to the beginning of implementation, the details of the
project must be developed. The detailed system definition will also include the interface with the systems or parts of systems which will
make up the project, establish the interconnections the project entails, and define the informational flows across the system. The definition
may go through multiple levels of detail, starting with a very high-level description of project functions and moving toward system
specifications. By identifying the portions of the Regional ITS Architecture that define the project, the Regional ITS Architecture outputs can
be used to create key aspects of the project definition.
A Regional ITS Architecture can assist in the following areas of project definition:
The identification of agency roles and responsibilities (including inter-agency cooperation). The operational concept developed as
part of the Regional ITS Architecture can establish these goals. This operational concept can either serve as a starting point for a
more detailed definition, or possibly provide all the needed information.
Requirements definition. This can be completely or partly defined by using the Regional ITS Architecture functional requirements
applicable to the project.
ITS standards. Project mapping to the Regional ITS Architecture can extract the applicable ITS standards for the project.
Once a project is defined and funding for it is committed, the implementation process can commence with the generation of a Request for
Proposal (RFP), which is the common governmental practice for initiating a contract with the private sector to implement the project. Once a
contract is in place, project implementation begins and moves through design, development, integration, and testing.
The Regional ITS Architecture and the products produced during its development can support this RFP generation. First, the project
definition described above forms the basis for what is being procured. Mapping the project to the Regional ITS Architecture allows bidders
to have a clear understanding of the scope of the project and of the interfaces that need to be developed. The functional requirements
42 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
created as part of the Regional ITS Architecture can be used to describe the functional requirements for the project. In addition, a subset of
the ITS Standards identified as part of the Regional ITS Architecture development can be specified in the RFP. Because ITS projects involve
systems and their interconnections, it is very important to follow a systems engineering approach in designing and implementing the
project. While the exact process followed is at the discretion of the local agency, the ITS projects funded through the highway trust fund
must follow their specific procedures.
The required systems engineering analysis steps are:
Identifications of portions of the Regional ITS Architecture being implemented
Identification of participating agencies’ roles and responsibilities
Requirements of definitions
Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology options to meet requirements
Procurement options
Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing procedures
Procedures and resources necessary for operations and management of the system
In summary, the Regional ITS Architecture represents a detailed plan for the evolution of the ITS systems in the region and will be used to
support regional transportation planning efforts and project development efforts.
8.1 Using ITS Architecture in Project Definition
Projects that emerge from the planning process can benefit from the use of the regional ITS architecture in their definition and
development. Project implementation should follow a systems engineering process. Figure 20 shows a typical project implementation
process for deploying ITS projects, called a systems engineering process. It is a process that can be used to systematically deploy ITS while
reducing the risks associated with deployments. The process recognizes that many projects are deployed incrementally and expand over
time. US DOT Rule 940 requires that the systems engineering process be used for ITS projects that are funded with federal funds. Applying
the systems engineering process to ITS project development is a new key requirement that must be addressed by stakeholders using
federal funds.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 43
There are similarities between the systems engineering process and the project development process generally used by transportation
agencies. The project development process is probably similar to the following:
Figure 20: Project Implementation Process
Project Selection
Authorization to Proceed
Project Definition
o Purpose and Need
o Project Scoping
o Conceptual Design
Project Design
o Preliminary Plan
Development
o Semi-Final Plan
Development
o Final Plan
Development
Construction
o Testing
Operation and Maintenance
The ITS architecture can be used to support development of the concept of operations, requirements, and high level design in the systems
engineering process. In deploying an ITS related project, the ITS architecture should be used as the starting point for developing a project
concept of operations (not to be confused with an operational concept, which defines the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders).
The concept of operations shows at a high level how the systems involved in a project operate in conjunction with the other systems of the
region. According to the National Highway Institute course “Introduction to Systems Engineering for Advanced Transportation”, a concept of
operations includes the following information: A. Identification of stakeholders; B. Development of a vision for the project; C. Description of
where the system(s) will be used; D. Description of organizational procedures or practices appropriate to the system(s), definition of critical
performance parameters associated with the systems(s); E. Description of the utilization environment (conditions under which various parts
of the system(s) will be used); F. Definition of performance measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of the system(s); G. Considerations
of life cycle expectations; and H. Conditions under which the system(s) must operate (e.g. environmental conditions).
44 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
The MORPC Regional ITS Architecture provides inputs to a number of the systems engineering analysis steps as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Systems Engineering Requirements supported by ITS Architecture
Systems Engineering Requirements
ITS Architecture Output
Identification of portions of the regional ITS architecture being implemented
Mapping project to the elements and interfaces of
the regional ITS architecture
Identification of participating agencies’ roles and responsibilities (this relates to
the Concept of Operations described earlier)
Use operational concepts as a starting point
Requirements definitions
Use functional requirements as a starting point
Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing procedures
Use regional architecture standards outputs as a
starting point for the standards definition
8.2 Issues/Challenges
One of the challenges of using the ITS architecture to facilitate the systems engineering process in the implementation of a project is
educating stakeholders about the benefits of the process and the process itself. The systems engineering process is not a new process to
many organizations. It may not be called the systems engineering process, but various stakeholders’ processes may map to the systems
engineering process very well. Making these types of linkages between processes makes it easier to incorporate the ITS architecture as a
tool in the process.
Another challenge is engaging a broader stakeholder base on a project when the ITS architecture indicates that possibility. For example, a
project might map to a specific customized market package that contains ten elements owned by eight stakeholders. Yet the initial project
definition is for three elements owned by two stakeholders. The entire activity of seeking integration opportunities is more institutional than
technical. There will be instances where getting more stakeholders involved in a project will increase its complexity or cross jurisdictional
boundaries that may not have been considered in the initial scope. It is important to explore these integration opportunities so that, at the
very least, they are accounted for and supported in the project design even though they may not be implemented with that specific project.
The ultimate goal is to make ITS deployment as economical as possible. One way this can be accomplished is by deploying projects across
institutional boundaries where different stakeholders benefit from the ITS deployment.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 45
8.3 Improve Communication
During a two-day regional ITS architecture maintenance workshop in fall 2007, central Ohio ITS stakeholders came together to discuss
making the Regional ITS Architecture more user-friendly and improving the outreach efforts of the architecture. Recommendations made to
achieve these goals included the following:



Develop a marketing tool that encourages stakeholder buy-in and can help communicate the benefits of ITS projects and ITS integration
more clearly to policy members. A summary sheet of ITS and the Architecture was designed to serve as such a marketing tool (see
Appendix E).
Create a mechanism to track implementation and status of regional ITS projects. Since this recommendation, ODOT and the Ohio
Division of FHWA have developed a document that requires all ITS project sponsors to conform to the regional ITS architecture when
designing and implementing ITS projects, and to inform MORPC about any changes (see Table 2).
Improve information sharing by developing a regional maintenance plan. The following section provides the outline of such a plan and
working group.
Another all-day ITS architecture workshop was held in February 2009, in which most of the market packages were discussed in a
meaningful way. This allowed the consultant to update their website and ITS database based on the information collected at the workshop.
In addition, it provided another opportunity to educate stakeholders in the region about the importance and benefits of ITS and to share
projects with one another.
46 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
PART III: Maintenance Plan
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 47
Table of Contents
9.
Maintenance Plan ...............................................................................................................................................................................................48
9.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................48
9.1.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................49
9.1.2 Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................................................................49
9.1.3 Maintenance Working Group....................................................................................................................................................................50
9.1.4 Responsible Agency ..................................................................................................................................................................................50
9.1.5 Maintenance Manager .............................................................................................................................................................................50
9.2 Timetable for Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................................................51
9.2.1 Major Updates ...........................................................................................................................................................................................51
9.2.2 Event-Driven Updates ...............................................................................................................................................................................51
9.3 Architecture Baseline .......................................................................................................................................................................................52
9.4 Change Management Process ........................................................................................................................................................................52
48 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
9. Maintenance Plan
Regional ITS Architectures are dynamic and must change as ITS projects are implemented and new ITS needs and services evolve in the
region. The maintenance plan covers four main areas:
 Who will be involved in the maintenance of the architecture;
 When will the architecture be updated;
 What will be maintained; and
 How it will be maintained (i.e. what configuration control process will be used).
There are different types of changes, which may include changes for project definition, for project addition or deletion, in project priority,
and in regional needs. Each category is explained in greater detail below.
 Changes for Project Definition. As projects may add, subtract, or modify elements, interfaces, or information flows, the Regional ITS
Architecture must be updated to correctly reflect how the developed projects integrate within the region.
 Changes for Project Addition/Deletion. Occasionally a project will be added or deleted through the planning process and some aspects
of the Regional ITS Architecture that are associated with the project may be expanded, changed, or removed.
 Changes in Project Priority. Due to funding constraints, or other considerations, the planned project sequencing may change. Delaying a
project may have a ripple effect on other projects that depend on it. Raising the priority for a project’s implementation may also impact
the priority of other projects that are dependent upon it.
 Changes in Regional Needs. Transportation planning is done to address regional needs. Over time these needs can change and the
corresponding aspects of the Regional ITS Architecture that addresses these needs may need to be updated.
 New Stakeholders. When new stakeholders come to the table, the Regional ITS Architecture will need to be updated to reflect their
place in the regional view of ITS elements, interfaces, and information flows.
 New User Services. The National ITS Architecture may be expanded and updated from time to time to include new user services or
better define how existing elements satisfy the user services. These changes should also be considered as the Regional ITS Architecture
is updated. The National ITS Architecture may have expanded to include a user service that has been discussed in a region, but not
been included in the Regional ITS Architecture, or been included in only a very cursory manner.
9.1 Roles and Responsibilities for Maintenance
The responsibility for maintaining the Central Ohio ITS Architecture lies with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) since
they are the primary planning organization for the region and can easily work with the different ITS stakeholders on updating the
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 49
architecture. A group of core stakeholders will act as an “institutional framework” to review proposed changes to the architecture. This
group of core stakeholders is important because the Regional ITS Architecture is a consensus framework for integrating ITS systems. As it
was a consensus driven product in its initial creation, so it should remain a consensus driven product as it is maintained. This section
defines the stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities for the maintenance of the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture.
9.1.1 Definitions
The following groups or persons have a role in the maintenance of the architecture:
 Stakeholders – Any government agency or private organization that has a role in providing transportation services in the region.
 Maintenance Working Group – A group of stakeholder representatives who are responsible for the technical review of updates/changes
to the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture and for approving changes to the architecture.
 Responsible Agency – The stakeholder agency with primary responsibility for maintenance of the architecture.
 Maintenance Manager – The person responsible for overseeing and guiding the maintenance efforts for the Regional ITS Architecture.
9.1.2 Stakeholders
Stakeholders are any government agency or private organization that is involved with or has an interest in providing transportation services
in the region. Each stakeholder owns, operates, and/or maintains one or more ITS element(s) in the region and therefore has a role in the
maintenance of the architecture.
The success of the change management process outlined in this Maintenance Plan is highly dependent on the participation of the
stakeholders identified in the architecture. Without stakeholders’ participation in tracking the development of their ITS systems and
properly updating the architecture, the change management process will not succeed and the usefulness of the architecture will diminish
over time.
The primary responsibility of the stakeholder agencies is to submit changes to the Central Ohio ITS Architecture that are brought on by new
plans or projects that are being planned or deployed for the stakeholder agency. The stakeholder agency must submit the changes in the
Regional ITS Architecture to the Maintenance Working Group. If stakeholders desire more involvement in the architecture review process,
they can get involved through voluntary representation in the Maintenance Working Group.
50 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
9.1.3 Maintenance Working Group
The Central Ohio Maintenance Working Group has the following responsibilities:
 Collecting and compiling proposed changes and updates to the architecture from stakeholder agencies.
 Evaluating each proposed change from a technical standpoint, and reaching a consensus on the proposed change (this may require
contacting additional stakeholders if one or more of their systems are affected).
 Approving changes to the architecture.
 Making any institutional or policy related decisions that arise in the maintenance of the architecture.
The logical composition of the maintenance working group for Central Ohio are the members of the Freeway Management System (FMS)
policy committee, which meets on a quarterly basis throughout the year. The key agencies represented at the meeting are ODOT, city of
Columbus, FHWA, Franklin County, and MORPC. The regional ITS architecture will be a regular business item on the agenda to discuss
possible changes to the architecture. Each agency receives one “vote.”
9.1.4 Responsible Agency
The Responsible Agency is MORPC as it formally maintains the architecture. MORPC assigns resources for making the physical changes to
the architecture baseline and for coordinating the maintenance of the architecture.
9.1.5 Maintenance Manager
MORPC will appoint a person to the role of Maintenance Manager to coordinate the maintenance activities of the Central Ohio Regional ITS
Architecture. The Maintenance Manager is the coordinator and main point of contact for all maintenance activities, including receiving
Change Requests forms, tracking Change Requests, and distributing documentation.
The Maintenance Manager has the following responsibilities:
 Coordinate the activities of the Maintenance Working Group related to the ITS architecture;
 Receive Change Request forms and requests for documentation from stakeholders;
 Distribute the baseline documents and outputs of the architecture to stakeholders;
 Maintain the official records of the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture, including the baseline documents and the Change Request
Database with points of contacts; and Ensure the status of each Change Request is properly updated in the Change Request Database.
Some of these responsibilities may be delegated to staff or consultants.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 51
9.2 Timetable for Maintenance
There are two basic approaches that MORPC will utilize for maintaining the architecture:
 Periodic Maintenance – Update the architecture based upon one of the recurring activities of the transportation planning process, such
as with the Transportation Plan.
 Exception Maintenance – This approach will be followed if there is an urgent need to make a change or if a minor change is desired to
address some stakeholder need. In this case the change can be initiated as needed.
9.2.1 Major Updates
A comprehensive architecture update will occur every four years, concurrent with the formal update of the Transportation Plan since the
Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture is a component of the regional transportation planning process. The update is necessary to ensure
that the architecture continues to accurately represent the regional view of ITS Systems. The comprehensive update may include adding
new stakeholders, reviewing transportation needs and services for the region, updating the status of projects, and reflecting new goals and
strategies, as appropriate. Operational concepts, system functional requirements, project sequencing, ITS standards, and lists of agency
agreements may also be updated at this time.
9.2.2 Event-Driven Updates
Between major updates of the architecture, the following interim update actions will be performed:
 On an annual basis, the Maintenance Manager will actively solicit a set of needed updates from each key stakeholder and inquire if the
stakeholder has any changes to the Regional ITS Architecture. It is the responsibility of the stakeholders to complete and submit the
Change Request Forms to the Maintenance Manager for consideration. Within a defined period, the submitted Change Request Forms
will be collected and reviewed by the Maintenance Working Group for consideration in the next minor update of the Regional ITS
Architecture.
The Maintenance Plan will also be reviewed at the annual updates for required changes to the Maintenance Plan. Use of the Regional
ITS Architecture and modifications to it may differ from what was anticipated during the initial development of the Maintenance Plan.
Revising the Maintenance Plan will ensure that the change management process defined is effective.
 Between the annual updates, a stakeholder may submit a Change Request Form to the Maintenance Manager and request that the
Maintenance Working Group review and approve the change request prior to the next scheduled update of the Regional ITS
Architecture. This may be necessary if a stakeholder suddenly requires federal funding for a previously unplanned ITS project and needs
the ITS project to be included in the Regional ITS Architecture.
52 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
9.3 Architecture Baseline
Establishing an architecture baseline requires clear identification of the architecture products to be maintained, including specific format
and version information. For the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture, the following are identified as the architecture baseline:
 2010 Central Ohio ITS Architecture Document (this document)
 Turbo Architecture Database (www.morpc.org/its)
 Central Ohio ITS Architecture Web pages (www.morpc.org/its)
 Change Request Database
Regarding the Architecture document, it is recommended that the source document, in Microsoft Word format, will be held by the
maintenance manager, while a PDF version of the document will be made available online. Regarding the Turbo Architecture Database, the
maintenance manager will maintain a version of the final delivered Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture database.
9.4 Change Management Process
This change management process specifies how changes are identified, how often changes will be made, and how the changes will be
reviewed, implemented, and released. The 5-step basic process for change management is shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Change Management Process
Identify
Change
Evaluate
Change
Review
Change
Update
Baseline
Notify
Stakeholders
Step 1: Identify Change. Any Stakeholder identified in the Regional ITS Architecture is allowed to submit Change Requests. This effectively
indicates that all changes have the approval of an existing, defined Stakeholder in the ITS Architecture. If the Change Request is to add a
new Stakeholder and its Stakeholder’s ITS Elements and Interfaces, the Responsible Agency for the architecture must submit the Change
Request.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 53
A Change Request Form will be used to submit changes for review. The Change Request Form for the Central Ohio Regional ITS Architecture
can be found in Appendix D and online (www.morpc.org/its). The Change Request Form includes the following:
 Name of change
 Description of change
 Part of baseline affected
 Rationale for change
 Originator name or agency
 Date of origination
This information entered on the Change Request Form will be added to a change database, maintained by the Responsible Agency. The
change database will include following additional fields of information:
 Change number (some unique identifier)
 Change disposition (accepted, rejected, deferred)
 Change type (minor or significant)
 Disposition comment
 Disposition date
Step 2: Evaluate Change. Upon receiving a Change Request by the Maintenance Manager, an initial evaluation of the Change Request will
be made for the impact to the overall architecture or the affected document. The purpose of the evaluation is two-fold:
 Verify that the Change Request form and supporting materials are complete and correct.
 Compare with other Change Request forms and determine if there are any conflicts.
If the proposal for architecture modification has an impact on other stakeholders, the evaluator(s) will contact the Stakeholders to confirm
their agreement with the modification. All Stakeholders directly affected by the proposed change(s) must approve and sign-off the Change
Request before the Maintenance Working Group considers the Change Request.
54 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Step 3: Review Change. Upon completing the initial assessment, the Change Request form will be reviewed by the Maintenance Working
Group, in this case, the FMS Policy Committee, or via email to the committee members.
At these meetings, Change Request Forms that were submitted to MORPC are reviewed, The maintenance manager will distribute copies of
all Change Request Forms submitted and all supporting materials to all stakeholders prior to the meeting for their review, and will assemble
an agenda. Maintenance Working Group meetings can also be requested by one of the stakeholders if there is an urgent need to update
the architecture quickly.
The Maintenance Working Group will be provided sufficient time to review the Change Requests before the meeting. During the meeting,
the Maintenance Working Group will review the proposed changes and offer any comments. After each Change Request is reviewed, if no
further comments are offered by the Maintenance Working Group, the Change Request will be considered approved, and the maintenance
manager will sign off on the Change Request. If additional comments are made that require action, those comments will be noted on the
Change Request form. Where comments (or changes required) are minor in nature, they can be made by the submitter of the Change
Request form and the maintenance manager can approve them directly. In the case of major comments or changes to the Change Request,
the approval of the change will need to be made by the Maintenance Working Group. If a Change Request is to be withdrawn from
consideration, the Maintenance Manager will be required to sign-off on the Change Request Form to close out the Change Request.
At the end of the meeting, the Maintenance Working Group will agree as to whether all the approved changes to the architecture
necessitate an immediate update to the baseline, or whether the update should await either additional changes or the next major revision.
The decision should be based on the number of Change Requests approved and the nature of the approved changes.
Minutes will be kept for all Maintenance Working Group meetings. Minutes will include, at a minimum, an attendance list, comments made
on each Change Request, and the disposition of each Change Request Form (Approved/Withdrawn/Deferred/Request More Information).
Step 4: Update Baseline. Upon approvals of the Change Request Forms, the decision agreed upon by the Maintenance Working Group is
implemented. If the decision is to accept the change and update the baseline, then the appropriate portions of the architecture baseline
are updated and an updated architecture baseline is defined. In addition to updating the baseline documents, databases, or other outputs,
the configuration status will be updated.
Step 5: Notify Stakeholders. All stakeholders will be notified by e-mail from the Maintenance Manager when baseline documents have been
updated. All baseline documents will also be available to stakeholders from a website or other electronic location, such as an ftp site. It is
the responsibility of the Maintenance Manager to ensure the most recent document is available from the website.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 55
Appendices
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Central Ohio ITS Architecture Survey (November 2007) .....................................................................................................................56
Appendix B: Central Ohio ITS Stakeholders...............................................................................................................................................................61
Appendix C: References alphabetical by author .......................................................................................................................................................64
Appendix D: MORPC Regional ITS Architecture Change Request (CR) Form ..........................................................................................................65
Appendix E: ITS Architecture Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................66
56 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Appendix A: Central Ohio ITS Architecture Survey (November 2007)
Dear Central Ohio Stakeholder:
As you are well aware, most travelers are unconcerned by who owns and operates the various components of the transportation system; they only want it
to work seamlessly and efficiently. Consequently it is important that the operation of the transportation system be as integrated as possible.
To further this concept of system integration, MORPC has taken on the role to house, maintain and update a “plan,” called the Regional ITS Architecture,
for the various Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) components in use or planned to be in use in central Ohio. The Central Ohio Regional ITS
Architecture is based on the National ITS Architecture developed by FHWA. The ITS architecture identifies the organizations that provide ITS or those that
have an interest in them. It also defines the different operating systems, the functions they perform, and what and how the information is exchanged (see
the 2004 version: http://www.morpc.org/web/transportation/its/regITS.html).
Intelligent Transportation Systems refer to communication tools and technologies that help the roadway system operators to operate the system more
safely and efficiently and in real-time, and to provide information to the public. Examples of such systems include freeway management systems, arterial
management systems, coordinated signal systems, incident management systems, and others. Components of these systems that you are probably most
familiar with are dynamic message signs, ramp meters and cameras. ITS is often seen as an alternative solution to reduce congestion, increase traffic
flow, and improve air quality.
While we understand that some of our larger transportation stakeholders in the region, such as ODOT, COTA or the City of Columbus, operate many of
these systems and technologies, we believe that ITS projects of smaller agencies can also have a great impact on travel flow and travel information for
Central Ohio. In our effort to update the regional ITS architecture in accordance with our long-range transportation plan, we are currently collecting
information of any type of ITS-related project that exists or is planned in our region. An efficient way to do so is to survey you, our member, who works for
one of the many central Ohio jurisdictions and agencies responsible for some portion of the transportation system.
Once we have a complete picture of the various ITS technologies and projects in central Ohio, we can work with you to identify future ITS projects that you
might want to undertake, and look at possible funding sources to implement these. Your completion of the survey can also help in identifying
collaboration opportunities between your agency and other agencies’ systems in the region. To achieve our common goal of improving travel conditions in
central Ohio, data and information sharing play an important role.
We will greatly appreciate if you, or someone in your agency who deals with ITS, could complete our survey, which will take only about 10-15 minutes of
your time. The deadline to complete this survey is November 23rd 2007.
Please return the completed survey to Kerstin Carr either via email or regular mail:
Kerstin Carr, MORPC, Transportation Department
111 Liberty St, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43215
Email: kcarr@morpc.org ~ Phone: 614-233-4163
THANK YOU for all the work you are doing to reduce congestion, increase safety, and improve transportation for any type of mode in the region.
~MORPC Transportation Staff
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 57
YOUR ORGANIZATION / AGENCY
What is the name of your agency?
4. Within the next 10 years, is your agency/organization planning any
ITS-related projects?
□ YES
□ NO
If Yes: Pease describe the project(s) and/or provide project name(s),
available documentation source(s), expected date, and funding source –
if available.
Please provide us with your name, title, email address and phone
number so that we can follow up with you in case we have any
questions.
1. How familiar are you with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
deployment in Central Ohio?
□ Very familiar □ Somewhat familiar
□ Not familiar at all
2. How familiar are you with the Central Ohio Regional ITS
architecture?
□ Very familiar □ Somewhat familiar
□ Not familiar at all
3. Is your agency/organization currently carrying out any projects
related to ITS, such as signal pre-emption, traffic control centers,
radio communication, signal coordination, dynamic message signs,
traffic cameras, etc.?
□ YES
□ NO
If Yes: Please list the various systems:
5. Do you share any type of data or information with the following
agencies?
YES
NO
Planned
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC)
Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)
County Emergency Management Agency (EMA)
Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA)
City of Columbus
Other (specify who)
_______________________________________
6. Please list the specific types of data or information you share with
the above organizations / agencies?
58 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
7. In regard to Emergency Management, are you currently connected
to any systems of your county EMA?
□ YES
□ NO
If Yes: Which information do you share?
12. Does your agency/organization use Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)?
□ YES
□ NO
If Yes:
What is the GIS used for?
______________________________________________________
What type of software (ESRI, Meta Map, etc.) do you use?
If No: Are you interested in sharing information in the near future? If
so, which type?
8. Does your agency/organization use (or plan to use) vehicle
maintenance scheduling software to manage both routine and
corrective maintenance activities on vehicles.
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
9. Does your agency/organization use (or plan to use) an Automated
Vehicle Locator (AVL) system?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
10. Does your agency/organization operate (or plan to operate) a
dispatch facility?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
11. Does your agency/organization currently perform (or plan to
perform) Computer-Aid Dispatch (CAD) of your vehicles?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
____________________________________________________
13. What type of radio communications system, if any, does your
agency/organization currently operate?
TRAVELER INFORMATION
14. Does your agency/organization receive (or plan to receive)
information from the National Weather Service, either directly or
indirectly via the NOAA weather radio?
□ Currently receives
□ Plans to receive
□ NO
15. Does your agency/organization receive (or plan to receive) surface
transportation specific weather information from a private vendor?
□ Currently receives
□ Plans to receive
□ NO
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 59
16. Does your agency/organization use (or plan to use) any of the
following real-time traffic data collection technologies?
Existing
Planned
N/A
Vehicle detectors
Video detection
Vehicle probe readers
Surveillance cameras
Road weather information systems
Overheight vehicle detection
Other:
____________________________________
If Yes: Please describe the information:
ROADWAY OPERATIONS
20. Does your agency/organization use (or plan to use) weather data or
information or have sensors to detect hazards such as icy road
conditions, high winds, or dense fog?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
17. Does your agency/organization process and store (or plan to
process and store) collected traffic data for use in operations or for
dissemination to the traveling public?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
18. Does your agency/organization disseminate (or plan to disseminate)
traffic condition information in any of the following ways?
Existing
TV / Radio
Internet
Emails
Pagers / PDAs
Paving the Way
Hazard Advisory Radio (HAR)
Dynamic Message Signs
Traveler Kiosks
Route Guidance
Personalized Traffic Information
511 or other telephone
Other:
________________________________
19. Do you feel that your agency/organization collects transportation
information that could be included in a region-wide traveler
information outlet, such as an Internet website or a 511 Traveler
Information System?
□ YES
□ NO
Planned
N/A
21. Does your agency/organization detect and verify (or plan to detect
and verify) traffic incidents?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
22. Does your agency/organization control (or plan to control) any
signalized intersections?
□ YES (existing)
□ YES (planned) □ NO
If Yes: Do any of your signalized intersections have (or plan to have):
Existing
Signal Pre-Emption
Closed Loop Operation
Transit priority
Adaptive traffic control
Wireless communication
Other:
_________________________
Planned
N/A
60 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
23. Does your agency/organization monitor highway-rail intersections
with any of the following technologies?
Yes
No
26. How can the update of the Central Ohio ITS architecture be useful to
you?
N/A
Vehicle Detectors
Video Detection
Train Arrival Prediction
Electronic Traffic Violator Devices
Other:
__________________________________
27. Which changes would you like to see from the previous Central Ohio
Regional ITS Architecture (2004):
http://www.morpc.org/web/transportation/its/regITS.html?
24. Does your agency/organization use any of the technologies listed
below to manage roadway work zone activities?
Existing
Planned
N/A
Dynamic Message Signs
Closed Camera TVs
Vehicle Speed Monitoring
Work Zone Intrusion Alarms
Other:
_________________________
REGIONAL ITS OPPORTUNITIES
25. Based on your understanding of technology in transportation, what
opportunities do you see for the application of ITS technologies in
your area?
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey!
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 61
Appendix B: Central Ohio ITS Stakeholders
State Agencies
Agency
Description
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Represents agency coordination, federal funding,
official guidelines, and data management.
Ohio Department of Administrative
Services
Operates and maintains state of Ohio telecom
infrastructure.
Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS)
ODPS Provides for the protection of the public
through education, prevention, technology and
enforcement activities.
Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT)
ODOT is concerned with building and maintaining a
safe and efficient transportation network in Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA)
OEPA works to o protect the environment and
public health by ensuring compliance with
environmental laws.
Ohio State Highway Patrol
Provides law enforcement and emergency
management for the region.
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)
PUCO regulates providers of utility services,
telephone companies, water and wastewater
companies, and rail and trucking companies in
Ohio.
Departments Surveyed
Central Office, District 6, Highway
Management, IT, Traffic Planning
62 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
MPO Members
 Departments surveyed: Public Service, Public Safety, Technology, Development, Police, Fire, Transportation, Auditor
Cities
Bexley
Columbus
Delaware
Dublin
Gahanna
Grandview Heights
Grove City
Hilliard
London
Marysville
Pataskala
Pickerington
Powell
Reynoldsburg
Upper Arlington
Counties
Delaware
Fairfield
Franklin
Licking
Ross
Washington
Westerville
Whitehall
Worthington
Villages
Townships
Brice
Canal Winchester
Groveport
Harrisburg
Lockbourne
Marble Cliff
Minerva Park
Mount Sterling
New Albany
New Rome
Obetz
Riverlea
Urbancrest
Valley View
West Jefferson
Bloom (Fairfield County)
Etna (Licking County)
Violet (Fairfield County)
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 63
Other Agencies
Agency
Description
Departments Surveyed
Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)
Public transportation provider for the central
Ohio region. COTA currently provides bus
services and paratransit service.
Transportation, Finance, Planning,
Communications, Marketing, Traveler Support
Columbus Regional Airport Authority
(CRAA)
CRAA is responsible for the operation of Port
Columbus International, Rickenbacker
International and Bolton Field airports.
Delaware Area Transit Authority
DATA is the public transportation agency that
provides bus transit service to Delaware
County.
Franklin County Township Trustees
Association
Media (NBC, ONN)
Television, radio, and print media are used to
disseminate information to the public.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission (MORPC)
MORPC is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the central Ohio
region.
The Ohio State University
OSU is by far the largest educational
institution in the region, with over 50,000
students and 40,000 employees.
For more information on these agencies, please visit: the Stakeholders tab at http://www.consystec.com/ohio/morpc/web/.
64 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Appendix C: References alphabetical by author
America, I. (2007). ITS America History. Retrieved November 2007, from Intelligent Transportation Society of America:
http://www.itsa.org/itsa_history/c48/Inside_ITSA/ITS_America_History.html
Bureau, U. C. (2006). Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2006 Population: April
1, 2000 to July 1, 2006.
COTA. (2006). Long Range Transit Plan 2006-2030.
Engineers, O. o. (2007). ODOT Traffic Engineering Manual. ODOT.
FHWA. (2006). Regional ITS Architecture Guidance: Developing, Using, and Maintaining an ITS Architecture for Your Region. USDOT.
FHWA. (2007). Tracking the Deployment of the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems Infrastructure in Central Ohio.
U.S. Department of Transportation.
FHWA. (2007, 10 29). Turbo Architecture 4.0. Retrieved October 2007, from National ITS Architecture Version 6.0:
http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/html/turbo/turbomain.htm
Institute, T. T. (2007). 2007 Urban Mobility Study.
Mineta, J. C. (2000). Using Technology in Surface Transportation to Save Lives, Time, and Money. Public Works Management Policy , 4 (4),
267-273.
MORPC. (2007). Census Data. Retrieved October 2007, from http://www.morpc.org/web/transportation/data/census/census.html
MORPC. (2001). Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System.
MORPC. (2007). Draft: Regional Transportation Plan, 2008-2030.
MORPC. (2007). Transportation Improvement Plan State Fiscal Year 2008-2011.
ODOT. (2007). Retrieved November 2007, from Ohio QuickClear: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/quickclear/quickclear.asp
Office, U. I. (2007). Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Statistics. Retrieved December 2007, from Deployment Statistics:
http://www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/default.asp
Ohio, G. E. (2007). Ohio Ozone Non-Attainment Areas. Retrieved October 2007, from
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=282
Patrick Conroy, S. S. (2000). Intelligent Transportation Systems: Research Products for Public Works Professionals. Public Works
Management Policy , 5 (3), 3-12.
PennDOT. (2007). Definitions and Acronyms. Retrieved October 2007, from Pennsylvania Regional ITS Architecture:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/iTS/architecture/index.htm
Transportation, U. D. (2007, 10 29). ITS Architecture Glossary. Retrieved December 2007, from National ITS Architecture Version 6.0:
http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/html/glossary/glossary.htm
US DOT. (2005). Deploying the Integrated Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Infrastructure. U.S. Department of
Transportation.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 65
Appendix D: MORPC Regional ITS Architecture Change Request (CR) Form
To Be Completed By Stakeholder(s) Requesting Changes
Date Submitted:
Originator Name:
Originator Telephone:
Originator E-Mail:
Originator Fax:
Functional Area:
Originator Agency:
Signature Date:
Agency Authorized Signature:
Description of Proposed Change:
Rationale for Proposed Change:
Affected Agency:
Authorized Signature:
Signature Date:
Affected Agency:
Authorized Signature:
Signature Date:
List Attachments:
Baseline Documents Affected:
□ Website □ Turbo Architecture
□ Other (describe)
□
Market Package Diagram
□
Architecture Document
To Be Completed By Maintenance Manager
Change Request Number:
Date CR Received:
Date CR Logged:
Date Initially Discussed:
Disposition:
Disposition Comments:
□ Accepted □ Rejected □ More Info
Date Discussed:
Disposition Comments:
Disposition:
□ Accepted □ Rejected □ More Info
Date Discussed:
Disposition Comments:
Disposition:
□ Accepted □ Rejected □ More Info
Date of Maintenance Working Group Approval (If Applicable):
Baseline Documents Affected/Version implemented
□ Turbo Architecture Date: _______ Version: _____
□ Market Package Date: _______ Version: _____
□ Architecture Doc Date: _______ Version: _____
□ Website Date: _______ Version: ____
□ Other Date: _______ Version: ____
66 | Central Ohio ITS Architecture 2010
Appendix E: ITS Architecture Summary
ITS Definition
ITS Stands for “Intelligent Transportation Systems” and refers to a concept that uses detection and
communication tools or technologies to help the roadway system operators to operate the system more safely
and efficiently and in real-time, and to provide information to the public – all in an effort to improve the safety
and efficiency of the transportation system.
Instead of building more and wider highways, ITS is often seen as an alternative solution to reduce
congestion, increase traffic flow, and improve air quality.
Examples of ITS projects in our transportation area
 Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System (CMFMS), including their dynamic message signs,
the circuit closed TV cameras or the ramp meters on the entrance lanes to freeways.
 Transit Automatic Vehicle Locator Systems (AVL)
 Traffic signal coordination (and signal priority for transit within the City of Columbus)
Although central Ohio is divided between numerous jurisdictions and agencies, MORPC’s vision is to establish
a single transportation network in which all stakeholders share an interest, making the integration between
systems a cornerstone of the program. This is where the ITS architecture comes into play.
Definition of a Regional ITS Architecture
The ITS Architecture Document serves as “a regional framework that ensures that there are institutional
agreements as well as technical integration for the implementation of ITS projects in a region.”
The ITS Architecture Document identifies the organizations that provide ITS systems and those that have an
interest in them. It also defines the different operating systems, the functions they perform, what information
is exchanged, and how it is exchanged.
The ITS Architecture is a “living” document and MORPC has made the commitment to update it every 4 years
in conjunction with the long-range transportation plan.
The core stakeholders in our region assist MORPC in updating the document. Core stakeholders are those
agencies which have invested a large amount of time and money in local ITS efforts and have expressed
interest in regional ITS integration. For central Ohio, those agencies include, besides MORPC, the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Franklin County Engineer’s Office (FCEO), the Central Ohio Transit
Authority (COTA), and the City of Columbus.
C e n t r a l O h i o I T S A r c h i t e c t u r e 2 0 1 0 | 67
Once updated, the ITS Architecture needs then to be approved by the policy board by resolution.
The process chart below gives a better understanding of how the ITS architecture is developed.
Process of regional ITS architecture development
Step 1: Identify regional needs, define core
stakeholders (who own & operate ITS systems &
who have interest in regional transportation
issues) and decide on the champion (=MORPC).
Step 2: Collect all the info of existing systems, the
needs for systems and the services that could
address them, the roles and responsibilities of
each agency/stakeholder and the primary
functions of the ITS systems.
Step 3: Define how the different projects/systems
interact with each other and how & which info is
disseminated between the systems and to the
users.
Step 4: Evaluate projects & develop priorities of
how & when projects get implemented. List of
agency agreements.
Step 5: Use in transportation planning process (TPlan, TIP)
Primary reasons for developing and maintaining a regional ITS Architecture




To identify and ensure the integration opportunities among regional transportation systems
To encourage stakeholder involvement and interest in participation
To assist in identifying gaps in existing services that might need to be addressed
To assist in estimating the amount of funding needed and help with prioritizing the various projects as well
as the efficient structuring of project implementation
 To serve as an educational tool and improve stakeholder information exchange
 To ensure that when using the TIP to list ITS projects that they are clearly described in the architecture
 The architecture is a federally mandated document. For any ITS project to receive federal funding through
MORPC (CMAQ), it must conform to the architecture.
Maintaining and updating the regional ITS Architecture
MORPC is responsible for maintaining and updating the regional ITS architecture. Every time an ITS project is
implemented, the responsible agency must inform MORPC about how the project fits into the ITS architecture.
A change request form will be submitted and shared with the members of the Freeway Management System
(FMS) Policy Committee who serve as the maintenance working group. MORPC, together with the working
group members, make the decision about approving a change request.
A full update of the regional ITS architecture is conducted every 4 years in conjunction with the long-range
transportation plan. At that point, MORPC surveys all members to identify new and upcoming projects and
makes the changes to the ITS database as requested during the years.