november committee at large meeting
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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”
4U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
5U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
6U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
7U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
8U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Stakeholder Outreach
9U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Stakeholder Outreach - Presentations & Workshops
10U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Stakeholder Outreach - Interviews
• Safety• Highway Performance Management System• Intelligent Transportation Systems• Asset Management• Deputy Director of RITA
11U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Trends
12U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
13U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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”
14U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
15U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
16U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
17U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
18U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
19U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Examples of what have we heard so far…
20U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
21U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
22U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
23U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
24U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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)
25U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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”
26U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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
27U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
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?
28U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration
Questions/Comments?
Steve Lewis
(202) 366-9223
http://www.tftn.org
http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx