ISSN 1557- 2269
March 2007
This work was performed as part of the CCIT Program of the University of
California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation,
and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, and the United States
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Report for Task Order 7
CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Innovative Corridors Initiative:
Call for Submissions Process and Evaluation
UCB- ITS- CWP- 2007- 10
CCIT Working Paper
Rachel S. Finson
Cynthia McCormick
Susan A. Shaheen
CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION
CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Innovative Corridors Initiative:
Call for Submissions Process and Evaluation
Task Order 7 Final Report
Rachel S. Finson
Project Manager, Innovative Mobility Research,
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
1357 S. 46th Street, Building 452, Richmond, CA 94804- 4603
510- 665- 3455 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); E- mail: rfinson@ path. berkeley. edu
Cynthia McCormick
Graduate Student Researcher, Innovative Mobility Research,
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
1357 S. 46th Street, Building 452, Richmond, CA 94804- 4603
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Policy and Behavioral Research, Program Leader
California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
1357 S. 46th Street, Building 452, Richmond, CA 94804- 4603
510- 665- 3483 ( O); 510- 665- 3537 ( F); E- mail: sashaheen@ path. berkeley. edu
March 14, 2007
ii
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was performed under Task Order 7 for the California Center for Innovative
Transportation ( CCIT) of the University of California, with the California Department of
Transportation in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) in the
San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( LA MTA),
Intelligent Transportation Society of America ( ITSA) and the numerous industry partners that
participated in the Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI). The authors would like to acknowledge
the California Partners for Advanced Highways and Transit for their contributions to this study
and Virginia Lingham for assistance with the final interviews and formatting the report. The
authors would also like to acknowledge Coco Briseno and Srikanth Balasubramanian, the
Caltrans ICI project managers.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation.
ii
iii
Abstract
The Innovative Corridors Initiative represents an innovative business model for public agencies
to partner with private industry to improve transportation system management and provide real
time information to users. The Call for Submissions ( CFS) issued by Caltrans, MTC, LA MTA,
ITS America, and CCIToffered private industry access to public rights- of- way and data.
However, no funds were offered as part of the CFS, meaning the companies that submitted a
proposal and participated needed to have the capacity to self- fund their projects. This report
provides a summary of the processes to implement the CFS, including public outreach, proposal
review, negotiations between the public agencies and private companies, operations,
coordination with the 2005 ITS World Congress in San Francisco, and project closure.
Researchers chronicled the lessons learned throughout the process through a series of interviews
conducted with the parties involved. Especially important were findings related to the public-private
partnership for ITS deployment that the ICI project pioneered.
iv
v
Executive Summary
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in partnership with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ( MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( LA MTA), and the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America ( ITS America) embarked on a unique project to test “ a new way of doing business” in
deploying intelligent transportation system ( ITS) technologies and services in conjunction with
industry. The Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) was a multi- year project ( June 2003 to
December 2006) designed to encourage the early deployment of innovative technologies for ITS
in California. Through the ICI, Caltrans and its partners issued a Call for Submissions ( CFS)
inviting industry to submit proposals to deploy ITS demonstration projects and to share data and
information collected with the public sector in return for access to the rights- of- way and data not
normally granted to the private sector. Private industry was required to self- fund the pilot
demonstrations. In exchange, they were able to test their products and services in a real- world
setting and then showcase them at the 2005 ITS World Congress in San Francisco, California.
The CFS resulted in 28 project proposals from 16 private companies that could enhance
transportation choice for individuals and overall planning and system management. Ultimately
seven companies representing eight projects were selected for agreement with the public
agencies.
The key components of the ICI project included:
• CFS Process and Project Management,
• CFS Process Analysis,
• Documenting Lessons Learned, Recommendations and Successes, and
• Business Model Analysis.
CFS Process and Project Management
The ICI CFS project process included proposal review and evaluation, negotiation and
development of CFS Agreements, deployment and operation of the CFS projects, coordination
with the 2005 ITS World Congress, and project closure. Project management partners included
vi
Caltrans, MTC, LA MTA, ICI project staff at the California Center for Innovative Transportation
( CCIT), California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways ( PATH), and ITS America. The
benefits that the public agencies expected included improved transportation system management
through the deployment of advanced ITS on California roadways and transit; better system use
by individuals who can make informed decisions about mode choice, time of travel and route;
accelerated deployment of ITS systems in California; and the development of a new business
model for how public agencies can work with industry to maximize benefits for all parties
involved.
CFS Process Analysis
To capture the benefits and lessons learned of the ICI and the role of the CFS in bringing
innovative ITS technologies to California, ICI staff conducted an ongoing assessment of the
process. Analysis of the ICI CFS process consisted of a literature review and series of interviews
conducted to gain feedback about the CFS process. A review of the literature provided guidelines
for carrying out the evaluation and interviews. The literature also provided context for
understanding the role of public- private partnerships in providing transportation systems
improvements; current public- private partnership practices in the United States; and
consideration of the risks, costs, and rewards or benefits of public- private partnerships.
Interviews were conducted with several different groups of individuals who were involved with
the ICI CFS. The objective of the interviews was to reveal lessons learned from each of these
groups during their participation in the ICI CFS. Lessons learned from these interviews may be
instrumental in developing guidelines for future similar public- private partnerships.
CFS Process Lessons Learned, Recommendations, and Successes
The following lessons learned, recommendations, and successes were derived from the
interviews with agency and industry project participants as well as ICI project staff active in the
project.
vii
Workshop: Allow more time for outreach, create a setting for networking and participation, and
provide appropriate details on what the agencies want and can supply ( e. g., rights- of- way and
data). Consider releasing the CFS before the workshop to facilitate discussion at the workshop.
Submission and Evaluation: Allow adequate time for Q& A, submission and proposal
review/ discussion. Find a balance between an open solicitation that encourages innovation and a
more specific solicitation to avoid vague proposals.
Non- Disclosure Issues: Determine the appropriate level of confidentiality for industry
submissions with consideration to industry’s desire to partner with other industry partners.
Consider requiring a non- confidential project description.
Negotiation and Agreement: Allow adequate time for negotiation, encroachment permitting, and
resolution of legal matters and adhere to the deadlines, respond in a timely manner to requests
and concerns, and allow adequate time for product testing before the live showcase.
Funding: A lack of funding may limit the quality and quantity of proposal submissions. Be clear
whether or not there is funding and under what parameters in- kind resources will be provided. Be
cognizant of non- monetary agency resources devoted to the project ( especially staff time).
Implementation & Operation: Articulate rights- of- way infrastructure requirements, ensure
continuous communications, and be aware of contractual delay impacts on overall operations.
Align companies early in the process so they have the opportunity to combine resources.
2005 ITS World Congress: The 2005 ITS World Congress was an incentive for industry
participation, but the agencies must be clear on the parameters of participation ( e. g., financial
outlays). Consider a letter of understanding outlining responsibilities, a marketing plan for
highlighting the CFS, and a separate “ VIP Day” for highlighting the CFS projects to industry
VIPs and governmental officials.
viii
Project Closure: Expectations and options for post- demonstration public- private relationship
should be clearly articulated at the initiation of the project. A well- defined private sector
business model increases the likelihood of successful project completion as well as enhances the
post project public- private relationship.
Public- Private Partnership: Understand the business model associated with each proposal.
Articulate common goals, associated risks, and mutual benefits. Be clear on which party owns
the data that are generated and under what circumstances.
Successes: Key successes articulated by the project partners included that the CFS established
the agency’s commitment to public- private partnerships and brought multiple jurisdictions
together. The CFS also allowed public agencies to be more flexible and entrepreneurial, provided
a good model for addressing budget constraints, and allowed industry to access public rights- of-way
to test and showcase new ideas and technologies.
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. v
Section I: CFS Project Management ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 The Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI)................................................................. 1
1.2 Management of the CFS Projects.............................................................................. 4
1.3 CFS Proposal Review ................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Negotiation and Development of CFS Agreements .................................................. 8
1.5 Project Deployment, Operation and ITS World Congress 2005.............................. 9
1.6 Project Closure & Final Outcomes ......................................................................... 10
Section II: CFS Process Analysis ............................................................................................ 13
2.1 Research Goals and Methodology........................................................................... 13
2.2 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 13
2.3 CFS Agency & Industry Interviews ........................................................................ 17
2.4 Recommendations and Other Considerations:....................................................... 25
Section III: Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 35
References..................................................................................................................... .......... 37
Appendices
Appendix A: Call for Submissions Solicitation ...................................................... 41
Appendix B: CFS Project Descriptions ................................................................... 59
Appendix C: ICI Brochure for the 2005 ITS World Congress ............................... 65
List of Figures
Figure 1 - CFS Process Flow Chart…………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 2 - CFS Projects…...…………………………………………………………………… 10
Figure 3 - CFS Project Closure…..…………………………………………………………… 11
1
Section I: CFS Project Management
1.1 The Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI)
The Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) was a multi- year project ( June 2003 to December 2006)
designed to encourage the early deployment of innovative ITS approaches in California. ITS
technologies are defined through a broad array of information and vehicle control technologies
that are designed to improve traffic and transit management including: safety, user choice,
congestion, and incident response. For over a decade, ITS technologies have been gaining
acceptance and are now used in every major metropolitan area in the United States to enhance
transportation system management.
However, the full potential of ITS technologies to revolutionize transportation system
management and enhance individual decisions remains to be fulfilled. A critical impediment to
realizing the full potential of ITS is the dichotomy between the public sector owning and
operating the roadways and transit systems for the public benefit and the private sector inventing
and operating ITS technology and services with a profit motive. The ICI project was designed to
address this separation between a public sector mandate and private industry motivation by
creating a forum where the mutual benefits to both sectors could be realized.
The premise of the CFS was that significant benefits to Californians could be delivered and
experienced by introducing and leveraging innovative technologies into California's
transportation system. The demonstration projects resulting from the CFS were expected to
deploy current and emerging ITS technologies and to test the benefits to all parties.
Working closely with the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ( MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( LA MTA), ICI project staff at the California Center for
Innovative Transportation ( CCIT) and California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways
( PATH) coordinated a process by which the public agencies opened up access to their rights- of-way
and other facilities for the private sector to deploy innovative ITS technologies on a
demonstration basis. The benefits that the public agencies expected included: 1) improved
2
transportation system management through the deployment of advanced ITS on California
roadways and transit; 2) better system use by individuals who can make informed decisions
about mode choice and time of travel and route; 3) accelerated deployment of ITS systems in
California; and 4) the development of a new business model for how public agencies can work
with industry to maximize benefits for all parties involved.
An additional partner in the project was the Intelligent Transportation Society of America ( ITS
America), which hosts the North American ITS World Congress. 1 Through this partnership the
private sector was provided with an opportunity to showcase their innovative demonstration
projects during the 2005 ITS World Congress in San Francisco.
The CFS was different from a typical request for proposals ( RFP) in four significant ways:
1) The CFS did not specify the types of projects to be submitted;
2) The CFS process was designed with a period of time for agency and industry to negotiate
project details;
3) No public funding was awarded with the CFS contract( s); and
4) Unlike an RFP where one bidder is generally awarded a contract, the CFS could result in
several agreements with the private sector as long as projects fit the CFS requirements
and public agency staff resources.
The open solicitation and negotiation period built into the CFS was designed to foster public-private
partnerships by allowing the private sector to bring innovative ideas and technologies to
the table for collaboration and mutual benefit. The fact that no public funds were awarded as a
result of the solicitation required respondents to demonstrate financial self- sufficiency when
submitting their proposal( s). And, allowing multiple parties to partner with the public agencies
under the CFS created a more competitive approach to bringing ITS solutions than the more
typical RFP scenario that awards one contract per solicitation.
1 The ITS World Congress is held annually, rotating between North America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The ITS
America hosts the ITS World Congress when it is held in North America. See www. itsa. org for additional
information.
3
The full multi- year ICI project included:
• Partner development,
• Public outreach to solicit industry to deploy innovative demonstration ITS projects,
• Coordination with ITS America to create an opportunity to showcase the pilot demonstration
projects during the 2005 ITS World Congress,
• Management and coordination among the partners and industry for the duration of the CFS
project,
• A comprehensive literature review on mainstreaming ITS and relevant public- private
partnerships,
• Periodic interviews and surveys with project partners and industry partners to identify lessons
learned,
• An evaluation of the relevant regulatory arena and current Caltrans business models for
allowing industry to access rights- of- way; and
• Completion of a final report detailing the process and the lessons learned.
MOU 4151 encompassed the first year of this multi- year ICI project. Year one included: 1)
partner development; 2) the development of the CFS to solicit industry participation; 3) CFS
outreach; 4) a report on the initial results of the CFS; 5) coordination with ITS America to create
opportunities to showcase the pilot demonstration projects; and 6) ongoing coordination among
the partners. See the final report for MOU 4151 for a description of these activities and a copy of
the CFS. i
This report on Task Order 7 consists of two parts: Section I provides an overview of CFS project
management including: proposal review and evaluation, negotiation and development of CFS
agreements, deployment and operation of the CFS projects, coordination with the 2005 ITS
World Congress, and project closure. Section II focuses on the CFS policy and institutional
analysis including: research goals and methodology, a brief literature review, CFS interview
summaries, and lessons learned.
4
The final report for the ICI project, Innovative Corridors Initiative: Business Model Analysis
( Task Order 1010 Final Report), consists of a broader business model analysis for Caltrans
including an overview of Traffic. com, Vehicle Infrastructure Integration ( VII), and wireless
Internet ( WiFi) access at roadside rest stops in relation to public- private partnerships and
conventional Caltrans business models. The report concludes with overarching policy
recommendations for Caltrans to improve agency/ industry business relations as technology
evolves and information and real- time data become more important to system management and
efficient system use. ii
1.2 Management of the CFS Projects
After the receipt of the CFS proposals in January 2004 ( see final report for MOU 4151 for
project activity prior to January 2004), ICI project staff coordinated the proposal evaluation, the
development of the project plans and the negotiation of the CFS agreements among Caltrans,
MTC, and LA MTA and the industry partners. ICI project staff continued to work with Caltrans,
MTC, and the industry partners through the deployment and operation of the CFS projects,
showcasing at the 2005 ITS World Congress Innovative Mobility Showcase, and project closure.
See Figure 1 for an overview of the steps of the CFS process from receipt of the proposals
through closure and dismantle.
To capture the benefits and lessons learned of the ICI and the role of the CFS in bringing
innovative ITS technologies to California, ICI project staff conducted an ongoing process
assessment. The primary tool for this assessment was a series of confidential interviews with the
agency and industry partners at key intervals during the process. These interviews and the
lessons learned and recommendations are detailed in Section II of this report.
In addition to the policy and institutional analysis of the CFS process conducted as part of the
ICI project, Caltrans contracted with Kimley- Horn and Associates ( Kimley- Horn) to conduct
technical evaluations of the CFS projects. Kimley- Horn was brought on board shortly before the
2005 ITS World Congress and worked with both agency staff and CFS industry partners to
complete a technical evaluation of each CFS project. iii
5
Figure 1 - CFS Process Flow Chart:
Proposals Received
Proposals Evaluated by
Appropriate Agency
Proposed Project( s) Selected for
Further Negotiation
Negotiation Between Pilot Project
Respondent( s) and State/ Local
Partner
Identify Pilot Project( s)
Requirements ( permit, facilities,
etc.)
Develop Agreement, Permit, Etc.
Final Approval of Pilot Project
Deployment of Project( s)
Test, Refine Projects
ITS World Congress and
Innovative Mobility Showcase
Continued Project Operation
Closure and Dismantle
6
1.3 CFS Proposal Review
All 28 of the proposals received in response to the CFS were reviewed by staff from Caltrans
Headquarters and Districts 4 and 7, as well as MTC and LA MTA. Proposals that requested
partnership with other public transportation agencies, such as transit, were also reviewed by the
appropriate staff at these agencies. While some of the proposals did not specify location or
partner agency, other proposals were very specific about these details. A strategic decision was
made to circulate all of the proposals to all of the agency partners. This was beneficial since
some of the agencies expressed interest in projects that were not targeted to their region ( see
Section 2.3 for recommendations).
To encourage private sector companies to submit proposals with innovative and possibly
proprietary technology all of the proposals were treated as confidential. As such all persons
reviewing the proposals were required to sign a non- disclosure agreement as well as a statement
that they did not have any conflict of interest with the projects they were reviewing.
Of the 28 projects submitted, 12 had technology that was geared primarily towards automobile
travel, eight targeted alternative modes ( including carpool, ridesharing, and transit), three were
designed to improve transportation management , and five were “ other.”
The vast majority of the proposals ( 23) used some form of wireless technology or sensors for
data collection or dissemination.
Sixteen of the proposals did not articulate a business model for how the project would continue
beyond the CFS demonstration. Some of these proposals were designed just as demonstrations
and for some, although the company clearly had intentions for ongoing activity, they did not
articulate the business/ financial plans beyond the CFS demonstration. Twelve proposals
provided a business model beyond the CFS. Some of these anticipated generating revenue from
selling data or information, while others envisioned selling a product to the public sector.
7
If deployed, five of the projects would charge user fees for the technology, 11 would be paid for
by a public agency, and two would generate revenue from selling the technology to another
company. For ten of the proposed projects, payment was unclear or not applicable.
For those projects that continued beyond the CFS, the primary beneficiary was private
individuals ( 17), the public agencies ( 6), or other companies ( 1). It was unclear who would be
the beneficiary for four of the projects. The line between private individual and public agency as
the primary beneficiary was not always solid; for example, one project could improve traffic
flows for individuals while also reducing costs for a public agency.
Eight of the proposals requested access to Caltrans rights- of- way, and four requested access to
other Caltrans facilities. Six of the proposals requested data; four from MTC’s 511 system and
two from other sources. Finally, ten of the proposals did not specify the agency or resource
request directly. These proposals tended to focus on the capability of the technology that was
being proposed. For the proposals that did not specify an agency partner or resource request,
some targeted an ITS World Congress demonstration only, and for others, the agency/ resource
request was apparent in follow- up meetings.
The proposals were reviewed on the following criteria:
1) Benefit to the partner agencies and the traveling public including: economic and
environmental benefits, reduced congestion, improved safety, incident management and
travel time, and enhanced information for trip decision- making and traffic management. In
addition Caltrans evaluated the degree to which the project submissions assisted the agency
in meeting its five key goals: productivity, reliability, safety, flexibility, and performance;
2) Degree to which the proposed project assisted with data collection, processing, and
dissemination, including data quality and integrity;
3) Project feasibility including technical, environmental, and timeframe ( i. e. must be deployed
in advance of the November 2005 ITS World Congress);
4) Company qualifications;
8
5) Innovative technology or use, enhancement of an existing technology, or integration of ITS
applications;
6) The nature of the request of the public agency ( access to rights- of- way, other facilities,
and/ or data); and
7) Anticipated agency staff time and resources to manage the project.
Of the 28 proposed projects submitted, 16 projects were chosen by the partner agencies to
proceed with further discussion. ICI project staff arranged a series of meetings between the
appropriate agency staff and industry staff representing the proposed projects.
1.4 Negotiation and Development of CFS Agreements
For the 16 projects that were chosen by the partner agencies, ICI project staff assisted in the
coordination of more in- depth discussions about project goals, scope, technology, and the role of
the public agencies and the private sector partners. Eight projects did not proceed to contract.
Reasons for not proceeding to contract included: incompatible technology or project scope;
liability concerns; the project did not need the public facilities being offered ( rights- of- way or
data); or the negotiating parties determined for other reasons that the project did not meet the
agency goals for the CFS.
Eight projects developed to final agreement ( See Figure 2). Four of the proposals that reached
final agreement were with Caltrans, three were with MTC, and one was joint with Caltrans and
MTC. None of the proposed projects reached agreement with LA MTA. For each project, the
appropriate agency staff worked with the industry partner to develop an agreed upon scope of
work for the project including: tasks, timelines, milestones, agency responsibility, and industry
responsibility.
For the five projects with Caltrans, industry requested access to the rights- of- way in order to
install one or more devices related to their projects, and some also made use of MTC’s 511 data.
For the three projects with MTC, industry requested access to 511 traveler information data. In
all cases, the agencies worked cooperatively with each other to assist the industry partners.
9
Two of the projects generated data that both Caltrans and MTC wanted access to. In these cases
the industry partners agreed to provide the data in a format requested by both agencies. In return
Caltrans and MTC would acknowledge the industry partner as the source of the data.
Although industry partners were promised a streamlined process with access to agency staff to
assist them with meeting agency requirements, all projects had to meet all agency safety,
environment, and product testing requirements. All of the projects that put devices in Caltrans
rights- of- way had to demonstrate that their device met all agency structural and crash safety
requirements. An encroachment permit is needed for individuals to enter State highway rights-of-
way to construct approved facilities or conduct specified activities. Three of the projects filed
for an encroachment permit with Caltrans. Because all of the projects were limited
demonstrations, none required an environmental assessment.
1.5 Project Deployment, Operation and ITS World Congress 2005
The CFS process allowed the private sector partners to request specific agency resources ( e. g.,
rights- of- way) in addition to in- kind staff assistance. Two of the projects required access to
Caltrans controller boxes, three required access to the rights- of- way by the side of a highway,
two required data feeds from MTC’s 511 system, and one project required access to MTC’s 511
system. Some of the projects generated new data, while others used a mix of existing 511 data
with data that the project generated, and other projects did not generate new data but used the
existing data in a new application.
The goal for project deployment was September 2005, to allow the companies time refine the
projects before the ITS World Congress. Due to delays in completing the CFS agreements, some
of the companies were not able to deploy in September as planned. However, all of the CFS
projects were deployed before the ITS World Congress. The CFS projects were operating in real-world
situations in either the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles during the ITS World
Congress. During the World Congress, the companies showcased their technology by bringing in
live feeds of their data or taking guests on drives out to their project location. Six of the CFS
industry partners showcased their CFS project at the Innovative Mobility Showcase ( IMS),
10
which was a “ live” demonstration area set up as a special venue for the ITS World Congress.
Two companies showcased their project in the ITS World Congress exhibition hall.
Figure 2: CFS Projects
Industry Partner Agency Partner Project Title
Circumnav Networks Inc.
( name changed to Dash
Navigation, Inc.)
Caltrans District 4 &
MTC
Dynamic Route Advisory
Navigation System
ENCOM Wireless Data
Solutions
Caltrans District 7 Seamless Wireless Integration for
Traffic Applications
InfoTek Associates
Caltrans Districts 4 & 7 Intelligent Loop Detector
Application
NAVTEQ
MTC 511 Level Two Demonstration
NAVTEQ
Caltrans District 4 Vehicle Infrastructure Cooperation
Demonstration
Outreach
MTC Bay Area Web Congestion
Mapping and Traffic Forecasting
SpeedInfo
Caltrans District 4 Speed Sensor Demonstration
Tele Atlas North America,
Inc.
MTC TV511 Demonstration
1.6 Project Closure & Final Outcomes
Seven of the eight projects specified June 30, 2006, as the end date for their CFS agreements.
One industry partner requested an end date of December 31, 2006. Actual project closure dates
varied from the original CFS agreements ( See Figure 3). For all of the CFS projects, the industry
partner was required remove any equipment placed in the rights- of- way at the close of the
project.
11
The CFS agreements between Caltrans and industry specified three choices of “ business model”
or relationship with Caltrans that the industry partner could follow at the close of their CFS
projects. If Caltrans and the industry partner mutually agreed to continue their relationship
beyond the end date of the CFS demonstration, one of the three options listed below could be
followed:
1) The industry partner could continue to have access to the rights- of- way under a new
encroachment permit as long as they continued to provide data to the agency at no cost.
Under this scenario the company would be providing the data or service for a fee to a
subscriber base to sustain their business.
2) The industry partner needed access to rights- of- way for their demonstration but did not
want access after the end of the CFS demonstration. However, the industry partner did
want to market the product that they demonstrated. In this situation, it would be up to the
agency to determine if they wanted to purchase the product. The CFS provides no
guarantee that Caltrans would purchase any product.
3) The industry partner did not need access to Caltrans rights- of- way for their
demonstration, but they did want to market a product to Caltrans. The CFS provides no
guarantee that Caltrans would purchase any product.
Figure 3: CFS Project Closure
Industry Partner Expected Project End Actual Project End
Circumnav ( Dash) December 2006 December 2006
ENCOM
June 2006 October 2006
InfoTek
June 2006 November 2006
NAVTEQ 511
June 2006 November 2005
NAVTEQ VIC
June 2006 N/ A
Outreach
June 2006 November 2005
SpeedInfo
June 2006 June 2006
Tele Atlas
June 2006 November 2005
12
For the three projects that ended before the contract end date ( NAVTEQ 511, Outreach, and Tele
Atlas), the industry partner did not have a business model or a funding mechanism that allowed
the project to continue after the ITS World Congress.
SpeedInfo’s project was transferred to MTC jurisdiction at the end of the CFS agreement. Under
the new contract with MTC, SpeedInfo’s equipment is allowed to stay in the rights- of- way under
an encroachment permit held by MTC. MTC pays for SpeedInfo data, while Caltrans continues
to receive data at no cost for limited use in return for no cost access to the rights- of- way.
The two projects that were extended past the original June 2006 timeline ( Infotek and ENCOM)
were extended at the request of the industry partners. In both cases the start date of the CFS
projects were delayed and additional time was necessary to complete the installation and testing
of the equipment.
Circumnav ( now called Dash Navigation, Inc.) stopped using their equipment before the end of
their CFS demonstration period because the technology focus and goals for their project had
changed over the course of the demonstration. However their roadside units ( RSUs) have not
been removed from the rights- of- way ( as of January 2007). Caltrans and MTC are evaluating if
the RSUs could be beneficial for additional vehicle infrastructure research projects. If the
agencies determine that the RSUs are useful, authority will be transferred to MTC or another
entity.
Finally, although NAVTEQ entered into a CFS agreement for their Vehicle Infrastructure
Cooperation project, they found that placing their RSUs in San Francisco city streets was more
beneficial to their needs, and they did not place any equipment in the Caltrans rights- of- way.
13
Section II: CFS Process Analysis
2.1 Research Goals and Methodology
The research methodology consisted of a literature review and series of interviews conducted to
gain feedback about the CFS process. A review of the literature provided guidelines for carrying
out the evaluation and interviews. The literature also provided context for understanding the role
of public- private partnerships in providing transportation system improvements; current practice
in the United States; and consideration of the risks, costs, and rewards or benefits of public-private
partnerships. Caltrans and its partners issued the CFS to foster public- private partnerships
that will develop emerging ITS technologies to enhance mobility, traveler choice, and safety.
Interviews conducted with the CFS partners, participants of two CFS workshops, CFS
respondents, governmental agency partners, and industry partners selected to showcase their
technologies at the ITS World Congress reveal early lessons learned from this innovative
process. The objective of the interviews was to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the ICI
process as compared with more traditional government solicitations, examine relations between
public- public and public- private partners under the ICI process, assess the potential of
implementing ITS projects at no cost to the public sector, and gather recommendations for future
CFS style solicitations. Lessons learned from the ICI will be instrumental in developing
guidelines for future public- private partnerships.
2.2 Literature Review
The ICI evaluation follows US Department of transportation ( US DOT) guidelines, which call
for providing an evaluation report on the lessons learned in employing innovative financing or
procurement and/ or public- private partnering techniques. iv Interviews were conducted by a
graduate student researcher in keeping with USDOT guidelines that state: “ evaluations should be
performed by an independent party who has had no vested interest or stake in the project itself.” v
The USDOT ITS Joint Program Office considers evaluation to be an essential part of the project
development process with the purpose to bring about changes in order to meet or exceed project
goals and objectives. Moreover, a significant goal of evaluation: “ is the expansion of the
14
knowledge base among transportation community professionals, policy makers, planners,
engineers, and other influence brokers.” vi Timely project evaluation reports that capture valuable
and recent lessons learned provide experience- based information for newly formed relevant
project partnerships. The evaluation should address key components of the project including
institutional issues ( i. e., non- technical factors) that influence project performance such as:
procurement and contracting, organizational structure, and relationships among major
participants.
This report offers a descriptive evaluation of the ICI case study in accordance with Government
Accountability Office ( GAO) guidelines. According to GAO, it may be beneficial to use
structured interviews when information must be obtained from program participants. In a
structured interview, individuals are asked the same questions in a precise manner, offering each
interviewee the same set of possible responses, while an unstructured interview contains many
open- ended questions. While open- ended questions do not generally produce uniform data that
can be compared, summed, or further analyzed, they can be useful “ for a small number of
respondents and where analysis may be qualitative, rather than quantitative.” Moreover, open-ended
questions can elicit answers that contribute to the formulation of more specific questions
and response alternatives. The ICI interviews were a hybrid of the structured/ unstructured
interview process, using a pre- determined set of questions that were asked of all participants in a
particular interview group, while allowing some flexibility for further discussion and
clarification. Advantages to the telephone interview include: establishes rapport with the
respondents; may persuade individuals to answer all of the questions and more truthfully; the
interviewer can recognize when a respondent is having a problem understanding or interpreting a
question; irrelevant questions may be skipped; and it is a faster method of gathering data. The
major disadvantages to telephone interviews are: additional expense due to the need to train
interviewers and the time spent contacting and interviewing respondents; the inability to observe
the interviewee’s reactions ( e. g., confusion, uncertainty, or hostility); and the tendency of the
interviewer to become monotonous in presentation ( e. g., enunciation of questions).
15
Intelligent Transportation Systems
ITS includes a broad range of wireless and hardwire communications- based information and
electronics technologies and are used to relieve congestion, improve safety, and enhance
productivity. vii ITS technologies show great potential to improve safety, transportation system
management, and individual mode choice, route, and travel time. However, there are many
challenges to ITS deployment including unclear roles and responsibilities among jurisdictions in
ITS policy development and operations, competing priorities for scarce resources, limited private
investment in ITS, limited ITS expertise among transportation agencies, lack of understanding of
ITS benefits, and poor visibility of ITS projects. viii Moreover, institutional questions ( e. g., access
to public rights- of- way) must be addressed to facilitate ITS deployment. Many ITS experts
believe that significant public benefits can result from leveraging new technologies into the
statewide transportation system. Since public sector capital projects, including ITS elements, can
take several years to implement, decisions based on currently available technology can become
outdated prior to implementation. In contrast, the private sector may be able to finance,
construct, and operate transportation facilities and services in a timelier, more efficient, and less
costly manner.
Public- Private Partnership
A public- private partnership can be defined as “[ a] n arrangement of roles and relationships in
which two or more public and private entities coordinate/ combine complementary resources to
achieve their separate objectives through joint pursuit of one or more common objectives.” ix
While transportation system management and finance has largely been the domain of the public
sector, the private sector has been integral in providing major transportation facilities including
railways, transit lines, roads, and highways. x For example, private toll roads accounted for many
of the earliest major roadways in the U. S., and public transportation ( e. g., horse and carriage
coach services) was first developed by the private sector. xi This “ user fee” approach to
transportation finance gave way to a tax- based approach ( e. g., general tax revenues, earmarked
fuel taxes, or other dedicated taxes) in the 19 th and 20 th centuries when the federal and state
governments, strengthened by policies such as the Federal Aid Highway Act, took the primary
16
role of providing the nations highways and transit. Recently, constraints on public funds have
prompted a revival of public- private partnerships. In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) increased the opportunity for private industry participation by expanding
the use of toll roads on Federal- aid facilities and the use of federal funds and other innovative
financing for construction projects. While public- private partnerships for larger infrastructure
projects such as toll roads are increasingly being looked at, there is little in the way of public-private
partnerships for intelligent transportation systems.
However, the efficient deployment of intelligent transportation systems requires cooperation
between government and industry to ensure technology and infrastructure work together as an
integrated system. “ Cooperation between government authorities as owners of the public
infrastructure, private entities as suppliers of technology, and vehicle drivers as primary users of
a service are essential for the success of any ITS application.” xii The Wisconsin Department of
Transportation recognizes that “ an important way to attract private capital for transportation and
undertake operational improvements using advanced technology is to encourage the private
sector to participate in ITS public/ private partnerships.” xiii For cooperation and partnership to
occur and be successful, all parties will need to understand the risks, costs, and rewards to
individual partners. With mutual rewards, shared risks, and reduced costs, parties have an
incentive to cooperate and realize possible gains for all. According to the Public- Private
Partnership Office in Canada: “ A successful public- private partnership builds on the experience
of each partner to meet clearly defined needs and provide a net benefit ( or value for money) to
the general public through the appropriate allocation of costs, risks and rewards.” xiv Clearly, the
additional benefits must outweigh the additional costs of cooperation. The private sector will
want to earn a profit or receive a fair rate of return on its investment at an acceptable risk, while
the public sector must receive ' value for money' from the initiative, “ ensuring public investments
result in more rapid development, expanded capacity and/ or lower prices.” xv Public- private
partnerships may be able to accelerate development, production, and deployment of ITS
technologies if they are successful in sharing benefits, reducing costs, and allocating risks to the
partner best suited to efficiently and effectively mitigate such risks.
17
[ R] isk is greater in the absence of clear laws, regulations, and procedures that are
supportive of ITS public/ private partnerships. Private sector risk is often unacceptable
without clear boundaries between public and private sector roles. Risk also increases with
time, complexity, competition and financial and political uncertainty. [ Government
agencies] can play an important role in reducing private sector risk to an acceptable level
by implementing an institutional framework that increases the economic viability of
public/ private partnerships. xvi
As of February 2004, 23 states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin were identified as having public- private partnership authority. xvii Some of these states
have been able to translate this legislation into successful public- private partnerships in practice,
while other states have struggled with political, institutional, and legal issues and legislation
remains idle. Virginia’s legislation has proved successful, while other State’s legislation such as
in Washington has been compromised due to legal barriers. Public- private partnership legislation
in New Jersey expired in 2002, while California’s legislation has had mixed results and was
repealed in 2004. Texas and Oregon have only recently enacted legislation, and it is yet to be
seen how successful or unsuccessful their legislation may be. Some states have undertaken
public- private partnerships without legislative backing including Minnesota, whose project was
terminated due to legal problems, and Florida, whose project is presently in the early stages of
development.
2.3 CFS Agency & Industry Interviews
Interviews were conducted with several individuals involved in the CFS including the ICI
Working Group 2 , workshop attendees who did not submit a proposal, persons who submitted a
CFS proposal but did not proceed to agreement with the public agency, persons who did reach
2 The ICI Working Group consisted of representatives from Caltrans, MTC, CCIT, PATH, ITS
America, and the 2005 ITS World Congress Planning Committee. The ICI Working Group
provided guidance for the development and implementation of the CFS and coordination with
the 2005 ITS World Congress.
18
agreement with the public agency ( industry partners), and public agency staff involved in the
CFS process. The objective of the interviews was to evaluate lessons learned from the CFS
process. Interviews took place between 2003 and 2006, before and after the ITS World Congress
and after project closure. Each interview took approximately 15 minutes to one hour. Interview
questions pertained to the development of the CFS; the workshop; submission, evaluation of
proposals, negotiation, and agreement; the encroachment permit process; deployment; closure;
and overall successes and challenges of the CFS process. Interviewees were given complete
confidentiality regarding their individual feedback.
ICI Working Group Goals at the Beginning of the ICI
The project partners hoped that the CFS would be a catalyst for future public- private partnerships
and that coordination with the ITS World Congress would promote California and the U. S. as
ITS leaders. They indicated the ITS World Congress gave the agencies a targeted timeframe for
implementing the process and felt a successful ICI would result in demonstration projects that
continue after the ITS World Congress. The project partners hoped to showcase ITS technologies
that improved safety, built on and integrated with existing projects, advanced ITS, were
deployable and cost effective, and improved mobility without degrading the environment. They
wanted to demonstrate projects that people could see, touch, and better understand their traveling
options. The partners also wanted to help the public, politicians, decision makers, and the media
better understand and support transportation system management and ITS so that people buy and
use it.
ICI Working Group Goals at the Close of the ICI
The ICI Working Group indicated that most of their goals were met including: engaging the
private sector, gaining lessons learned from the process, and gathering information from
industry. Reasons given for not meeting some goals were legal ( e. g., issues involved with
industry access to rights- of- way and contract laws) and institutional ( e. g., bureaucratic structure
of government). The ICI Working Group felt that the CFS demonstration is a good concept for
avoiding paying for products that are not yet proven to work, but once industry proves their
19
technology, there should be a system in place to move beyond the demonstration. And while it
may be difficult for the public sector to commit funding, the CFS showed the willingness of the
public sector to open up the rights- of- way, allocate staff time to evaluate proposals, work
towards solutions, and provide valuable in- kind services. There were many successes of the ICI
including: discovering the application and feasibility of different technologies, providing a
mechanism for public- private partnerships, and gaining lessons learned that may be used by
other states. The ICI Working Group representatives pointed to several challenges over the
course of the ICI/ CFS, including communication, staffing, timeline, funding, contracts, and
institutional issues. The biggest challenge conveyed by the ICI Working Group was state laws on
procurement and contracting that limit the agencies ability to purchase services and technologies
from the CFS partners. Without these next steps in the ICI, one person felt the agencies will
revert to the standard approach for working with the private sector.
Workshop Attendees
A set of interviews was conducted with industry individuals who attended one or both of the CFS
workshops but did not submit a CFS proposal. The workshops were held in Los Angeles and
Oakland, California in Fall 2003 to review a draft of the CFS and solicit questions and feedback
prior to the final CFS release. Workshop attendees indicated they attended the workshop to
network with potential partners, see how their technologies and those of their colleagues fit into
the CFS process, and learn more about Caltrans offering rights- of- way access. Reasons for not
submitting a proposal included uncertainty in the types of projects the agencies were seeking,
caution about releasing financial/ proprietary information without a contract guarantee, and the
lack of funding offered in the solicitation. Attendees understood why the public agencies were
not offering funding, but most stated that no funding limited who could submit a proposal and
the quality of what would be proposed. While workshop attendees found the lack of specificity in
the CFS made it difficult to develop a project idea and led to concern that the agencies would not
be interested in a proposed project, they felt the openness of the CFS was innovative and allowed
a wider range of proposal ideas to be submitted.
20
CFS Respondents
Interviews were also conducted with representatives from the nine companies that submitted a
CFS proposal, but they did not proceed to an agreement with any of the participating agencies.
Reasons for not reaching an agreement included: the company requested funds; the company
withdrew their proposal; none of the reviewing agencies wanted to proceed with the project;
and/ or issues related to the technology and/ or the project goals. Respondents indicated reasons
for submitting a proposal were the prospect of an innovative and streamlined process; the
opportunity to talk to, and partner with, multiple agencies; and the chance to test, showcase, and
market their products to the public, potential clients, and governmental agencies. Respondents
found the strengths of the CFS to be value in access to rights- of- way, competition among
industry, and a good model for dealing with some of the institutional issues facing governmental
agencies. Other strengths included bringing multiple jurisdictions together, achieving public
goals to put infrastructure along highways, and encouraging entrepreneurship among public
agencies. Most of the comments regarding weaknesses of the CFS process concerned issues of
intellectual property and limited communication with the public agencies. The respondents also
noted that they had expected the agencies to facilitate the formation of partnerships between
respondents, but this did not happen.
Industry Partners
Once an agreement had been reached, interviews were conducted with representatives from each
of the seven companies ( eight projects) selected to partner with a public agency ( Caltrans or
MTC) to demonstrate their innovative ITS technology, using public rights- or- way, or gaining
access to public data. Three sets of interviews were conducted with industry partners. The first
interview was conducted after the CFS agreements were signed between the industry partner and
the agency. The second interview was conducted after the projects had been deployed and
showcased during the ITS World Congress, and the third interview was conducted after the close
of the projects. Industry partners were selected because they: 1) met the CFS requirements, 2)
demonstrated financial self- sufficiency, and 3) proposed a project that would be beneficial to the
agencies or the general public and could be accomplished in time for the ITS World Congress.
21
Negotiation and Agreement: Industry appreciated the opportunity to negotiate details of their
project with the agencies. However, many industry partners felt the negotiation and agreement
process should have been more streamlined given the short term of the projects and because
there was no public funding. They felt both agency and industry partners would have benefited
from adhering to a defined schedule. Industry would have liked more feedback from the agencies
regarding the status of their project negotiation and who to contact for more information.
Encroachment: Three of the projects with Caltrans required an encroachment permit ( permission
from Caltrans to enter and place objects in Caltrans rights- of- way). Separate interviews were
conducted regarding this process of obtaining an encroachment permit with the relevant three
companies. Most of the industry partners were satisfied with the encroachment process and had
good relations with agency staff. They felt the permit process could have been more streamlined
by completing the agreement and permit phases in parallel and allowing an addendum to the test
permits so that subsequent deployment permits could be more easily obtained. One
encroachment applicant expected the encroachment process to be more streamlined, as was
indicated during the outreach workshops. Industry found the encroachment fee waiver to be a
benefit.
Deployment/ Demonstration: Industry felt agency staff was helpful during deployment of the
demonstrations, but there needed to be more senior level support and better communication
between industry and agency and within the agency itself. Industry also identified a need for
more interoperability and ease of installation with agency systems/ software and infrastructure.
Seven of the eight projects were also represented at the ITS World Congress Innovative Mobility
Showcase ( or IMS), and the remaining project was represented at the exhibition hall. Most
industry partners felt they had met their goals for a successful demonstration at the ITS World
Congress, but they would have liked more time with VIPs and governmental officials. Industry
partners also felt there needed to be more visibility of CFS projects at the ITS World Congress,
perhaps through a CFS booth at the Moscone Center to “ show the world how government can
22
work with the private sector.” Industry would have preferred more time to prepare for the ITS
World Congress demonstration.
Project Closure: Industry felt that relations with the governmental agencies were generally good.
However, they would have liked to see more streamlined processes, as well as better
communication within the agencies. Industry partners were concerned with the time it took to
sign the contract, get permits, and secure insurance to begin the project. Most industry partners
felt that their goals were met and their expectations were fulfilled for their projects. Most felt
they developed good relationships with the agencies, although some felt that communication
towards the end was unsatisfactory and did not believe the relationship would continue after the
project closed. The projects ran between six months and one year, which most partners felt was
enough time to demonstrate their technology. However, some thought that there should have
been a procedure in place for the agencies to follow if the technologies were successful in order
to continue. Industry partners felt there were many lessons learned about public private
partnerships and felt that this was one of the biggest successes of the project. Another success of
the project was the opportunity to demonstrate their technology to the agencies as well as the ITS
World Congress participants.
Successes and Challenges: Successes of the CFS included collaboration among public- public
and public- private partners, the chance to build relationships with other companies and agency
staff, access to public rights- of- way, the opportunity to modify their products based on
interactions with government, and the chance to develop and deploy technologies at a
manageable cost. While many of the industry partners felt the lack of funding may have
discouraged beneficial projects, many others felt it gave them an edge over those who needed
funding and provided a more equal playing field among those who did not. Challenges noted
were agencies not facilitating partnerships between industry participants, uncertainty about
agency interest following submissions, risk and uncertainties, short contract length, a lack of
familiarity between agency and industry, no procedures in place to continue with successful
projects, and the difficulty of including Southern California projects at the ITS World Congress.
23
Government Agency Partners
Interviews were also conducted with public agency staff involved in the CFS process. As with
the industry interviews, there was one set of interviews after conclusion of the CFS agreements,
a second set of interviews after deployment and the ITS World Congress, and a final set of
interviews after the close of the projects.
Evaluation, Negotiation and Agreement: Agency staff felt that evaluating CFS proposals was
difficult because the process was unfamiliar. They were reluctant to reject proposals that did not
meet the criteria or were vague because the CFS promised a period for negotiation and project
refinement. However, the negotiation process proved to be quite time consuming because many
respondents turned in vague proposals that required revision and reevaluation. Agency staff felt
that the agreement and encroachment permits needed to be executed sooner, and contracts
needed to better lay out a work plan, insurance requirements, data sharing, identify all partners
and stakeholders, and better define the project for non- technical staff.
The short timeline for ITS World Congress made it difficult to deal with rights- of- way and other
policy issues, involve the appropriate technical and legal personnel for a meaningful agreement,
and get necessary approvals. Overall, the CFS could have been better organized. There needed to
be clearer goals for each project beyond the demonstration, more input from the agency on
project development, better responsiveness between partners, and status updates from industry.
Encroachment: Agency staff indicated that the CFS allowed for acceleration of the
encroachment process for several reasons: respondents were required to address encroachment-related
issues in their proposal; agency staff helped in the development of the project— ensuring
standards were met; the CFS gave companies authority to access the rights- of- way; agency
resources were designated in advance; agency staff had more authority to move a project
forward; and all permits were sent to one project manager rather than multiple divisions, which
reduced the timeline for approvals, made it easier to grant the permit, and provided industry
partners with a champion for their project. Staff also felt that the ease of permitting the CFS
24
projects could be due to their limited- term access, no funding, no fees, fewer procedures, fewer
departments involved in review, and that demonstration projects are easier to get permitted.
ITS World Congress: Agency staff thought the IMS was a good showcase and was eye opening
to see all the projects in a real- world setting, find out what the auto industry is up to, and learn
how transportation management systems can interact with motorists and add value to the
customer. However, industry needed to demonstrate real- term deployable technologies rather
than futuristic projects that may never get built. Moreover, there was also some concern that
some companies just wanted to showcase their project and lost interest after the ITS World
Congress. The agencies felt the World Congress was well planned, but the process to get the
projects up and running needed to be more efficient.
Project Closure: While several of the agency staff indicated that working with the industry
partners on post ITS World Congress project operation had been a good experience, others
expressed difficulties with technical issues as well as non- technical issues such as staff time.
Overall, the agency staff found it easy to work with the industry partners, although they would
have liked more in- person meetings to work though problems. All representatives felt that they
were able to complete their project goals and fulfill their expectations. However, there is an
ongoing dispute between one agency and an industry partner regarding intellectual property that
is causing the agency to re- evaluate the structure of partnerships with the private sector. The
agencies reported no trouble with closing out the projects or with removing the equipment and
felt that the project length was adequate. A common challenge among the agencies with the
projects was a lack of control compared to a usual project where the agency is paying for the
product or service. Most agency representatives felt that the biggest success of the projects was
the successful collection of data, and one felt that the projects showed how more value can be
derived from the existing equipment.
Successes and Challenges: Collaboration among participating agencies, improved relations and
trust between industry and agencies, and innovative submissions were found to be a successful
outcome of the CFS. The more challenging aspects of the CFS process fell into the categories of
lack of agency staff resources; lack of control over submissions, legal, and institutional issues;
25
issues regarding access to rights- of- way; issues over lack of funding; and an inadequate timeline.
“ No public funding” was thought to be a misnomer because the agencies expended a lot of staff
time to make the projects work and waived the agency fee for the encroachment permit. At the
same time, not providing funding created a passive relationship between the partners, limited the
type and level of demonstration applications, limited the incentive for companies to match
priorities with the public sector, and made it difficult for some companies to participate including
one company that ended their contract early due to lack of resources. The CFS was thought to
create a paradox because the public agencies wanted to use the data and post it to the public for
free, but the private sector want to sell the data as part of their business model. There were
limitations on how the data could be sent out to the public and uncertainty on continuing to use
the data after the demonstration period. Moreover, simple projects were complicated by legal
issues such as intellectual property and liability and the procurement issue was not addressed by
the CFS, which makes it difficult to proceed to the next step of acquiring industry products.
2.4 Recommendations and Other Considerations:
The following recommendations and other considerations are based on observations of ICI
project staff managing the CFS process and confidential interviews with CFS agency and
industry partners at periodic intervals during the process.
Workshop:
Recommendations:
• Allow enough time for outreach before the workshop( s) to bring the right industry
players to the table. If the effort encompasses a large area ( i. e. the State of
California), hold multiple workshops with equal time for outreach for each workshop.
Have local agency stakeholders.
• Create a setting for industry participants to network with each other and begin to
brainstorm ideas in response to the CFS and information provided during the
workshop.
26
• Companies are there to learn what the public agencies are willing to offer, so include
as much detail as possible.
• Develop a clear problem statement. Be as specific as possible.
• Be very clear about what the agencies can offer to industry under the CFS.
Other Considerations:
• Determine if a draft of the CFS should be released in advance of the workshop or at
the workshop.
• Determine if the workshop is to educate the public about the opportunities of the CFS
or if the workshop is to get input on the CFS draft before finalization and release.
• Determine if agency staff should meet with industry in advance of the workshop, after
the workshop, or after submission during negotiation. Be cognizant of treating all
potential industry partners equally.
• Set up and articulate procedures for Q and A. Again, be cognizant of treating all
potential industry partners equally.
Submission and Evaluation:
Recommendations:
• Allow enough time between release of the final CFS/ Q and A and the date for
submitting proposals, especially if industry is being encouraged to partner together
for the submission.
• Set a date for initial response to the proposals and keep this date.
• Have appropriate agency staff time allocated for proposal review.
• Communicate to industry when they can expect a response to their proposals and
keep this date.
• Build in additional time for review, if multiple agencies are involved.
Other Considerations:
• There will be a balance between encouraging innovation and defining a specific
problem to be addressed to receive clear proposals. A vague or broad problem
27
statement leaves more room for innovation, but it also leaves room for proposals that
are not well defined. If there is a specific problem to be addressed, state this clearly in
the CFS.
• For the ICI CFS, a period of time was specified for discussion about project specific
details. If a similar discussion time is allocated, set a timeline for discussion and keep
it, and determine go/ no- go thresholds for the proposals in the event proposals are
submitted that rely too much on the post- submission discussion process.
Non- Disclosure Issues:
Recommendations:
• Determine in advance if the agencies want to provide some level of confidentiality for
the industry submissions. If confidentiality will be provided, limit the number of
agency staff reviewing the proposals.
• If confidentiality will be provided, require a non- confidential project description with
the proposal that can be circulated more widely.
• Determine in advance if the agencies will serve as project integrators, introducing
ideas and technologies to other potential partners. For the ICI CFS some of the
industry participants were disappointed because they expected the agencies to team
them up with other complementary industry and technology, which the agencies
could not do due to confidentiality issues.
Other Considerations:
• Providing confidentiality provides industry with more confidence that they can
include innovative technologies, uses of technologies, and business models in their
proposal without losing their competitive edge. However, managing confidentiality
from the agency perspective may be an added burden.
28
Negotiation and Agreement:
Recommendations:
• Build in enough time and staff resources for the negotiation period. Include agency
legal counsel in the negotiation team to expedite resolution of legal matters.
• Respond in a timely manner to industry requests and concerns. This is especially
important if no funds are being awarded.
• Set a target date for completion in consultation with the potential industry partner so
both parties can strive to meet the deadline. The deadline for project agreement
should have sufficient time for deployment, so the system can be tested and modified,
if necessary, before the projects are showcased to live audiences.
Other Considerations:
• If the CFS is issued by multiple agencies, determine if each agency will contract
separately with the industry or will one project agreement represent all participating
agencies.
• Specify what the agencies are providing ( rights- of- way, data, other facilities) and
under what circumstances.
• If encroachment permits will be necessary, build in enough time so the encroachment
permit applications can immediately follow the signing of the CFS agreement. There
must be enough time to allow the CFS agreement negotiation and encroachment
permit application to occur sequentially ( rather than in parallel) to avoid the awkward
position of moving forward with a project before the agreement is finalized.
• Recognize that smaller companies have limited resources. Consider developing a way
to work with smaller companies that minimizes expenses associated with negotiating
an agreement to proceed. For example, legal and insurance costs may be daunting to a
smaller company with limited resources.
29
Funding:
Workshop attendees understood why the public agencies were not offering money, but most
stated that lack of funding would limit who would submit a proposal and the quality of what
would be proposed. For some, access to rights- of- way and ITS World Congress exposure was
not enough to justify the expense and risk.
Recommendations:
• Be clear if there will be funding ( or in- kind participation) and under what parameters.
• If there is no funding available to the industry respondents, state this clearly in the
CFS.
• Be cognizant of non- monetary agency resources devoted to the project ( especially
staff time).
Implementation & Operation:
Recommendations:
• Articulate the different requirements for mounting devices within the rights- of- way,
depending on the type of infrastructure used.
• Ensure communications continue throughout the operations phase.
Other Considerations:
• Agency staff and industry need to be aware of the impact that contractual and
approval delays have on overall operations including: the ability to fix bugs, change
software formats, order parts, and collaborate with other partners.
• Align companies early in the process so they have the opportunity to combine
resources, rather than overlap infrastructure.
30
World Congress:
Recommendations:
• If industry partners are being invited to participate in an event, be clear on the
parameters of participation ( who is responsible for the project operation and interface
with the event planners, financial outlays for the event, etc.).
• A letter of understanding that outlines agency, industry partner, and event planner
responsibilities might be helpful.
• Execute a marketing plan for highlighting the CFS as a model for public- private
partnerships during the ITS World Congress or other public event.
Other Considerations:
• The ITS World Congress was a great motivator for all parties to meet the final
deadline.
• The ITS World Congress was a motivator for industry participation, and for many
industry partners, the event was considered good compensation for not receiving
funding.
• Industry responds well to public showcase events.
• Consider creating a VIP day that consists only of industry VIPs and governmental
officials. This would allow more time for governmental staff not directly involved in
the CFS to learn about the projects, technologies, and applications.
Project Closure:
Recommendations:
• Industry should be notified of the terms of purchase for goods or services in the event
that the agency wants to purchase it during the project initiation phase.
• All parties should understand the terms of a continued mutually beneficial public-private
relationship in the event that the partners want to continue the relationship
beyond the demonstration, well in advance of the close of the project.
31
• Regular check- in meetings between industry and agency partners would be beneficial,
as well as a project closure meeting to determine project closure procedures and next
steps.
Other Considerations:
• The motivation to continue operating after the showcase event may depend on the
industry partner having identified a business model. Pre- project evaluation of the
business model for each project may help ensure that projects continue to the end of
the contract period.
Public- Private Partnership:
Recommendations:
• Understand the business model associated with each proposal in order to realize the
business motivation for participation and if this is a business model that the agencies
can participate in.
• Articulate the common goals and mutual benefit to enhance the collaborative effort
among all the parties.
• More internal communication between upper agency management and individual
divisions would help raise awareness of the unique CFS process and how to respond
to industry requests.
Other Considerations:
• If there is not a clear business model ( i. e., a non- profit or the company is motivated
by factors that are not directly related to the technology they will be installing), they
may not be a good long- term partner for the agency.
• For any business models pertaining to the acquisition, processing, or dissemination of
data, it should be very clear on who owns what data and under what circumstances.
Both the industry and the agency may have reason to own the data.
• Industry must see a profit opportunity to participate.
32
• Industry needs to feel that the project risks are shared among all the participants.
Since “ risk” is defined differently between private industry and a public agency, it
might be worth articulating what each party brings to the table and their associated
risks.
Strengths and Weaknesses
CFS Strengths:
• The CFS process showed that the participating agencies were trying to change the way
they do business and be more entrepreneurial; established the agency’s commitment to
developing relations with the private sector; brought multiple jurisdictions together;
established cooperation among other public agencies; provided a good model to improve
future governmental processes and deal with budget constraints; allowed public agencies
to be more flexible, entrepreneurial, and align the procurement process to keep up with
current technology; and fostered creativity.
• Benefits to industry included: the opportunity to form valuable partnerships and relations
with public agencies; access Caltrans rights- of- way; present new ideas and technologies;
test products; gain exposure for and grow their business; showcase results, experiences,
research to the public, potential clients, and governmental agencies; and bring a product
to market.
CFS Weaknesses:
• CFS process weaknesses included: the lack of specificity in the CFS left industry unsure
of what the agencies wanted; industry was reluctant to spend money preparing a proposal
given limited guidance, no funding, and no guarantee of return for their effort; too much
detail was required in the first round of proposal submissions to protect intellectual
property or allow agencies to discuss projects freely; and the CFS may have involved
more paperwork than was necessary for CFS partners that wanted access to MTC’s 511
33
data stream 3 . Funding was a major issue for many respondents who felt the lack of public
funds limited who submitted and the quality of what they submitted. Moreover, access to
rights- of- way and ITS World Congress exposure was not worth the expense or risk to
some companies.
• Other weaknesses related to communication and partnership issues. There was a lack of
adequate feedback and communication between agency and industry; a lack of effort to
facilitate partnerships between industry as promised; a lack of agency contribution in the
partnership ( e. g., risk taking); and a lack of authority by agency and ICI project staff to
move projects forward. Decisions regarding moving projects towards agreement needed
to be made sooner in the process to allow companies to cut their losses ( time and money)
early.
Additional Issues:
Collaboration Among Industry Partners:
Industry partners indicated they had anticipated more active support from the agencies in
matching their company/ product with other CFS companies/ products. Either the agencies should
match proposals with other companies in a way that benefits both parties or create a forum for
the respondents themselves to choose who they would prefer to partner with and combine
resources.
Sharing Risks and Benefits:
The public sector and private sectors perceive and deal with risk and benefit very differently. For
the public sector, the risks were in relation to the agencies duties to provide a safe traveling
environment for the public. For the private sector, the risk was in lost profit. Respondents stated
that public- private partnerships should include investment, value, and risk to both sides, and that
both parties should be clear on what they want and expect going into a relationship. Moreover,
3 MTC already provides access to the 511 data stream.
34
respondents felt that public agencies need to offer more public- private partnership opportunities
in the future and be more flexible if they want innovative ideas from entrepreneurs.
Data Ownership:
Use and ownership of the data that is generated during a project should be clearly defined in
advance. This is especially important if the value of the project to the private sector is in the data.
For these CFS- style projects the value to the agency is also often in the data.
Flexible Agency Response to Proposals:
A strategic decision was made to circulate all of the proposals to all of the agency partners. This
turned out to be beneficial since some of the agencies expressed interest in projects that were not
targeted to their region.
35
Section III: Conclusion
California’s ICI and the CFS demonstrated a new way of doing business for Caltrans and MTC.
The process showed how public agencies might engage with private industry for the deployment
of ITS technologies in a mutually beneficial public- private partnership format.
Interviews with participating public agency staff and industry partners revealed that there is
much to be gained from this innovative process. The CFS brought new technologies and
applications to the agencies, which was a primary goal, while also enhancing business
opportunities for the private sector. The ICI project demonstrated that common ground can be
found between the profit motive of the private sector and the pubic safety and mobility goals of a
transportation agency.
Interviews with the ICI Working Group revealed that the members of the Working Group hoped
the CFS would be a catalyst for future public- private partnerships and would successfully
demonstrate ITS technologies. The ICI Working Group had high hopes for the demonstrations in
conjunction with the 2005 ITS World Congress. The ICI Working Group indicated that most of
their goals were met, with the greatest challenge surrounding state laws on procurement and
contracting that limited the agencies ability to purchase services and technologies from the CFS
partners.
Interviews regarding the early phase of the project, including outreach, the public workshops,
and release of the CFS, were conducted with the CFS respondents, industry partners and agency
partners. During this early phase of the project the strengths that were reported included an
innovative process, the opportunity for discussions between agency and industry, potential
access to the rights- of- way, and the goal to bring multiple jurisdictions together. Challenges
included issues pertaining to intellectual property, limited communication, and a short timeline.
The second phase of the project, included proposal evaluation, contract negotiation, and
applicable permits. Agency and industry interviews revealed that the opportunity for discussion
and negotiation was helpful and that the agency internal encroachment process was streamlined.
36
Evaluating the proposals was a challenge because the process was new, resulting in a longer
timeline and greater staff time than anticipated. Contract negotiations also took more time than
anticipated and deadlines were missed. Industry would have appreciated more feedback from the
agencies during this phase of the project.
All participants were pleased with the deployment and demonstration phase of the ICI project.
There was concern that some industry partners focused primarily on the ITS World Congress
demonstration and lost interest in the longer term goals of the project. Most participants felt they
were able to complete their project goals and fulfill their expectations. A common challenge
among the agencies was the lack of control compared to a project where the agency was paying
for the product or service.
Successes of the ICI included collaboration among public- public and public- private partners, the
chance to build relationships, and access to rights- of- way. Challenges included the lack of
funding, unclear procedures to continue with successful projects, procurement issues, limits on
agency staff resources and the timeline.
Recommendations to improve the process of future CFS- style solicitations include extending the
timeline for public outreach, allocating additional dedicated staff time, setting and adhering to
deadlines during contract negotiation and improving communication between agency and
industry partners. Other important considerations for future CFS- style solicitations include
finding a balance between encouraging innovation and clarity in the solicitation and resolving
procurement issues pertaining to the agency industry relationship after the close of the CFS
projects.
The lessons learned during the ICI and with the CFS can be instrumental to improving future
CFS- style solicitations, maximizing benefits for the public agencies, the private sector, and the
traveling public.
37
References
i Shaheen, Susan, Finson, Rachel, McCormick, Cynthia. Initial Scoping of Bay Area Smart
Mobility Corridors and ITS World Congress. California PATH working paper UCB- ITS- PWP-
2004- 9. November 2004.
ii Shaheen, Susan, Finson, Rachel, Lingham, Virginia. Innovative Corridors Initiative: Business
Model Analysis. California PATH working paper. December 2006.
iii Durrenberger, Randy and Chang, Elbert. ITS Project Demonstration: Program Summary
Report. Kimley- Horn and Associates. Oakland, California. Prepared for the California
Department of Transportation. December 27, 2007 ( Draft).
iv USDOT FHWA [ 4910- 22- P] TEA21; Guidelines for the Evaluation of Operational Tests and
Deployment Projects for Intelligent Transportation Systems
http:// www. its. dot. gov/ evaluation/ eguide_ tea21. htm
v USDOT ITS Evaluation Guidelines – ITS Evaluation Resource Guide,
http:// www. its. dot. gov/ evaluation/ eguide_ resource. htm
vi ibid
vii USDOT ITS website. http:// www. its. dot. gov/ its_ overview. htm. Accessed June 6, 2006.
viii Benouar, Hamed. Deploying the ITS Infrastructure in California. Intellimotion: Research
Updates in Intelligent Transportation Systems. California Partners for Advanced Transit and
Highways. Volume 10, No. 1. 2002.
ix National Highway Institute 1999. Intelligent Transportation Systems Public Private
Partnerships – participant workbook. Washington DC: USDOT, FHWA, NHI Course No.
13603.
x Elizabeth A. Deakin and William L. Garrison. Private Sector Funding For Urban
Transportation: Some Comments on Public- Private Partnerships. Berkeley, Calif. Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, [ 1985].
xi United States Department Of Transportation, Report To Congress On Public- Private
Partnerships. December 2004.
xii Valerie Briggs, Todd Delk, C. Michael Walton. Public- Private Partnerships for Providing
ITS Case Studies in Transportation And Other Industries. Austin, Texas: Southwest Region
University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, University of
Texas; [ Springfield, Va. Available through the National Technical Information Service, 1999].
38
xiii Booz · Allen & Hamilton Inc. with Miller & Van Eaton, P. L. L. C. and K. L. Engineering, Inc.
Final Report: Guidelines for Enhancing Its Public/ Private Partnerships In Wisconsin. Prepared
For Wisconsin Department Of Transportation. May 1, 2000.
xiv The Public- Private Partnership ( P3) Office. What is a Public Private Partnership?
http:// strategis. ic. gc. ca/ epic/ internet/ inpupr- bdpr. nsf/ en/ h_ qz01546e. html
xv Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. Preliminary Report: How can public- private
partnerships accelerate the availability of vaccines for the developing world? Produced for the
World Bank. July 2001.
xvi Booz · Allen & Hamilton.
xvii Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP. States with Public Private Partnership Authority as
of February 2004. 2004.
39
Appendices
40
41
APPENDIX A:
Call for Submissions Solicitation
42
43
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY________________________________ GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS MS67
1727 30 th STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816- 7006
PHONE ( 916) 227- 6000
FAX ( 916) 227- 6155
INTERNET http:// caltrans- opac. ca. gov
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
October 15, 2003
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS ( CFS)
CFS Number 0587A33
Pilot Projects for Demonstration in Conjunction with the 2005 ITS World Congress
- NO FUNDS TO BE AWARDED FROM THIS SOLICITATION. A CONTRACT
MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARDED FROM THIS SOLICITATION.
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in cooperation with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC), the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ( MTA), the Intelligent Transportation Society of America
( ITSA), the California Center for Innovative Transportation ( CCIT) and other entities
is soliciting participation to implement pilot projects to test and illustrate traveler
services that facilitate mobility, convenience and safety to travelers. This solicitation
is envisioned to attract specific ideas on new technologies and systems and provide
value to travelers. This Call for Submissions ( CFS) is an opportunity to bring
common elements of services to the traveling public by leveraging new technologies
into the statewide transportation system.
Caltrans and its partners have issued the enclosed CFS to foster private/ public
partnerships that will develop emerging intelligent transportation systems ( ITS)
technologies to enhance mobility, traveler choice and safety. Technologies to collect,
process and distribute accurate real- time information are especially welcome. You
are invited to review and respond to this CFS Number 0587A33, entitled “ Pilot
Projects for Demonstration in Conjunction with the 2005 ITS World Congress.” In
submitting your documents, you must comply with the instructions found herein.
Reference the attached CFS for detailed information regarding:
􀀂 Background
􀀂 Project Description and Purpose
􀀂 Project Requirements
􀀂 Proposal Format and Content
􀀂 Questions and Answers
􀀂 Proposal Submission / Evaluation Process
􀀂 General Information
44
If you have questions, the contact person for this CFS is:
Rachel Finson, Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) Project
California Center for Innovative Transportation
rfinson@ path. berkeley. edu
Fax Number: ( 510) 642- 0910
Interested parties should submit documents to:
California Center for Innovative Transportation ( CCIT)
Attention: Rachel Finson
2105 Bancroft Way, 3
rd
Floor, MC 3830
Berkeley, CA 94720- 3830
This CFS contains the entire terms and conditions relating to demonstration
program, and no other terms, conditions or representations should be considered
unless issued in writing as an addendum to this CFS.
Documents for ICI projects throughout California must be received no later than
5: 00 P. S. T. on December 1, 2003.
Documents for ICI projects throughout California must be received no later than
5: 00 P. S. T. on December 1, 2003.
Documents for projects in the Innovative Mobility Showcase/ campus- like setting
( described on page 8 of this CFS) received by December 1, 2003 will receive priority
consideration. Documents will also be accepted and evaluated after December 1, 2003.
45
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Background 4
Project Description and Purpose 6
Project Requirements 7
Proposal Format and Content 9
Questions and Answers 12
Proposal Submission/ Evaluation Process 12
General Information 17
Appendix A: Current ITS Developments in San Francisco Bay Area A1
Appendix B: Current ITS Developments in Southern California B1
A) Background
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) and its partners are interested in
enhanced, value- added services that are self- supporting and would be showcased during the 2005
Intelligent Transportation Systems ( ITS) World Congress. The ITS World Congress Trade Show
is held annually in different locations all over the world. Madrid, Spain sponsors this year’s
event; Japan plays host in 2004, and in 2005 the event will be held in San Francisco, California,
USA. The ITS World Congress Trade Show consists of numerous venues for participants to
learn about technologies and share information. The venues include workshops, presentations,
an exhibit hall and technical tours.
The objective of this CFS is ITS pilot demonstration projects that can be showcased throughout
California during the 2005 ITS World Congress in San Francisco and other parts of the State.
Caltrans and its partners believe that significant benefits to Californians can be reaped by
leveraging new technologies into the statewide transportation system. The projects resulting
from this CFS are expected to demonstrate, on a pilot basis, current and emerging ITS
technologies and test the benefits to all parties. Services could include – but are not limited to –
more efficient modal connectivity; enabling the full spectrum of mode choice to travelers; en-route
advisories; improving safety and faster incident response times; border crossing and weigh-in
motion technologies; and enhanced or virtual Transportation Management Centers.
Respondents to this CFS should demonstrate how their participation would benefit the traveling
public and what State or local facilities they would require from Caltrans and/ or partners for
demonstration. Respondents shall identify the State or local facilities they plan to use.
46
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans):
Caltrans is the manager of interregional transportation services; more specifically, Caltrans has
the traditional role of owner and operator of the 15,000 mile State Highway System. Caltrans
promotes California’s economic vitality and enhances its citizens’ quality of life by providing for
the movement of people, goods, services and information. Caltrans is responsible for the
delivery of the State’s Transportation Improvement Program; planning, designing, building,
operating and maintaining California’s state highway systems. In addition to a changing mix of
transportation modes - such as highways, rail, mass transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and aeronautics,
Caltrans coordinates the solutions to complex issues such as land use, environmental standards,
and the formation of partnerships between private industry and local, State and Federal agencies
to promote productivity, reliability, safety, flexibility and performance in the State of California.
For more information see: www. dot. ca. gov
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC):
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine- county San
Francisco Bay Area. MTC functions as both the regional transportation planning agency— a
State designation— and for federal purposes, as the region’s metropolitan planning organization
( MPO). As such, it is responsible for the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive
blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. MTC is also responsible for regional operating projects, such as
TravInfo ® / 511org, TransLink ® and Freeway Service Patrol. MTC is also authoring the
Regional ITS Architecture for the San Francisco Bay Area to define long- term priorities, needs
and investment strategies for ITS. For more information see: www. mtc. ca. gov.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( MTA):
MTA is unique among the nation’s transportation agencies as it serves as transportation planner
and coordinator, designer, builder, and operator for one of the country’s largest, most populous
counties. More than 9.6 million people – nearly one- third of California’s residents – live, work,
and play within its 1,433- square mile service area. MTA is responsible for the continuous
improvement of an efficient and effective transportation system for Los Angeles County. For
more information see: www. mta. net.
Intelligent Transportation Society of America ( ITSA):
The mission of ITS America is to coordinate and foster a public/ private partnership to make the
U. S. surface transportation system safer and more effective by accelerating the identification,
development, integration, and deployment of advanced technology. ITS America membership is
approximately 50% private sector companies and 50% academia, government, and associations.
These organizations represent more than 60,000 individuals involved in ITS programs. For more
information see: www. itsa. org.
California Center for Innovative Transportation:
The California Center for Innovative Transportation ( CCIT) is a center within the University of
California ( UC) at Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies. The Center was founded by UC
with support from Caltrans and industry. The goal at CCIT is to facilitate and accelerate the
implementation and commercial deployment of advanced transportation products and services to
improve traveler safety, comfort and convenience — all necessary components of a vibrant and
47
growing economy. CCIT houses the Innovative Mobility Research ( IMR) group and is linked to
the UC Statewide testbeds such as the Irvine traffic management testbed, as well as Caltrans
Transportation Management Centers. CCIT collaborates with industry, academic institutions and
other public agencies to develop, test and deploy products that are in their latest phases of
research and ready for implementation. CCIT facilitates access to state of the art facilities for
testing and refining products. For more information see: www. calccit. org.
The 2005 World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems
In 2005 in San Francisco, ITS America will host the World Congress on ITS, the largest annual
international event focusing on technology solutions for improving surface transportation safety
and efficiency. San Francisco was selected as the 2005 venue because of its status as one of the
world’s great cities, as well its outstanding ability to showcase innovative solutions for moving
people and goods. Ten thousand people— world transportation and technology leaders,
researchers, businesses and consumers— are expected to visit the 2005 World Congress in an
effort to learn more about the systems that improve our daily lives.
B) Project Description and Purpose
Integrated information technologies can improve the efficiency of California’s transportation
system. Caltrans, MTC, MTA and other partners are interested in accelerating the deployment of
ITS technologies, encouraging innovations, and furthering seamless integration of ITS
technologies. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, roadways, public transit, rail, smart
parking, mobility services and commercial goods movement.
The purpose of this CFS is to extend an invitation to industry, transportation agencies, the goods
movement industry, and local governments that might want to participate in the ITS pilot
demonstrations in conjunction with the ITS World Congress in San Francisco in 2005. This CFS
solicits proposals for enhanced, value- added ITS services and technology.
In appropriate situations, Caltrans, MTC, MTA and other partners may offer access to State or
local facilities. In return Caltrans, MTC, MTA and other partners hope to gain access to better
real- time information that will improve transportation options for individual travelers as well as
provide for enhanced transportation management. The goal is to maximize throughput on the
current transportation infrastructure and increase choices among modes, which will result in
reduced congestion and a more efficient system. Another goal is to reduce collisions as well as
the severity of incidents.
• Caltrans, MTC, MTA and other partners may provide access to facilities based on identified
need. Access to these resources will be determined on a case- by- case basis. Any use of
State or local facilities may be subject to successful application for an encroachment permit
issuance environmental approval pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
( CEQA) and any other applicable statutes and regulations.
• No respondent will receive exclusive access to public assets.
48
• Caltrans, MTC will not advertise on behalf of the respondents.
• Caltrans may, at its discretion, conduct independent evaluations of the projects.
EXAMPLE SERVICES
The examples shown below are not intended to limit the content of responses to the CFS; rather,
they are intended to illustrate the types of project proposals of services that could be submitted
by respondents:
Traveler Information Services –
• Dynamic Multimodal Routing and Trip Planning
• “ Smart Parking,” i. e., availability of parking, payment
• Incident / Special Event Reporting
• Location Information: Hydrogen Infrastructure, Tourist Information
• Weather Information Services
• Arterial Travel Time
Personalized Services –
• Dynamic Route Advisory
• Carsharing and Other Shared- Use Vehicle Services ( e. g., Segway HTs and e- bikes)
• Public Transportation Trip Itinerary Planning
• Convenience Features: Web Access to Travelers, Transactional Services
• Real- time transit information
Traffic Management –
• TMC Enhancements: “ Virtual” TMC, Flow Balancing, Information Routing
• Improvements to Incident Response
• Innovative Ways of Using Traffic Data Currently Collected by Caltrans
• Real- time traffic information, including vehicle speed and volume
Safety –
• Vehicle Position Services
• Roadside- to- Vehicle Communication
Common enabling technologies may include, but are not limited to: use of probe vehicles,
wireless communications, message sign displays, and computational/ routing mobility
equipment in the region where it is implemented.
For examples of existing ITS projects in the San Francisco Bay Area see Appendix A, “ Current
ITS Developments in the Bay Area”. For examples of existing ITS projects in Southern
California see Appendix B, “ Current ITS Developments in Southern California.”
49
C) Project Requirements
Proposal submittals will be categorized into one of three project forms.
a) Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) in the San Francisco Bay Area: Caltrans and CCIT,
based at the University of California, will manage the ICI in partnership with requisite local
agencies.
The ICI refers to the various roadway and railway elements operated by different
jurisdictions and various travel modes for goods and people movement. The goal of the ICI
deployments is to demonstrate the technologies, systems and ideas on a pilot basis for
eventual wide- scale deployment, if appropriate. The ICI projects selected from this CFS
must be implemented by July 1, 2005 in preparation for the November 2005 World Congress
in San Francisco.
b) Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) Throughout California: Pilot projects in other
regions of the State ( e. g. Los Angeles and San Diego) are encouraged to demonstrate ITS
across California. These pilot projects could be demonstrated/ showcased during the 2005
World Congress event in San Francisco and/ or before or after the World Congress as co-venues
in regions with high tourist appeal. These projects will be subject to the same goals
and selection process as projects in the San Francisco Bay Area.
c) Innovative Mobility Experience Showcase. In conjunction with the 2005 ITS World
Congress, an “ Innovative Mobility Experience Showcase,” located in a campus- like setting
will demonstrate the future of transportation. The Innovative Mobility Experience Showcase
is expected to be the venue for technologies that may not need to be demonstrated as part of
the ICI. For example, these projects will include technologies that are not yet ready for
deployment, but show future possibilities. This venue could also include smaller scale ITS
technologies. This campus- like setting will provide an ideal opportunity to showcase
integrated technologies to the public and professional audiences and may serve as a catalyst
to future real- world deployments. They may also highlight vehicle control technologies,
such as precision docking and advanced vehicle safety systems. These Innovative Mobility
Experience Showcase projects may also result in a transportation infrastructure legacy for the
campus site, if appropriate.
Technology providers chosen to participate in the ICI and/ or Innovative Mobility Experience
Showcase must coordinate their participation in the exhibit hall with the World Congress
organizers in order to have their company products demonstrated as part of the World
Congress.
Proposals for innovative concepts across California, including rural areas, are strongly
encouraged. For example, concepts that provide data to enhance the management of Caltrans
and partner operations but require minimal use of existing resources ( e. g., use of probe
vehicles and wireless communications) are encouraged. Proposals that address real- time and
archival information for performance measurement and planning are also encouraged.
Additionally, while proposals may be directed toward either the Innovative Mobility
Experience Showcase or ICI, Caltrans and partners reserve the right to direct them to one or
the other, or both. Moreover, Caltrans or its designee will perform the role of system
50
architect and coordinator, interacting with respondents to request change and facilitate
teaming among respondents. Proposals requiring work on or use of State or local facilities
shall be in conformance with the requisite agency’s construction and safety policies,
guidelines and standards. Any hardware, equipment and/ or software will be removed as
necessary at the direction of Caltrans and/ or its partners who owns the facility in which the
equipment or software was installed.
Project Plan
Interested developers must submit a proposal which indicates the type and extent of
improvements and services offered to the traveling public or public agency. The plan must
define the financial responsibilities of the private developer/ operator and the proposed roles of
Caltrans or partners in the development and operation of the project. The project plan must
describe the type of work, if applicable, needed to be done on State or local facilities along with
the type of access needed to State or local facilities.
Resource Plan
All project proposals must include a resource plan indicating what resources the respondent
intends to provide the project ( financial, hardware, software and personnel) as well as required
partner resources, such as Caltrans right of way or access to MTC, MTA or other partner
facilities. For projects with multiple partners, each partner’s role and contribution must be
outlined.
Management and Financial Qualifications of Proposer
The qualifications and experience of each of the participating organizations and key management
personnel must be described. If a joint venture arrangement is to be used, each of the joint
venture partners must present a description of qualifications and experience relevant to their role
in the proposed development and/ or operation. Proposals should demonstrate that the respondent
understands that they will be solely responsible for funding the project for the specified pilot
demonstration and will provide necessary insurance, if applicable.
Technical Experience
Proposals should describe respondents’ experience in developing, implementing and operating
systems/ facilities similar to those being considered for this project. Include experience, if any,
on comparable public/ private joint development projects or public activities service operations.
51
Proposal Format and Content
The proposal shall fully describe the commitments of the respondent relative to the initial and
long- term development, demonstration, operation, maintenance, and subsequent removal of pilot
project.
Proposals submitted in response to this CFS shall conform to the format set forth below and in
the order shown
Proposals must at a minimum, address:
• Benefit to the traveling public both in the movement of goods, people and information and
safety;
• Operational concept, including requirements on system capacity and workload for Caltrans
and other transportation providers;
• Specific technologies;
• Identified partners and contribution;
• Description of pilot implementation; and
• General development, demonstration and operation plan and timeline, to include, at a
minimum, a discussion on models showing the economic benefits for all partners.
Proposals shall not exceed 20 pages. Additional information may be requested.
Cover/ Transmittal Letter
1. The proposal submittal shall be transmitted with a cover letter signed by a party authorized to
represent the company or partner companies.
2. The cover letter must contain the following information:
( a) The project title;
( b) the name of the entity submitting the proposal;
( c) all project partners;
( d) the technology to be implemented and desired location; and
( e) the expected outcomes ( i. e. reduced congestion, improved mode choice, etc.).
3. The cover letter shall provide the name, title, address, and telephone number of individuals
with authority to negotiate and contractually bind the proposing organization. The
transmittal letter will constitute certification by the respondent that the respondent complies
with State and Federal nondiscrimination requirements. An unsigned proposal or one signed
by an individual not authorized to bind the respondent will be rejected. However, the
selection by Caltrans and/ or partner agency will not be binding until an Agreement has been
executed and approved by Caltrans and or/ partner agency.
4. The Table of Contents and List of Exhibits shall indicate the page number of each section
and exhibit.
5. The following information must be placed on the lower left corner of the submittal shipping
package:
52
CFS#
Project Title
Respondent’s/ Name/ Firm
Attention: ( Rachel Finson)
DO NOT OPEN
6. Proposals may be either mailed or delivered by hand to the office noted on the cover of this
CFS. Proposals may not be sent by fax machine. Proposals are not to be submitted to
Caltrans, MTC, or MTA and will not be returned to respondent.
Questions and Answers
Respondents with questions about the requirements of this CFS must submit those questions in
writing to the address shown below. Question submittal must include the individual’s name, the
name and address of the firm. All questions must be received no later than November 7, 2003.
Questions will be answered in writing by November 24, 2003.
MAILED OR FAXED TO:
Fax No.: ( 510) 642- 0910
California Center for Innovative Transportation ( CCIT)
Attention: Rachel Finson
2105 Bancroft Way, 3rd Floor, MC 3830
Berkeley, CA 94720- 3830
After the deadline for question submittal has passed, written responses to questions will be
collectively compiled, and e- mailed as an Addendum, to each individual or firm who
downloaded this CFS from the Internet or who requested this CFS by calling the recorded bid
line: ( 916) 227- 6090. A hard copy of written responses will be provided upon request, and an
electronic version will be uploaded to Caltrans’s website ( see web link below). Refer to Section
G, Time Schedule, to get this CFS’s schedule of events and dates. It is the responsibility of the
respondent to inquire about an expected Addendum. Respondents can contact the contact person
named above or check Caltrans’s website:
http:// www. caltrans- opac. ca. gov/ contract. htm
53
Proposal Submission/ Evaluation Process
Proposal Submittal, Modification, Resubmittal, and Withdrawal
Respondents are to submit an original proposal marked “ ORIGINAL “ and seven ( 7) copies of
the proposal to:
Rachel Finson, Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) Project
California Center for Innovative Transportation ( CCIT)
2105 Bancroft Way, 3rd Floor, MC 3830
Berkeley, CA 94720- 3830
Respondents submitting proposals may modify or withdraw the proposal at any time prior to the
submittal deadline. Such modification or withdrawal of a proposal shall be in writing and signed
by the same person signing the original proposal.
If the modification requested is only an addition to a proposal, seven ( 7) copies of the
modification shall be submitted in a sealed package, boldly marked “ Addition To ( project title)”,
and signed, and addressed the same as the original proposal.
54
The following flowchart identifies the process to be used for ICI pilot projects.
Proposals Received
Proposals Evaluated by
Appropriate Agency
Proposed Project( s) Selected
for Further Negotiation
Negotiation Between Pilot
Project Respondent( s) and
State/ Local Partner
Identify Pilot Project( s)
Requirements ( permit,
facilities, etc.)
Develop Agreement,
Permit, Etc.
Final Approval of Pilot
Project
Begin Deployment of Pilot
Project( s)
Test, Refine Pilot Project( s)
ITS World Congress Event
in San Francisco ( and
possible co- venues)
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
55
Evaluation Process
The selection will consist of representatives, from Caltrans, as well as any local or regional
agencies and technical experts. Proposals will be screened against the basic project requirements
( see page 7 of this CFS). Proposals that meet the basic project requirements will be evaluated
against the evaluation criteria listed below. Proposals that meet the project requirements and are
approved based on the evaluation criteria will move into a project development phase which will
include all requisite agencies and proposing parties to finalize the details of the project and
develop an agreement among the project partners.
Evaluation Criteria
1. Benefit to Caltrans, other partner agencies and the traveling public including economic and
environmental benefits, reduced congestion, improved safety, incident management and
travel time, and enhanced information for trip decision- making and traffic management. In
addition Caltrans will evaluate how the project submissions assist the agency in meeting its
five key goals: productivity, reliability, safety, flexibility, and performance.
2. Caltrans and partner agencies will evaluate the project submissions on the degree to which
these projects assist with data collection, processing and dissemination, including data
quality and integrity.
3. Project feasibility, including technical, environmental, and timeframe. Respondents should
demonstrate that their proposed pilot project is technically feasible, can receive
environmental approval, and can be implemented by July 1, 2005. Caltrans and partners are
interested in pilot demonstration projects that will accommodate evaluations. Pilot
demonstrations should operate for sufficient time to test the technology/ systems, to gather
data and prepare evaluations.
4. Company/ Agency Qualifications
5. Innovative Technology: Are the proposed technologies innovative or do they demonstrate an
innovative use or enhancement of an existing technology? Does the proposed project assist
with integrating ITS applications?
Acceptance and Rejection of Submissions
Caltrans and/ or its partners retain the right to disregard a minor deviation from the requirements
and may, at its sole discretion, request supplemental information or clarification of that
information submitted.
A selection committee will evaluate those proposals that are in conformance with the
” Evaluation Process” noted above. The evaluation criteria used to qualify prospective proposals
are described in Section F, “ Evaluation Process.”
56
Negotiations with Selected Proposer
Caltrans or its partners may elect to negotiate with the selected respondents, leading to a written
Agreement with Caltrans and/ or one of its partners about implementing the proposal. Any
agreement as a result of this CFS will be subject to all necessary State, Federal and Agency
approvals. If an agreement cannot be reached, negotiations will cease and no contractual
agreement written or implied will exist. Caltrans and/ or its partners reserve the right to reject any
proposal for non- compliance.
Selected respondent( s), shall, within ten ( 10) calendar days after written notification of selection,
meet with Caltrans and/ or its partners to begin negotiating the Agreement, application for an
encroachment permit ( if appropriate), and compliance with applicable federal and state statutes
and regulations Caltrans and/ or its partners will negotiate with the selected respondents the
length of the pilot project and evaluation. A sunset date for the pilot project demonstration and
evaluation will be included in the Agreement.
Caltrans
Within thirty ( 30) calendar days from the successful conclusion of negotiations, the selected
respondent( s) shall execute and deliver to Caltrans six ( 6) signed copies of the final negotiated
Agreement and a Performance Guarantee as described below. The negotiated final Agreement
shall be on forms provided by Caltrans. The successful respondent shall also furnish proof,
satisfactory to Caltrans, of the authority of the person or persons executing the Agreement and a
Performance Guarantee issued on behalf of their organization.
Partner Agencies
It is expected that partner agencies will incorporate a similar type process for the negotiated
agreement as Caltrans. However, due to varying agency requirements and not knowing which
agencies will participate in the CFS, the process and possibly the content of the negotiated
agreement may differ from the Caltrans process stated above.
Performance Guarantee
All bonds, and written commitments shall be issued by a company registered with the State
Insurance Commission to conduct business in the State of California and acceptable to Caltrans.
All bonds and written commitments shall be in a form acceptable to Caltrans and shall ensure
faithful and full observance and performance by the developer of all terms, conditions, covenants
and agreements relating to the construction of the described facility improvements described in
the Agreement.
Bonds may not be required in all cases. This requirement shall be assessed on a case by case
basis.
57
Indemnification
This CFS shall not commit Caltrans and/ or its partners to negotiate and execute any Agreement.
Caltrans and/ or partners reserve the right to accept proposals that, in the sole judgment of
Caltrans and/ or partners are in the best interest of the State and regions. Caltrans and/ or partners
reserve the right to reject any or all proposals or to modify or cancel, in part or in its entirety, this
CFS.
Caltrans and/ or partners will not reimburse submitting organizations for any costs incurred in the
preparation or submission of Proposals or the negotiation process, or the implementation of any
projects.
Intellectual Property Rights/ Proprietary Rights
All issues regarding intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, patents, copyrights,
trademarks, collective trade marks, collective membership marks, certification marks and service
marks shall remain the responsibility of those submitting proposals. This CFS will not address
any issues of or relating to intellectual property. Any agreements entered into subject to this
CFS shall be contingent upon a waiver and release and an agreement to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the State of California, its partners, agents, affiliates and its employees with
respect to any issues regarding intellectual property rights.
Confidentiality
Selection committee members shall not discuss any aspect of the evaluation proceedings or
content of proposals with anyone not designated as a selection committee member or
Chairperson for this CFS. This includes but is not limited to discussing any details regarding
project application.
Generally, at the time any “ bid” or “ submittal” is opened, it becomes public information. There
is an exception for proprietary information/ trade secrets in the California Public Records Act.
Respondents should make this claim at the time the proposal is submitted. Caltrans agrees to
not reveal any information voluntarily that is claimed as privileged; however persons submitting
a proposal should confer with their own legal counsel to determine whether any information
claimed as privileged would be considered privileged under the California Public Records Act
( Government Code section 6250 et. Seq.).
58
Amendments to the Requested Proposal
Caltrans and partners reserve the right to amend this CFS by addendum prior to the final date of
proposal submission.
General Information
Schedule
The schedule related to this CFS is as follows:
EVENT DATE
i. CFS available to prospective Respondents October 15, 2003
) Written Question Submittal Deadline November 7, 2003
Responses to Questions November 24, 2003
Final Date for Proposal Submission December 1, 2003
Completion of Proposal Evaluations* January 30, 2004
Detailed Discussion, Negotiations, Agreements, Plans,
Specifications, Approvals, and Installation
January 30, 2004 –
July 1, 2005
Projects must be deployed July 1, 2005
World Congress 2005 November, 2005
* By this date all respondents will be notified if their proposal has met the project requirements
and the selection criteria. Proposals that meet both the project requirements and the selection
criteria will move into more detailed discussion that may result in an agreement among the
project partners. If the proposal does not meet the basic requirements and selection criteria or
does not result in a mutual agreement among the parties the proposed project will not be
deployed.
State’s Exclusive Discretion
This CFS does not commit Caltrans or partners to execute an Agreement, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a proposal to this request, or to procure or contract for services or
supplies. Caltrans and partners reserve the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received
as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified firm, or to modify or cancel in part or in
its entirety the CFS.
No Third- Party Beneficiaries
There are no third- party beneficiaries, intended or unintended, of either this CFS or any
agreement arising herefrom.
59
APPENDIX B:
CFS Project Descriptions
The following project descriptions were provided by the participating industry partners for public
distribution October 2005.
60
61
Circumnav Networks, Inc. ( company name changed to Dash Navigation, Inc.)
Dynamic Route Advisory Navigation System
Circumnav Networks, Inc. is developing a dynamic route advisory navigation system to generate
real- time traffic data from probes. The company is integrating accurate, personalized roadway
traffic information with a cost- effective navigation solution to inform drivers of the quickest
route and estimated time of arrival, whether on their way to a client meeting, for a daily
commute, or for metropolitan- wide fleet management. The services leverage an inexpensive in-vehicle
navigation system ( under $ 500) with GPS to self- generate optimized roadway traffic data
from users as " floating car data" probes. The wireless service makes unique use of Wi- Fi
802.11b hardware and patent- pending software as a pre- cursor to DSRC availability for
occasional communication between vehicles and to Wi- Fi access points along the roadway,
minimizing communications costs. Traffic data is based primarily on roadway speeds and travel
times from the probes and from 511 travel time data, not incidents, and is thus highly
differentiated from radio/ TV broadcast traffic information.
The service will be launched in the San Francisco Bay Area prior to the 12th World Congress on
ITS. Circumnav is participating in the Innovative Corridors Initiative ( ICI) to gain access to the
roadside right- of- way and existing infrastructure such as Caltrans road signs and MTC call boxes
to deploy wireless access points.
ENCOM Wi