DOCSLIB.ORG

Quarterly Progress Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Quarterly Progress Report Award Information Title Award # Awardee Smart City Challenge DTFH6116H00013 City of Columbus Demonstration Report Information Date Submitted Submitted To Period Covered by Report May 18, 2017 Kate Hartman January 2017 - March 2017 Project Scope Scope Statement Implementation of the Smart Columbus Smart City Demonstration consisting of 15 projects spread across 2 enabling Technologies and 4 Districts: 1. Columbus Connected Transportation Network (CCTN) 1. Connected Vehicle Environment 2. Smart Street Lighting 3. Transit Pedestrian Collision Avoidance System 2. Integrated Data Exchange (IDE) 4. IDE 3. Residential District 5. Common Payment System 6. Multi-Modal Trip Planning Application 7. Smart Mobility Hubs 8. Mobility Assistance for People with Cognitive Disabilities 4. Commercial District 9. Connected Electric Automated Vehicles 5. Downtown District 10. Delivery Zone Availability 11. Enhanced Permit Parking 12. Event Parking Management 6. Logistics District 13. Truck Platooning 14. Oversize Vehicle Routing 15. Interstate Truck Parking Availability 1 Financial Status Task Financial Summary (See Note 1) Note 1: After last quarter’s report we agreed the City’s labor cost would all stay within Program Management. Task 3 was to be broken down by its two components and Task 4 was to be broken down by its four components. We are still working on breaking task 3 and 4 into the components and anticipate reporting expenses that way on the next quarterly report. Costs Incurred vs Budgeted Costs Costs Incurred vs Obligated Federal Funding Direct Labor Hours Worked (See Note 2) 2 Note 2: Some hours were estimated on the last quarterly report. There are no estimated hours on this report. The cumulative hours column was adjusted to reflect actual hours worked to-date, from project start through the end of this quarter. Budget vs Cost to Date Summary (See Note 3) $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 Running Budget Running Costs $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $15,650,680.00 $6,260,272.00 $10,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,582,076.43 31-Aug Q4-16 Q1-17 Q2-17 Q3-17 Q4-17 Note 3: There is a significant delta between budgeted costs and costs to date. This delta is a result of two factors: an over estimation of how quickly spend on the project would ramp up when the budget estimates were put together in July of 2016; and an assumption that Non-Federal (cost share) spending would constitute 47% of the budgeted spend ($5.9M) in the first year of the project. Cost share spending has been zero to this point. Costs Incurred by Cost Element (See Note 4) 3 Note 4: Some labor hours were estimated in the previous quarterly report. There are no estimated hours in this report. The cumulative column for Direct Labor and Fringe Benefits and Insurance Costs reflects adjustments made to correct for the estimated hours. Estimated Cost to Complete (See Note 5) Note 5: After last quarter’s report we agreed the City’s labor cost would all stay within Program Management. Task 3 was to be broken down by its two components and Task 4 was to be broken down by its four components. We are still working on breaking Task 3 and 4 into the components and anticipate reporting expenses that way on the next quarterly report. DBE Update Invoices Submitted Invoice # $ Amount Date Notes/Comments This was submitted as a pre-reimbursement request. It is expected it will be resubmitted 3/17/2017 by 4/28/2017 with requested changes 1 $788,127.96 made. Federal Financial Report Status 1) See signed copy of the Federal Financial Report. 4 Schedule Update Key Tasks/Milestones Completed This Quarter/Milestones Scheduled for Upcoming Quarter Task Name and Deliverable Due Date Status Task A: Project Management Quarterly Progress Report for 2016 Q4 1/30/2017 Final Delivered Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for January 1/31/2017 Final Delivered Partnership /Stakeholder Status Summary 2/23/2017 Final Delivered Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for February 2/28/2017 Final Delivered Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for March 3/31/2017 Final Delivered Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for April 4/30/2017 Final Delivered Quarterly Progress Report for 2017 Q1 4/30/2017 Final Delivered Project Management Plan Refresh 5/24/2017 In Progress 75% Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for May 5/31/2017 Not Initiated Project Schedule and Monthly Report Updates for June 6/30/2017 Not Initiated Task B: Systems Engineering Approach Integrated Data Exchange Product Vision 1/19/2017 Final Delivered Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) 2/2/2017 Final Delivered Concept of Operations (ConOps) Outline 3/16/2017 Final Delivered Smart Street Lighting ConOps 4/17/2017 Draft Delivered Oversized Vehicle Routing Project Vision 4/17/2017 Draft Delivered Interstate Truck Parking Availability Product Vision 4/17/2017 Draft Delivered Multi-Modal Trip Planning Application ConOps 5/1/2017 In Progress 95% Transit Pedestrian Collision Avoidance System Trade Study 5/1/2017 In Progress 95% Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) 508 Compliant 5/4/2017 In Progress 90% Common Payment System ConOps 5/8/2017 In Progress 85% Delivery Zone Availability ConOps 5/8/2017 In Progress 85% Enhanced Permit Parking ConOps 5/15/2017 In Progress 75% Event Parking Management ConOps 5/15/2017 In Progress 75% Connected Vehicle Environment ConOps 5/19/2017 In Progress 65% Mobility Assistance for People with Cognitive Disabilities ConOps 5/22/2017 In Progress 60% Truck Platooning ConOps 5/22/2017 In Progress 60% 5 Task Name and Deliverable Due Date Status Connected Electric Autonomous Vehicle ConOps 6/2/2017 In Progress 50% Smart Mobility Hubs ConOps 6/2/2017 In Progress 50% System Architecture and Standards Plan 6/12/2017 In Progress 20% Demonstration Site Map and Installation Schedule 6/19/2017 In Progress 20% Transit Pedestrian Collision Avoidance System Test Plan 6/27/2017 In Progress 15% Task C: Performance Measurement Performance Measurement Plan 7/7/2017 In Progress 10% Task D: Data Privacy Requirements Data Privacy Plan 11/8/2017 Not Initiated Task E: Data Management and Support for Independent Evaluation Independent Evaluation Support Plan 8/23/2017 Not Initiated Data Management Plan 10/11/2017 Not Initiated Task F: Safety Management and Safety Assurance Safety Management Plan 7/18/2017 In Progress 5% Human Use Approval Summary 8/2/2017 In Progress 5% Task G: Communications and Outreach A Smart City Demonstration Website 11/18/2016 Final Delivered Communications and Outreach Plan 1/25/2017 Final Delivered 508 Communications and Outreach Plan 5/24/2017 In Progress Task H: International Collaboration International Collaboration Meeting 9/30/2017 Not Initiated Task I: Participation in Relevant ITS Architecture and Standards Development Effort Architecture Meeting and Report 9/30/2017 Not Initiated Task J: Interim and Final Reports Smart City Demonstration Interim Reports 9/29/2017 Not Initiated 6 Key Activities / Accomplishments Task A – Program Management Activities/Accomplishments in January 1) Conducted 30 minute USDOT weekly calls on 1/23/2017 and 1/30/2017. -Discussed the monthly report, working group follow-ups and next steps, Linden Innovation Session in February, engagement of FHWA Ohio, and ConOps Training for February. 2) Conducted 60 minute bi-weekly Smart City meeting with USDOT on 1/24/2017. -Discussed timeframe for Independent Evaluator Performance Work Statement, USDOT staff support for working groups, potential for IRB, deployment of the Integrated Data Exchange, upcoming deliverables and milestones, and partnership agreement status. 3) Submitted the Quarterly Report for 4 th Quarter 2016 and Project Management Plan update submitted to USDOT on 1/30/2017. 4) Submitted Monthly Status Report and Schedule Update with Partnership/Stakeholder Status Summary for January on 1/31/2017. 5) For the Partnership/Stakeholder Status Summary see the Leveraged Partner Resources Status Summary section of the report. Activities/Accomplishments in February 1) Formalized Weekly Status meetings between Columbus, HNTB, and PB teams on 2/13/2017, 2/20/2017, and 2/28/2017. -Discussed work accomplished previous week, what needs improvements, critical path items, goals and deliverables, and coordination of the project leads and working group chairs for the upcoming week and look ahead for the next four weeks. 2) Conducted 30 minute USDOT weekly calls on 2/6/2017, 2/13/2017, 2/20/2017, and 2/27/2017. -Discussed working groups with proposed slides, Linden outreach, updates, schedule, agreement updates, and ConOps Training 3) Conducted 60 minute bi-weekly Smart City meeting with USDOT on 2/10/2017 and 2/21/2017. -Discussed task updates, upcoming deliverables and working group meetings, risks and risk mitigation identified by Columbus, USDOT Site visit in March, SharePoint information that should be posted. 4) Received USDOT comments on PMP update and Quarterly progress report on 2/10/2017. -Reviewed comments and discussed with team to incorporate into 4/30/2017 Quarterly Report and next PMP update. 5) Submitted Monthly Report and Schedule Update with Partnership/Stakeholder Status Summary for February on 2/28/2017. 6) For the Partnership/Stakeholder Status Summary see the Leveraged Partner Resources Status Summary section of the report. 7 Activities/Accomplishments in March 1) Conducted Weekly Status meetings between Columbus, HNTB and PB teams on 3/6/2017, 3/13/2017, 3/20/2017, and 3/27/2017. -Discussed work accomplished previous week, what needs improvements, critical path items, goals and deliverables, and coordination of the project leads and working group chairs for the upcoming week and look ahead for the next four weeks. 2) Conducted 30 minute USDOT weekly calls on 3/6/2017, 3/13/2017, 3/20/2017, and 3/27/2017.
Recommended publications
  • Chartbook on Women's Progress

    Chartbook on Women's Progress

    FUTURE OF WORK@50+ NOVEMBERMONTH 2015 Research Report Looking Back, Looking Ahead: Chartbook on Women’s Progress Ariane Hegewisch Jeff Hayes Jessica Milli Elyse Shaw Heidi Hartmann Institute for Women’s Policy Research Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following members of the AARP Public Policy Institute and AARP’s Office of Policy Integration for their contributions to this paper: Lori Trawinski, Sara Rix, Donald Redfoot, Christina Fitzpatrick, Gary Koenig, Mikki Waid, Alison Shelton, and Julia Alexis. Also, we would like to thank Allison Porter for her assistance as well as an external, anonymous peer reviewer for their time and valuable contributions. AARP’s Public Policy Institute informs and stimulates public debate on the issues we face as we age. Through research, analysis, and dialogue with the About the Future of Work@50+ nation’s leading experts, PPI promotes development of sound, creative policies This report is part of the Future of Work@50+ Initiative. to address our common need for This is a multiyear initiative that examines the challenges economic security, health care, and and opportunities facing older workers. For other reports and quality of life. information, visit: http://www.aarp.org/futureofwork. The views expressed herein are for information, debate, and discussion, and do not necessarily represent official policies of AARP. LOOKING BACK, LOOKING AHEAD: CHARTBOOK ON WOMEN’S PROGRESS i Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................i
  • NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress

    NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress

    Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education NCES 2009–479 NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress READING 1971–2008 MATHEMATICS 1973–2008 CONTENTS Executive Summary 2 Executive Summary 6 Introduction This report presents the results of the NAEP long- 8 The Long-Term Trend Assessment term trend assessments in reading and mathemat- in Reading ics, which were most recently given in the 2007–08 28 The Long-Term Trend Assessment school year to students at ages 9, 13, and 17. Nationally representative samples of over 26,000 in Mathematics public and private school students were assessed 50 Technical Notes in each subject area. 53 Appendix Tables The long-term trend assessments make it possible to chart educational progress since the early 1970s. Results in reading are available for 12 assessments going back to the rst in 1971. The rst of 11 assess- ments in mathematics was administered in 1973. What is Throughout this report, the most recent results are compared to those from 2004 and from the rst year The Nation’s the assessment was conducted. ™ Report Card ? The original assessment format, content, and proce- dures were revised somewhat in 2004 to update content The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public about and provide accommodations to students with disabili- the academacademicic achachievementievement ooff elementarelementaryy and ties and English language learners. The knowledge and secondary students in the United StatesStates. Report skills assessed, however, remain essentially the same cards communicate the findings of the National since the rst assessment year. Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure Improvements seen in reading and of achievement in various subjects over time.
  • Interim Progress Report

    Interim Progress Report

    INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT Period covered by report: 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013 Proposal Title: (MURI) Value-centered Information Theory for Adaptive Learning, Inference, Tracking, and Exploitation Contract/Grant #: W911NF-11-1-0391 Authors of report: Alfred O. Hero (PI), U of Michigan Douglas Cochran, Arizona State U Emre Ertin, Ohio State U John W. Fisher III, MIT Jonathon How, MIT Michael Jordan, UC Berkeley Randolph L. Moses, Ohio State U Raj Rao Nadakuditi, U of Michigan Stefano Soatto, UCLA Alan Willsky, MIT Angela Yu, UCSD ARO proposal number: W911NF-11-1-0391 Principal Investigator: Alfred O. Hero, Professor Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science The University of Michigan 1301 Beal Ave Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 Tel: 734 763 0564 Email: [email protected] Submitted to: Dr. Liyi Dai Program Manager Army Research Office Raleigh, NC MURI: Value-centered Information Theory Year 2 IPR Abstract This interdisciplinary project is developing a comprehensive set of principles for task-specific information extraction and information exploitation that can be used to design the next gen- eration of autonomous and adaptive sensing systems. The significance of this research is that it addresses the widespread and longstanding problem of defining, assessing, and exploiting the value of information in active sensing systems. This year we report progress in twenty areas organized around three main thrusts: (1) learning and representation of high dimensional data, (2) distributed information fusion, and (3) active information exploitation. In the learning and representation thrust, progress ranges from assessing value of Kronecker representations of high-dimensional covariance matrices to learning to rank user preference data, an impor- tant task for human-in-the-loop decision systems.
  • National Seed Strategy

    National Seed Strategy

    NATIONAL SEED STRATEGY for Rehabilitation and Restoration Making Progress The Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA) is a public-private partnership of organizations that share the same goal: to protect native plants by ensuring that native plant populations and their communities are maintained, enhanced, and restored. The PCA Federal Committee, chaired by the Bureau of Land Management, developed the “National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration 2015-2020” in cooperation with federal and non-federal partners. For more information on the Plant Conservation Alliance and its members and activities, please visit http://www.blm.gov/pca. Copies of this publication may be obtained online at www.blm.gov/seedstrategy. NATIONAL SEED STRATEGY Making Progress 2 Table of Contents National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration: Making Progress ............................................ 5 Status by Goal ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Goal One ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Goal Two ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Goal Three ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Goal Four ............................................................................................................................................
  • Developing Achievement Levels on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Grades 8 and 12 Writing Process Report

    Developing Achievement Levels on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Grades 8 and 12 Writing Process Report

    National Assessment Governing Board Developing Achievement Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Writing Grades 8 and 12 in 2011 Submitted to: National Assessment Governing Board 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 825 Washington, DC 02002-4233 Phone: 202.357.6938 This study was funded by the National Assessment Governing Board under Contract ED-NAG-10-C-0003. Submitted by: Measured Progress 100 Education Way Dover, NH 03820 Phone: 603.749.9102 ALS Writing Process Report September 2012 PANELIST NAMES REDACTED BY GOVERNING BOARD Developing Achievement Levels on the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Grades 8 and 12 Writing Process Report Luz Bay with Chris Clough Jennifer Dunn Wonsuk Kim Leah McGuire Tia Sukin September 2012 ALS Writing Process Report Measured Progress ii National Assessment Governing Board BOARD MEMBERSHIP (2011–2012) Honorable David P. Driscoll, Chair Former Commissioner of Education Melrose, Massachusetts Mary Frances Taymans, SND, Vice Chair Sisters of Notre Dame National Education Office Bethesda, Maryland Andrés Alonso Shannon Garrison Chief Executive Officer Fourth-Grade Teacher Baltimore City Public Schools Solano Avenue Elementary School Baltimore, Maryland Los Angeles, California David J. Alukonis Doris R. Hicks Former Chairman Principal and Chief Executive Officer Hudson School Board Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School Hudson, New Hampshire for Science and Technology New Orleans, Louisiana Louis M. Fabrizio Data, Research and Federal Policy Director Honorable Terry Holliday North Carolina Department of Public Commissioner of Education Instruction Kentucky Department of Education Raleigh, North Carolina Lexington, Kentucky Honorable Anitere Flores Richard Brent Houston Senator Principal Florida State Senate Shawnee Middle School Miami, Florida Shawnee, Oklahoma Alan J.
  • The Teacher's Quest for Progress

    The Teacher's Quest for Progress

    THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS: How school leaders can motivate instructional innovation BY THOMAS ARNETT, BOB MOESTA, AND MICHAEL B. HORN SEPTEMBER 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was made possible by a generous grant from Fremont Street, a national nonprofit philanthropy dedicated to catalyzing the redesign of public schools at broad scale to better prepare students for today’s world while also improving the jobs of educators. We also appreciate Fremont Street’s valuable thought partnership in this research. We are grateful to Education Elements, Raising Blended Learners, Big Picture Learning, Distinctive Schools, Westmoreland County School District (Va.), Enlarged City School District of Middletown (N.Y.), Lexington Public Schools (Mass.), Cat Alexander, and Carrie Conover for putting us in touch with teachers to interview and survey. We would also like to thank Greg Engle for assisting with the analysis of our interview data, Luis Flores for supporting our research activities, and Meris Stansbury for preparing this report for publication. CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTE: THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Four missteps in bringing about change 7 The Jobs to be Done Framework 9 The Forces of Progress 9 Seeing Jobs in the wild 10 Which Jobs cause teachers to “hire” new instructional practices? 12 Job 1: Help me lead the way in improving my school 13 The Job 14 Recommendation 14 Job 2: Help me engage and challenge more of my students in a way that’s manageable 15 The Job 16 Recommendation 16 Job 3: Help me replace a broken instructional model so I can reach each student 18 The Job 19 Recommendation 20 Job 4: Help me to not fall behind on my school’s new initiative 20 The Job 21 Recommendation 21 Conclusion 23 Notes 24 About the Institute and Fremont Street 25 About the authors 26 CHRISTENSEN INSTITUTE: THE TEACHER’S QUEST FOR PROGRESS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Teacher education is ripe with ideas for improving teaching and learning.
  • Public School Choice in Wisconsin: a Work in Progress Will Flanders Research Director

    Public School Choice in Wisconsin: a Work in Progress Will Flanders Research Director

    JANUARY 2021 JESSICA HOLMBERG & WILL FLANDERS, PHD PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE IN WISCONSIN: A WORK IN PROGRESS WILL FLANDERS RESEARCH DIRECTOR [email protected] JESSICA HOLMBERG POLICY AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATE [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1 Program Overview � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Methods � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 12 Results � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 13 Policy Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 18 Conclusions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21 Appendices � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22 Endnotes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 24 Public School Choice in Wisconsin: A Work in Progress 1 Executive Summary 2. Parents make decisions based on academics. With controls for a number of other variables, Forward Exam proficiency Wisconsin offers more schooling options