tftn gis pro in orlando

Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)

Steve Lewis

Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT

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

Todd Barr

Geospatial Program Manager, Koniag Technology Solutions (KTS)

September 29, 2010

2U.S. Department of TransportationResearch and Innovative Technology Administration

Agenda for Workshop

Overview of TFTN Strategic Planning Project – Steve Lewis, US-DOT

Overview of TFTN Strategic Plan Findings – Todd Barr, Koniag

TFTN Perspectives Panel & Lightning Talks□ NSGIC/State Perspective – Danielle Ayan, Georgia Tech

□ Private Sector Perspective – Skip Parker, NAVTEQ

□ Private Sector/Regional Perspective – Dr. Bruce Spear, Cambridge Systematics

□ Academic/Local Government Perpective – Al Butler

Questions & Answers, Discussion, Brainstorming


TFTN 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 – 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 OutreachPresentations & Workshops


Stakeholder OutreachInterviews

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


Moving on to

Todd Barr


Trends from the Workshops and Interviews


Near Unanimous Support


Learned about similar efforts

? ?


Safety could be a key to success…

• A Geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to

• Meet many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives

• Emergency response• Funded Efforts


“Think Regionally, Act Locally”

□ States and counties▪ Are looking beyond their borders▪ 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”


Initial, Minimal Components

□ Road naming□ Basic attributes (e.g. functional

classification)□ Persistent segment ID numbering


Additional Stakeholder Ideas


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


How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome?

Through State-level Best Practices□ Some States work with their local government partners

▪ Provide funding and technical support▪ State collects and aggregates the data into a Statewide dataset▪ Involve the e-911 community▪ Examples include Arkansas and Ohio

□ Some states are using public-private partnerships▪ Contracting for creation and maintenance of Statewide inventory▪ Includes a mechanism for posting update requests▪ In some case, the State is allowed to distribute a version of the data▪ Examples include Massachusetts and New York

Through possible additional USDOT funding sources


Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders


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


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)


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


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 street centerlines Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets

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


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


Thank You

Check out our Web-site

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

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


Questions & Discussion

Any questions for presenters and/or panelists?

We have some questions for you

We'd like this to be an open, interactive forum□ All have a chance to speak

□ Please raise your hand

□ State your name and affiliation


Discussion Questions

First and foremost: what's on your mind?□ Does this make sense? Are we nuts?□ New ideas?□ Obvious concerns?

Additional perceived benefits of TFTN□ GIS Pro draws a diverse audience

How does VGI fit into the picture?□ Opportunities and/or concerns

Perspective on roles of federal agencies□ Who are producers? □ Who are consumers?□ Who works well with states?

tftn gis pro in orlando

Documents

geospatial data

nationwide transportation

transportation theme

geospatial portfolio

strategic planning effort

tftn conceptcreation

tftn backgroundinfluenced

multimodalnationwide