Department of Architecture and Built Environment

 

Assessment Brief

 

 

Module	6CV005 Transport Technologies and Planning
Module Leader	Dr. Suresh Renukappa
Semester	1
Year	2016 – 17
Assessment Number	2
% of module mark	50
Due Date	10/01/2017 (before 4:00pm)
Hand-in – what?	A paper copy, including all work, of the assignment must be submitted. Electronic copies of any supporting files (ie. Excel spreadsheets), can be submitted either online through WOLF, or on a CD/USB that can be attached to the paper copy.
Hand-in- where?	Student Support Office in MI
Pass mark	40%
Method of retrieval	Resubmission of the assignment
Feedback	Electronic feedback will be provided
Collection of marked work	N/A

 

Learning outcomes Learning Outcome 1 ·         IEA4: Ability to apply an integrated or systems approach to transportation problems through know-how of the relevant technologies and their application. Learning Outcome 2 ·         ID1: Be aware of business, customer and user needs, including considerations such as the wider engineering context, public perception and aesthetics. ·         ID3: Work with information that may be incomplete or uncertain and be aware that this may affect the design of transportation solutions. ·         ID5: Manage the design process of transportation projects, including cost drivers, and evaluate outcomes. Learning Outcome 3 ·         IELS2: Knowledge and understanding of the commercial, economic and social context of transport engineering processes.   Marking Criteria Task A: Application of project evaluation techniques (50%) Task B: Design of an ITS (50%)

 

 

 

Submission of work

Your completed work for assignments must be handed in on or before the due date. You must keep a copy or backup of any assessed work that you submit.  Failure to do so may result in your having to repeat that piece of work.

 

Electronic submission:

This is normally done via WOLF. Any special instructions will be available on the upload tag or within the assessment brief.

 

Paper submission:

Your assignment should be handed in at the student office on the ground floor of MI building. It should have a barcoded front cover (available via eVision) and be neatly presented, preferably in a suitable plastic cover.   Any item handed in must have, clearly written on the front:

your name and student number     

                the module number, title and the module leader’s name

                the date of submission

 

Penalties for late submission of coursework

Standard University arrangements apply. ANY late submission will result in the grade 0 NS being allocated to the coursework.

 

Procedure for requesting extensions / mitigating circumstances

This is done via eVision. Further information can be found at http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/

 

Retrieval of Failure

Where a student fails a module (less than 40% for undergraduate modules, less than 50% for postgraduate modules) they have the right to attempt the failed assessment(s) once, at the next resit opportunity (normally July resit period).  If a student fails assessment for a second time they have a right to repeat the module.

 

NOTE: Students who do not take their resit at the next available RESIT opportunity will be required to repeat the module.

 

Return of assignments

Assignments will be normally returned within three working weeks.

 

If you have any questions regarding your feedback you normally have two working weeks from the date you receive your returned assessment and/or written feedback or receive your exam results to contact and discuss the matter with your lecturer.

 

Cheating

Cheating is any attempt to gain unfair advantage by dishonest means and includes plagiarism and collusion. Cheating is a serious offence. You are advised to check the nature of each assessment. You must work individually unless it is a group assessment.

 

Cheating is defined as any attempt by a candidate to gain unfair advantage in an assessment by dishonest means, and includes e.g. all breaches of examination room rules, impersonating another candidate, falsifying data, and obtaining an examination paper in advance of its authorised release.

 

Plagiarism is defined as incorporating a significant amount of un-attributed direct quotation from, or un-attributed substantial paraphrasing of, the work of another.

 

Collusion occurs when two or more students collaborate to produce a piece of work to be submitted (in whole or part) for assessment and the work is presented as the work of one student alone.

 

For further details see: http://www.wolvesunion.org/advice/academic/

 

Assignment Brief

 

In January 2009 the Department for Transport proposed three major options to increase access capacity east of London over the Thames. In doing so, three alternative proposals were put forward for public consultation (see Figure 1 below). These included:

• Option A: at the site of the existing A282 Dartford-Thurrock river crossing
• Option B: connecting the A2 with the A1089
• Option C: connecting the M2 with the A13 and the M25 between junctions 29 and 30

 

Figure 1 : New Lower Thames Crossing Alternatives

 

You are required to produce a technical poster (A3-size) that includes the following:

• Task A: Application of project evaluation techniques (50% of the overall grade)

You must select two of the proposed alternatives and carry out Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) in order to assess which of the two is the most suitable option. You need to select a number of parameters, including costs and benefits, for each alternative. A collection of documents and other media that you can consult in order to perform the analysis can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/lower-thames-crossing. You may have to make reasonable assumptions in order to quantify the required parameters.

 

 

• Task B: Design of an ITS (50% of the overall grade)

Using the outcome from the MCA carried out in Task A, you need to design an ITS that can support the operation of the chosen infrastructure project. The scope of the ITS can be selected by you and it may be related to traffic management, traffic safety, emergency systems, public transport, etc. You are required to adopt the FRAME ITS architecture for the development of your design, which must include:

• User needs, which should be derived from a literature survey of ITS systems with similar functionality.
• Functional specification (functions, data flows, data stores and external entities).
• Physical architecture, including ITS components and communication technologies, required for the operation of the system.

 

Note: The poster should be created using appropriate software (e.g. Visio – available on the student profile of all university PCs); it should contain a maximum of 2000 words; and, where necessary, you should make it very clear what sources of information have been used, and where material/information from these sources is quoted it must be clearly referenced using the Harvard Referencing System (details can be obtained from Learning Centres).

 

 

 

University Performance Descriptors (September 2013 onwards)

 The minimum pass mark at levels 6  = 40%.

 

	L6 (Graduate level)
90-100%   Outstanding	Exceptional level of analysis, showing deep critical engagement with a comprehensive range of contextual material.  Demonstration of independent thought resulting in highly original or creative responses to the assignment. Provision of clear evidence of understanding of current scholarship and research based on an extensive range of relevant sources.  Extreme clarity of structure demonstrating complete focus of argument. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80-89%   Excellent	Excellent links between relevant ideas, theories and practice. Evidence of clearly independent scholarship and the ability to engage critically and analytically with a wide range of contextually relevant resource material. Demonstration of original insights, supported by extremely well structured overall argument.   Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70-79%   Very good	Very good links between a range of different ideas and theories. Places issues in a wider context. Evidence of clear understanding and a range of relevant theories and demonstrates a facility to apply these appropriately. Independent ideas, well argued and supported.   Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60-69% Good	Clear links between theory and practice. Good coverage of assignment issues. Full understanding of issues. Evidenced level of understanding of appropriate theory and concepts.   Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50-59%   Competent	Identifies main issues and relevant theory. Coverage of most of assignment issues. Competent application of relevant theory and states obvious links to practice.   Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
40-49%   Basic	Makes few links between theory and practice. Answers question in a very basic way. Describes relevant theory accurately, and some relevant ideas offered.   Limited coherence of structure.
30-39%   Retrievable fail	Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met.   Inadequate content with issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts and only partial understanding shown. Very limited application of theory. Use of extensive quoted passages is evident.   Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
20-29%	No learning outcomes fully met. No demonstration of adequate knowledge or understanding of key concepts or theories.  There is no recognition of the complexity of the subject.
10-19%	Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
0-9%	No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes.