Manage Deployment Risks Related to Connected Vehicle Technology Maturity by Reducing Exposure to External Uncertainties and Adding Testing at an Earlier Stage.
Independent Assessment of the Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program Utilized Reviews of Documentation, Surveys, and Interviews of Wyoming, New York City, and Tampa Deployments.
Made Public Date

Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program Independent Evaluation- Program Assessment


Connected vehicle (CV) technologies utilize advanced mobile communications to share information between transportation system users, vehicles, and infrastructure, enabling potential safety improvements and mobility enhancements. In September 2015, the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) selected three locations for the deployment and assessment of the CV Pilot Deployment (CVPD) program. CV deployment sites in Wyoming, New York City, New York, and Tampa, Florida were led by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT), the New York City DOT, and the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority, respectively. In the CVPD program, new strategies were applied to deploy new technologies in the public sector and promote the development of applications to improve transportation system performance and enhance performance-based management. An independent evaluation team conducted an assessment of the CVPD structure and processes in meeting program goals, based on surveys, interviews, and a review of literature and documentation produced by the CVPD.

Lessons Learned

  • Broaden the definition and concept of technical maturity to increase stakeholder knowledge and allow for better risk management. The lack of technology maturity resulted in challenges such as estimating cost and schedule accurately. Including dimensions such as device and process maturity, pilot and demonstration experiences, commercial availability, marketplace penetration, and maintenance capabilities could increase stakeholder knowledge and allow for better risk management. Additional more rigorous testing of technologies and applications at an early stage would have also helped to better assess risks.
  • Consider deployments with smaller scope with less exposure to external uncertainties, less overall risk, and which can be accomplished in a shorter time frame. Large programs require a lengthy procurement and deployment process, and as such, external sources of potential delay or influence can have a magnified impact. By deploying a combination of vehicles, technologies and field sites that can be implemented in a shorter time frame, risk can be lowered and more rapid outcomes may be possible.
  • Emphasize cooperation and collaboration among sites as opposed to competition. Throughout the CVPD, conversations initiated at the site roundtables sometimes generated further conversations to address technical issues. This process was new to the teams, but with experience, it provided an opportunity for providing updates and sharing challenges and lessons learned. However, although these meetings were effective, deployer teams noted that they could have been more efficient by adjusting length and frequency based on topic.
  • Consider impacts of data gathering abilities and constraints on independent versus deployer site led evaluation. When the ability to gather data from new technology systems is not yet proven, or when each site team has unique data gathering capabilities, relying more heavily on deployer sites in the evaluation stage could be appropriate.
  • Keep in mind that new technologies can change at a fast pace. The CVPD program implemented a gated phased approach. However, although this approach was effective, the duration of the planning activities resulted in challenges in an environment where the technology was rapidly changing.