Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)

Executive Steering Committee Meeting

October 20th, 2010

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 2

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 namingPersistent segment ID numberingAdvanced functionality is built on top of baseline

Data is in the public domain and readily shareable

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 4

TFTN Strategic Planning Effort Identify and engage stakeholders Define requirements, challenges and opportunities Document progress already made

Existing Datasets Best Practices New Ideas

Explore implementation issues Evaluate funding sources

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 5

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

Stakeholder Outreach

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 7

Presentations & Workshops

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 8

Interviews

Trends and Findings

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 10

Interview TrendsCommonalities we have found

General consensus and support for the concept– All the interviewees so far have indicated their support for this effort Identified several existing national data sets and potential business

models Several stakeholders observed that ‘the time was right’ for this kind of

initiative

Road safety opens opportunities– DOT Safety group is interested in all roads. Road safety provides a

significant funding opportunity Will allow Emergency Managers to see outside their state’s “Keyhole”

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 11

Interview TrendsCommonalities we have found

Trending Toward “Think Regionally Act Locally” – States are beginning to look beyond their bordersStates are the authoritative data source for their transportation

data

“Can you live with that”– All interviewees have different needsNeed to find a baseline that works with everyoneOnce the baseline is established, then consumers can add their

own “special sauce”

Baseline Geometry

With Initial Minimal

Requirements…

……and “Special Sauce”

TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes

US & State DOTs: Full routability, Linear Referencing System (LRS) & 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

Geospatial Transportation Data Requirements Collected from Federal Agencies

Census and USGS Survey on road requirements - October 2010Meeting October 19, 2009

18 Federal Agencies

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 17

Examples of road features & attributes required by Federal Agencies

Feature Majority

Unpaved Roads Required

Road Tunnels Required

Road Bridges/Culverts Required

Entry/Exit Ramps Required

Major Highways (non-interstates) Required

Local Streets and Roads Required

Attributes Majority

Speed Limits Desired

Pavement Types Desired

Administrative Classification Required

Functional Classification Required

Names Required

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 18

Examples of road geometry characteristics required by Federal Agencies

Road Geometry Majority

Linear Referencing Required

Directional Routing Info Required

Address Points Required

Address Ranges Required

Potential Data Sources

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 20

FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)

Pros: Cons:

Annual data update process HPMS covers federally aided roads not all roads

US-DOT works with states to develop basic standards

No US-DOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of nationwide data set

FHWA funding enables states to create and maintain inventory

The level of quality, accuracy and readiness varies from state to state. Is not resourced to make a seamless nationwide data set

States develop their own plans and data management strategies

Business process would have to be enhanced to collect more detailed data

US-DOT facilitates information exchange on state “best practices”

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 21

TIGERPros: Cons:

Pre-existing business processes to collect data

Currently only updated every 10 years. More frequent updates dependent on funding and population growth.

TIGER is a mature product TIGER did not meet USGS The National Map requirements

Widely used product Positional accuracy

Significant improvements in latest TIGER files

Depictions of interchanges and dual-carriageways attributes

Product maintains fidelity to source materials. e.g., if source shows dual-carriageways, so does TIGER

High costs to retrofit TIGER were prohibitive

Substantial input from local sources The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 22

Private/Public PartnershipsPros: Cons:

Mutually beneficial relationships Intellectual property and licensing issues

Ability to utilize the contracting flexibility of the private sector

Puts other private firms at a disadvantage

Brand recognition Cultural and ideological differences with using specific data sources

Regular update schedules Inefficiencies in long term contracts

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 23

OpenStreetMap (OSM) & Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)

Pros: Cons:

“Free” data Majority of community lacks in depth knowledge on how to “map” their surrounding area

Talent comes to you! Community as a whole may not always be motivated to provide content

Harness enormous workforce Difficult to schedule updates

Identify new and innovative ideas Level of trust of the community vs. an “authoritative source”

Provides near real-time data updates No official data moderators e.g. “OSM vs. Wikipedia” (OSM is a Spatial-wiki)

Reducing costs of innovation Potential for data vandalism or intentionally erroneous postings

Private sector may adapt ideas from the community

The “crowd” isn’t always right

The Road

Ahead!

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 25

Interviews (Forest Service), meetings, case studies, etc. Through these, we will:

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

State use casesCharacterize existing data sets and business models Identify institutional constraints, capacity, operational authority,

motivation, benefits, etc. Formulate strategies for implementation Identify potential sources of funding

Final Report Timeline Draft Report to Steering Committee by mid December Final Report mid-January

The Road Ahead…

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 26

Executive Steering Committee Input

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

Criteria to measure TFTN Strategic Planning project success.

What are your reactions to the notion of a public/private partnership?

04/10/2023 http://www.tftn.org 27

Open Discussion