Clarus ICC Meeting Minutes by jtl17221

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 13

									              Clarus Initiative Coordinating Committee (ICC) Meeting #1
                                   Sept. 23-24, 2004
                                  Norman, Oklahoma

                                   Meeting Proceedings

DAY ONE

Session 1: Introduction

Paul Pisano welcomed all to the meeting and went through a presentation that included
the agenda for the meeting, the meeting objectives, and some background on the
Clarus Initiative.

Presentation: Welcome.pdf

Paul discussed the background, goals, objectives and potential outcomes of the Clarus
Initiative. The original name, the National Surface Transportation Weather Observing
and Forecasting System (NSTWOFS) was a good name, but not a good acronym, so
the name Clarus, Latin for “clear,” was chosen instead. The initiative, one of nine “tier
one” U.S. DOT ITS projects, is focused on making sure state DOT investments in
weather sensors and information provides the most “bang for their bucks.”

Some potential outcomes of the Clarus Initiative could be unlimited new applications,
including 511, route specific forecasts, new effective ways of conveying surface
transportation weather information, enhance decision making tools, new technologies
(in vehicle, PDA), and additional detailed information for dissemination via Highway
Advisory Radio (HAR) and Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).


Session 2: Role of the ICC

James Pol made a presentation describing the expectations of the role of the Clarus
Initiative Coordinating Committee (ICC).

Presentation: Role_of_ICC.pdf

The organization and membership in the Clarus Initiative Management Team and the
ICC were discussed. The primary role of the ICC is to “assess, analyze and advise.”
The ICC plays a vital role in Clarus since one of the key measures of the success of
Clarus for the U.S. DOT is how stakeholders are involved. A discussion of the level of
involvement for ICC members led to many options, from reading the web site material,
to attending ICC meetings, to participating in Project Task Forces.

Discussion




Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                             1
   Does the ICC make consensus decisions on Clarus? The major decisions of Clarus
    will be made by the Clarus Management Team, with the support and input of the
    ICC.
   How will the ICC communication be organized? ACTION ITEM: Develop web
    site/discussion group for discussion of Clarus issues. Task Forces can take
    advantage of this discussion capability as well.
   How is the private sector represented on the Clarus Management Team? Private
    sector stakeholders are represented on the Management Team by associations –
    the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the Intelligent Transportation Society of
    America (ITS America) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). What
    about the Value-Added Meteorological Service Providers (VAMs)? Both AMS and
    ITS America have VAMs as members. ACTION ITEM: James and Paul will discuss
    the VAMs issue with AMS.

Session 3: Clarus Roadmap

James Pol discussed the Clarus Initiative Roadmap (program plan).

Presentation: Roadmap_Evaluation.pdf

The four primary areas of the Roadmap include:

1. Stakeholder Coordination
2. System Design
     Make sure it is an extensible design where more new products can fit in. U.S.
       DOTs unofficial plans are to release a System Design RFP sometime this fall
       with intent to award it in the Spring. It will be a full and open competition. The
       announcement will be on http://www.eps.gov.
     Will the System Design be a high-level design? The System design process
       outlined in the Roadmap will include a high level design, then a detailed design
       and a Proof-Of-Concept demo.
3. Multi-state Regional Demonstration
4. Final Design, Model Deployment

James discussed the achievements that U.S. DOT hopes to make with the Clarus
Initiative as well as the key role of evaluation and outreach in the Clarus Initiative. The
evaluation component includes outputs, outcomes, and outreach. The outreach
emphasis is to establish a package of products that are readily implementable by
stakeholders and that are supported by the stakeholders.

Discussion:

   Will there be an independent evaluation? Yes, for regional demo and model
    deployment.
   Is this included within the existing ITS Architecture and standards? Yes – both ITS
    and meteorological standards.


Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                               2
   The Management Team will ultimately decide on what Project Task Forces are
    created. Further details on this process were placed on the ICC Resource page as
    “Clarus ICC Management Proposal (Rev 1)”.
   The National assessment should focus not only on end users, but also middle users
    (those who need access to data – NOAA, VAMs, transportation operators, etc.).
   What FHWA is proposing may or may not be independent of what states are already
    doing. It would be nice to leverage what current multi-state coalitions are doing with
    the Clarus Initiative (as well as MADIS, Mesonets, etc.).

Session 4: NOAA Surface Weather Program Overview

Amy Holman with NOAA provided an overview of NOAA’s new Surface Weather
Program. Highlights included the background on the new program and plans for the
near future.

Presentation: NOAA.pdf

The key challenges in building the new program are building trust w/partners,
particularly with the private sector; finding resources in a tight fiscal environment; and
collecting and managing data from disparate sources.

Discussion:

   The issue of Homeland Security was brought up - how do we deal with private
    mesonets that are out there? Have DHS and NOAA talked about this (maybe at a
    higher classification level)? One thing DHS is doing with NWS is negotiating to use
    their emergency system for national security reasons (isn’t Internet based).
   Public/private data in MADIS – how to deal with those who do not want to share
    data? Metadata will be very important in providing options for sharing.

Session 5: NOAA COOP Modernization, National Mesonet

Ken Crawford presented on the efforts the NOAA COOP modernization effort as well as
the creation of a national mesonet.

Presentation: COOP.pdf

Ken reported on the major goals for COOP Modernization, one of which was to
establish a high-quality infrastructure that integrates surface observations from a wide
range of platforms, quality-assures that data, and makes it available within minutes of
the observation time.

Discussion:

   A question on the sites for the sensors - all are to be solar energy with battery back-
    up? What about stations not in your control? Data quality will be the roadmap to


Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                               3
    success (have to have high-quality data in the COOP program – 3rd party data is the
    big question mark).
   Clarus is weather and road conditions. Is COOP relegated to weather and soil
    measurements? No. Focus on making sure all data that goes out is “quality data.”
   Comments on the “tree diagram” and the benefits of saving lives and increasing
    efficiency. Clarus could be the roots that bring in all the data that feed the weather
    products that provide the benefits (fruit of the tree). Where is the link between
    COOP and Clarus? They will have to play together – they have some common
    issues, such as what are the bandwidth needs and what role does the transportation
    industry play in this?
   California is putting together a mesonet with 10 RWIS systems and other
    meteorological stations. How does this relate to COOP?
   Is there a model agreement between LETS and COOP? There is a working draft
    from NLETS (still crude). Their radios are transmitting to network nodes (LETS) and
    then to a central location.

Session 6: Canada Project – Road Weather Information Network (RWIN)

Paul Dellanoy, Environment Canada presented on Canada’s Road Weather Information
Network (RWIN).

Presentation: RWIN_Update.pdf

Paul went through the RWIN project plan highlights and much more detail on this
“sister” project to Clarus.

Discussion:

   Are you reducing the size of metadata? They are trying to reduce their message
    size. A flag will be sent if the metadata has changed – if not, the entire metadata is
    not sent. Obviously, some metadata elements will be more variable than others.
   The issue of sharing data with Canada and vice versa will be important later in the
    Clarus Initiative.

Session 7: Introduction to Concept of Operations

Moe Zarean presented an introduction to the Clarus Concept of Operations.

Presentation: ConOps_Primer.pdf

Moe went through the system engineering process that will be applied towards
developing the ConOps, the objectives and benefits of the ConOps, as well as key
issues involved.

Discussion:



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                              4
   Requirements were discussed: they are looking at “what the system needs to
    provide” - the system design will come up with the testable requirements. ConOps
    requirements are more general.
   Moe went over a list of selected inputs that will be used in developing the Clarus
    ConOps. ACTION ITEM: Please provide any other input on resources for the Clarus
    ConOps to Moe Zarean.
   The Use Case Diagrams are going to use the diagrams to capture intended
    elements of the system.

Session 8: Concept of Operation Discussion

James Pol went through the breakout session topics prior to splitting into two groups.

Presentation: Breakout_Sessions.pdf

The topics for the Breakout Sessions included the following:
 Validation of User Needs
• Expectations
• Technical and Institutional Issues
• ICC Management
• Possible Task Force topics

Session 9: Breakout Groups Report Back

Breakout Session #1: Leon Osborne, Reporter

Notes: Breakout1Notes.pdf

Validate User Needs
 The user needs hierarchy seems to be rational.
 Look at end user needs in five years – many more mobile data sources may be
   available and that will affect our user needs definition (real-time basis). This relates
   to the VII – vehicles will have black box, radio and receiver. This could transform
   everything we do. ACTION ITEM: Will update group on VII at the March Clarus
   meeting.
 What about looking at EXCEPTIONS – when things change?
 An initial Clarus concern was that a regional operation would be “replaced” by a
   national implementation.
 How do we influence decision makers? Sell it? The safety information in-vehicle.
   Information from vehicles needs to be public domain.

Expectations
Transit Needs
 Need a more refined set of needs for transit – at the mesoscale level (topography),
   for both the observed data and the forecast data.



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                               5
Traffic Operations
 It would be exciting to have a network capability – storm tracking information across
   the state of Colorado, for instance. 72 hours upstream would be great.
 Is Clarus observational data or products? Product is a more accurate forecast for
   highway folks (including pavement forecasts).
 Traffic safety side – link crash data to weather data to come up with solutions to help
   with measures and scenarios to reduce crashes.
 Data elements for bridges/overpasses as well as roadways. We should be looking at
   trouble spots in particular.

Bill Mahoney’s User Expectations for Clarus include:
1. Accessible national database of surface weather and road conditions.
2. Quality control capabilities and feedback to data suppliers.
3. Data set that allows the creation of surface transportation impact variables including,
     but not limited to, high winds, extreme temperatures, precipitation type (rain, hail,
     snow, ice) and rate, blowing snow, drifting potential, pavement temperature,
     pavement condition, flooding, black ice, friction, etc.
4. Allow for generation of user specific alerts.
5. Integration with 511 services, in-vehicle information systems, VII, traveler
     information systems, roadway operating agency decision support systems (for traffic,
     incident, emergency management and maintenance).
6. Archiving for post analysis, statistical analysis, climatology, generation of severity
     indices, etc.
7. Standardization guidelines formats, siting, instrumentation, etc.
8. Improved forecasts of weather and road conditions

Private Sector
 Standardization on data collection and instrumentation (collection intervals, etc.).
 Data is input into NWS models; so private sector can approve forecasts for value-
    added services.
 Who provides the forecasting services for the surface transportation user? NWS
    and private sector.
 Expect there to be National leadership to pull Clarus together.
 Expect Clarus to help NOAA improve those gridded forecasts (NDFD).
 Expectation: have guidelines/policy on liability issues (and all other issues).

ACTION ITEM: At next ICC meeting, talk about National Weather Service (NWS) digital
grid project.

Technical and Institutional Issues
 Liability Issue – due diligence response.
 Institutional Issues – roles and responsibilities for all agencies (who collects,
   integrates, archives, the data).
 Data Ownership – Including RWIS data issues, MADIS data ownership issues.
   MADIS has stratifications built into database – some data can be sent to public
   users, another stratification of data is just for NOAA’s use, etc.


Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                              6
   Distribution/accessibility issues. Military example: classified data used in a classified
    database to create a grid that would then be made available publicly without its
    “source” data (this may have an impact on liability). This model could be compatible
    to VII as well.
   Deployment and Operational Cost - How much and who pays?
   Posting inaccurate data or knowing it is inaccurate and not fixing it would be a
    problem with liability. The whole data quality issue is obviously important (both from
    the technical and institutional perspectives).
   Clarus is not providing new raw data – it is providing a central collection point, right?
    So, liability issues do not seem to be directly related to Clarus.
   With private data, need to have some kind of data use agreement – may include
    where and how data can be distributed.

Breakout Session #2: Jeff Brummond, Reporter

Notes: Breakout2Notes.pdf

Validation of User Needs
The group discussed the hierarchy and agreed to it in a basic way (a hierarchy is
necessary.
 Strategic vs. Tactical Data - Automated cross-jurisdictional sharing of data. Looked
   at parameters for data that should be in Clarus.
 Data Collection – different communication technologies (asked states what they are
   using). NTCIP ESS standard.
 Data Quality expectations. Use existing resources to improve data collection. Need
   a hands-on demo of what Clarus is before the multi-state demo. Multi-mirrored site
   based on XML. No cost idea.

Expectations:
 Ground truth in data, standard format; 3rd party weather providers need to accept
   Clarus data; automation – some level of automation of decision making (especially
   for traveler information services such as 511 – is this Clarus’ role?).

Technical and Institutional Issues
 Media interfacing; raw data available; liability, CCTV image sharing (?); data rights,
   data storage vs. processing, and mobile sensing platforms.

Task Force Topics
 Graphical output (standardized graphical output?); general institutional Issues.

-----------------------------------------------

General Discussion:

   What are the bounds of the Clarus initiative? This is to be determined.



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                                 7
   Call for a national leader (FHWA, ICC, etc.) to have some clarity on data formats,
    presentations, etc. (e.g., weather icons). ACTION ITEM: Look at Enterprise and
    Aurora groups for visual representations (also work by FHWA Turner Fairbank
    Highway Research Center).
   Paul Pisano mentioned the issue of ITS standards vs. WMO standards. The ICC will
    be wrestling with this issue in the near future.
   At the end of the day, the “Parking Lot,” which was used to put aside topics that
    needed to be addressed that came up during discussion, contained the following
    topics (including may potential Project Task Force topics):

PARKING LOT
   Leverage On-going Partnerships (TF?)
   Homeland Security Issues
   Identification of Business Models / Data Quality Approaches (TF?)
   Liability (TF?)
     Developing Standards (TF?)
   How does Clarus fit on the ISOS tree?
   Transit Needs Assessment
   What does traffic info reveal about weather impact on roadway?




Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                          8
              Clarus Initiative Coordinating Committee (ICC) Meeting #1
                                   Sept. 23-24, 2004
                                  Norman, Oklahoma

                              DRAFT Meeting Proceedings

DAY TWO

Session 1: Day One Summary Presentation

Rich Taylor presented a quick summary of the highlights of Day One of the first Clarus
ICC meeting.

Presentation: SummaryDay1.pdf

Session 2: ICC Task Force Definition

James Pol talked about the Project Task Forces and their relationship to the
Management Team. The Clarus Management Team has the ultimate decision making
responsibility on whether Project Task Forces are given the go ahead, assigning
resources, approving deliverables, etc. Since the makeup of the Management Team is
not totally set yet, it will be hard to manage a number of Project Task Forces in the short
term.

Discussion:

   What does “Resources to support Task Forces” mean? Volunteers are the lifeblood
    of task forces, but they may not be able to complete a white paper, for example. So,
    the Clarus Management Team will assign consultant support for this (Iteris and
    Meridian).
   Some issues may require more than a Project Task Force – a new task for a
    consultant team, or additional work in another task.
   Assume that a number of the Parking Lot items would end up as part of the ConOps.
    What are actions external to what we are doing here that affect the Clarus ConOps?
   ICC is here to assist the Clarus project to make sure it is meeting the Road Weather
    community’s needs - is this statement correct? Yes. It is important that the
    Management Team isn’t too Washington, D.C.-focused. Make sure DOT staff from
    the field are represented as well.
   We are working through different association committees to make sure they are
    aware of Clarus and that their membership groups are involved in some way.
   The Task Forces may appeal to the ICC for comments on their activities.
   The ICC is the outreach “to the world” tool. U.S. DOT has reached out to a lot of
    folks from Aurora, MDSS, etc. regarding involvement in Clarus and the ICC.
   Make sure all elements of transit – rail, bus, monorail, ferries, bikes, pedestrian, etc.
    are covered in this initiative.



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                                 9
   Question on development of ConOps – we haven’t seen a clear framework. The
    ConOps consultants will probably forward this information to the ICC and/or Task
    Forces to review.
   James then provided his “wish” for support from the ICC on the following items:
     User Needs Assessment Review
     Use Case/Applications Review (scenario review as well)
     ICC Meeting #2 Agenda Plan
   James figures that each Task Force would have 8-10 people, no less than 3 (equal
    representation is not required). It would be good to have cross-representation on
    each Task Force (i.e., weather folks and transportation folks). However, some Task
    Force topics may be specific to an industry (VAM-specific, DOT specific, etc.).
   The second ICC meeting is basically going to be a review of the draft ConOps.
    James thinks it is important to have a Task Force that crafts an agenda for the
    meeting to make sure everyone gets something out of it.
   What about the ICC members who are not at this meeting? U.S. DOT will reach out
    to their entire ICC list to get volunteers for Task Forces.
   Clarus sounds like Mesowest – Utah is taking in many sites, processes and spits it
    back out. Mesowest is a great place to start – doesn’t have all data elements,
    speed, data quality requirements, etc. that Clarus will have. The ICC will help shape
    what we would add on to Mesowest, MADIS, Oklahoma Mesonet, etc. - what we
    need to serve the transportation community. This needs to be captured in the
    system design.
   A national standard for data quality control will be necessary.
   Is there a Task Force necessary on what the ICC needs to do to take the right
    message back to management of state DOTs? An Outreach Task Force could focus
    on this.

James then mentioned some Project Task Forces he would like to see the ICC tackle:
    Conceptual Architecture Review – how information is going to flow
         o Links to existing systems
    Leveraging Opportunities (on-going partnerships and activities) Task Force
         o Added value
         o State of practice
         o Inventory
    Outreach (use ConOps to do this – premature)

Session 3: ICC Task Force Planning

Presentation: Task_Forces.pdf

Paul Pisano led the ICC through discussions of what Project Task Forces it thinks
should be deployed (either now or in the near future). U.S. DOT would like the ICC
members to eventually be advocates for Clarus – advocating it to managers, legislators,
and those who will potentially fund Clarus development. State agencies will need to
appeal for funds, i.e., provide benefit/cost.



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                             10
The process for looking at Project Task Forces will look at the suggestions so far
(including those in the Parking Lot) and then ICC attendees will vote to prioritize them
and name a leader for each. After this, U.S. DOT will poll others interested in the ICC to
let them know about the Task Forces and that they can volunteer.

User Needs Assessment Review (Priority)
• Objective – Review and comment on the User Needs Paper (include
   scope/boundary discussion)
• Time – Based on release of draft User Needs paper (early Oct.); 3 week review
   cycle
• Deliverable – Comments on User Needs Paper
• Members – Charlene Wilder (lead) - important to get full cross-section

Use-Case/Applications Review (Priority)
• Objective – Review and comment on the draft Use-Cases, including Conceptual
  Architecture
• Time – Based on release of draft Use-Case paper (late Nov/early Dec); 3 week
  review cycle
• Deliverable – Comments on draft Use-Cases, including Conceptual Architecture.
• Members – Brenda Boyce (lead) – important to get full cross-section

ICC Mtg. #2 Agenda Plan
• Objective – Provide input to agenda setting
• Time – Completed 1 month prior to ICC Meeting #2
• Members – James Pol

Leveraging Opportunities (Priority)
• Objective – Synthesis of State DOT practices (incl. pooled fund studies, corridors),
   Federal efforts (NOAA/ISOS, MADIS), International (Canada) efforts related to
   Clarus
• Time – completed end of Nov.
• Deliverable - Synthesis
• Members – Steve Albert (lead)

Conceptual Architecture
• Objective – Explore existing systems – expectations and options. Provide input to
  the ConOps. Also explore business models within the context of potential
  architectures
• Time – start Nov/Dec (’04), end
• Deliverable -
• Members –

Outreach (post-ConOps)
• Objective – advise outreach activities (e.g., an Executive Summary of the ConOps
   targeted for upper management, a standard PPT about Clarus, articles, speaker
   notes, etc.)



Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                              11
•   Time –
•   Deliverable -
•   Members –

National Standards for QC Formats (during System Design)
• Objective –
• Time –
• Members –

After a prioritization vote, the three priority Project Task Forces were:
    Leveraging Opportunities
    User Needs Assessment Review
    Use Case/Applications Review

ACTION ITEM: Paul and James will talk to Task Force leaders to discuss a one-pager
from each to then solicit participation in the Task Forces from other ICC folks.

Session 4: Moving Forward – Next Steps

John Snow stopped by and welcomed us to OU. The National Weather Center is being
built next door – there is a 750-strong professional community in Norman. Paul Pisano
and James Pol thanked John, Renee McPherson, and Carrie Leffler for their
graciousness in hosting the first ICC meeting.

Last Thoughts: A Task Force needs to look at the forecast elements of Clarus –
probably would be better suited to discuss this a little bit further down the road.

--------------------------------------------

ACTION ITEM SUMMARY

ACTION ITEM: Develop web site/discussion group for discussion of Clarus issues.

ACTION ITEM: James and Paul will discuss the VAMs issue with AMS.

ACTION ITEM: Please provide any other input on resources for the Clarus ConOps to
Moe Zarean.

ACTION ITEM: Look at Enterprise and Aurora groups for visual representations (also
work by FHWA, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center).

ACTION ITEM: Will update group on VII at the March Clarus meeting.

ACTION ITEM: At next ICC meeting, talk about NWS digital grid project.




Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                         12
ACTION ITEM: Paul and James will talk to Task Force leaders to discuss a one-pager
from each to then solicit participation in the Task Forces from other ICC folks.

ACTION ITEM: An evaluation of the meeting will be sent to attendees in the next week
– please fill this out.




Clarus ICC Meeting Proceedings – September 2004                                        13

								
To top