November Committee at Large Meeting

Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)

Steve Lewis

Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT

Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS

November 10, 2010

Steering Committee Roles and Responsibilities“At Large” Steering Committee

Participate in periodic teleconferences and webinars

Listen and advise during the planning process

Option to receive and review all documents

Prepare to adopt the resulting plan as a product in some fashion

Executive Steering Committee

Same as members of the at-large group, plus

Document review and feedback

Sounding board on difficult issues or questions

Adjudicating differences of opinion coming from different stakeholders

Support in gathering input and promoting the planning process

3U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration

Background

Influenced by several different efforts: In 2008, an “issues brief” by NSGIC called for the creation of TFTN OMB Circular A-16 identifies the USDOT as the “lead agency” for

the “transportation theme” of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).

Emerging USDOT data requirements for geospatial data for all roads, such as accident reporting for enhanced safety and bridge inventory.

Aligned with several initiatives such the emerging federal Geospatial Platform concept. - one element of the “geospatial portfolio”


TFTN Concept

“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the public domain”□ An initial focus on street centerlines, but eventually multi-modal□ Nationwide data spanning all states and territories□ All roads, not just Federally funded roads□ Provides a common geometric baseline

▪ Road naming▪ Persistent segment ID numbering▪ Advanced functionality is built on top of baseline

□ Data is in the public domain and readily shareable


Strategic Planning Effort - History

RITA/BTS agreed to fund and manage the effortFunds obligated and contractor selected in October 2009□ Koniag Technology Solutions □ Applied Geographics

Suffered through many contracting glitches associated with “end-of-year” money

Contract finally awarded in March 2010


Strategic Planning Effort – The Process

Identify and engage stakeholders Define requirements, challenges and opportunitiesDocument progress already made□ Existing Datasets□ Best Practices□ New Ideas

Explore implementation issuesEvaluate funding sources


Stakeholder Outreach


Stakeholder Outreach - Presentations & Workshops


Stakeholder Outreach - Interviews

• Safety• Highway Performance Management System• Intelligent Transportation Systems• Asset Management• Deputy Director of RITA


Trends


Trends from the Workshops and Interviews

Near Unanimous Support□ All of those interviewed and most of those who attended the

workshops have indicated their support for this effort

Learned of a number of similar efforts underway that benefit from TFTN

Safety could be a key to the success of TFTN□ A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to meet

many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives□ A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed for

emergency response□ Lots of federal money for safety initiatives


Trends from the Workshops and Interviews

“Think Regionally Act Locally”□ States and counties are beginning to look beyond their borders□ States and counties are the authoritative data source for their

transportation data

“Can you live with that?”□ The Stakeholders have different needs□ Need to find a baseline that works with everyone□ Once the baseline is established, the consumers can add their

own “special sauce”


Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”

The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition

Initial, minimal components might be:□ Road naming□ Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)□ Persistent segment ID numbering

Seeking additional ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible

“Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities


Variety of stakeholders adds their own “special sauce” on top

• TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes

• State DOTs: Linear Referencing System (LRS)

• State DOTs: advanced attributes

• Private Sector: full routability and immersive imagery

• USGS: Enhanced cartographic display and labeling

• US Census: Polygon topology for census geographic units

• State E911: Addresses


A Potential Model for TFTN - HPMS

FHWA reporting requirements for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) include the submission of a geospatial network of all Federal-aid roads by each State DOT

Current reporting requirements for the HPMS could be expanded to require all roads□ Detailed HPMS attributes would continue to be provided for only

Federal-aid roads□ Annual nature of HPMS reporting provides a data update

mechanism□ USDOT works with states to develop basic standards□ Reporting requirement would enable states to utilize FHWA

funding for creation and maintenance of inventory


Obstacles Associated With This Model

FHWA has to change the HPMS Reporting Requirements to include all roads in the geospatial submission

States are not required to work with neighbors for connectivity

No USDOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of a nationwide data set

The level of quality/accuracy varies from State to State


Potential Vision for TFTN

• Produce

• Catalyze &

Standardize

• Aggregate & Publish

USDOTvia HPMS

• HPMS annual reporting requirement

• Opens funding

• Develops standards

• Products support broader US-DOT business needs, such as Safety

• Ability to provide funding support to local entities

US Censusvia TIGER

• Existing, branded product

• Existing staffing resources for nationwide data integration

• Expertise in nationwide data assemblage

• Expertise in nationwide data publishing

OpenStreetMapOpportunity for

authoritative sources to detect data

updates

Private Sector Value Add Products

State DOTs

Private Sector Partnership

Engagement w/ County or Regional Govts.

• States choose their own methods

• Coordination with state E911 and NG911 efforts

• All roads

USDOTTrans. Products


Examples of what have we heard so far…


At the ESRI User Conference

Short-term and long-term considerations□ Short term: don’t forget several nationwide datasets currently exist

▪ TIGER▪ Commercial▪ OpenStreetMap

□ Longer term: design and build something new

HPMS is not resourced to make a seamless nationwide data set□ Look at other “process models” too!□ Public/private partnership□ Build on TIGER□ Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)□ Something “outside-the-box” that we have yet to imagine


At the NSGIC Annual Conference

Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches – “what are the shared needs and commonalities?”

Develop an inventory of what each state has for statewide street centerlines

Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of success

The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer per se; boundaries are the “real issue” for Census Bureau, not roads; DOTs might need greater detail

Next Generation 911 is and will be a big driver for GIS-based initiatives to build statewide street centerline data sets to support automated routing


At the URISA GIS-Pro Conference

Data Sharing is two way relationship□ “Co-dependency” can lead to success

Increased involvement in planning process from local government stakeholders is desirable

Public/Private Partnership: “knotty issues” of licensing will need to be addressed. □ 2004 study from National Academy of Science titled “Licensing of Geographic

Data and Services” could be a resource.

Needs to be an emphasis on identifying what is in the core, common base of TFTN (vs. special sauce). □ US Census pointed to “Federal Survey” of 19 agencies that identified their

common needs as a starting place.

Baseline data elements should not be complex; added complexity can affect the success of the project


USGS Interview Takeaways

Requirement for nationwide roads in The National Map (TNM)

TIGER did not meet TNM requirements□ Positional accuracy□ Depictions of interchanges and dual-carriageways□ Attributes□ Costs to retrofit TIGER were prohibitive

Have currently replaced TIGER with TeleAtlas data□ Competitive price, but restricted use□ Looking at OpenStreetMap and other alternatives, long-term

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provides a positive example of Federal-State collaboration


Census Bureau Interview Takeaways

TIGER is a mature product□ Many users depend on it for a variety of applications

▪ National broadband mapping (for Census geometry)

Significant improvements in latest TIGER files□ Positional accuracy improved (7.6 meter)□ Substantial input from local sources incorporated□ Research into potential for OpenStreetMap

Planning for more frequent updates (depending on funding)


USFS Interview Takeaways

USFS is a major road data manager with active road mapping efforts□ 370,000 total miles of roads□ Regulatory requirement to produce a publicly available

“Transportation Atlas” covering “roads, trails and air fields”

USFS has key attributes to identify “Closed roads” and “Roads requiring high clearance vehicles”

USFS has existing annual reporting relationship with US-DOT/FHWA for 3500 bridges

Depiction of USFS roads within TIGER is weak USFS has strong interest in and enthusiasm for TFTN

concept□ “We want to be a contributor”


The Road Ahead

More interviews, meetings, surveys, case studies, etc. Through these, we will:

□ Identify what’s working, what’s needed – current practices, requirements, strategies, standards, documentation

□ Identify institutional constraints, capacity, operational authority, motivation, benefits, etc.

□ Formulate strategies for implementation□ Identify potential sources of funding


Steering Committee Input

TFTN Minimum requirements vs. "add-ons" or special sauce?

What are the criteria to measure TFTN Strategic Planning project success?

What are your reactions to:□ The HPMS model?□ Using TIGER for TFTN?□ Public/private partnerships for sharing transportation data?□ Using VGI for TFTN?


Questions/Comments?

Steve Lewis

(202) 366-9223

[email protected]

http://www.tftn.org

http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx

mailto:[email protected]



November Committee at Large Meeting

Technology

Transcript of November Committee at Large Meeting