Transportation for the Nation

Strategic Plan Update

Presentation Overview

• Concept & Project Activities

• Project Findings to Date

• Set up the “NSGIC conversation”

– Starting for last 10 minutes

– Finishing tonight at 8pm

Background & Impetus

• 2008 NSGIC “Issues Brief” called for creation of TFTN

• “Geospatial Platform” calls for “geospatial data, services and applications contributed…by authoritative sources”– OMB Circular A-16 identifies US-DOT as “lead” for

“transportation”

• US-DOT business requirements for nationwide, “all roads” inventory– Bridge inventory

– Accident reporting

The Concept“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide

transportation data that is in the public domain”

• An initial focus on street centerlines, eventually multi-modal

• Nationwide data spanning all states and territories

• All roads, not just Federally funded roads

• Achieved by coordinated efforts from multiple levels of govt.

• Provides a common geometric baseline

• Data are in the public domain and readily shareable

Strategic Planning Effort

• Identify and engage the entire stakeholder community– All levels of government

– Private Sector

– Non-profit and Citizens ( OpenStreetMap, etc.)

• Define requirements, challenges and opportunities

• Document progress already made– Existing data sets

– Bet practices

– New ideas

• Explore implementation issues

• Evaluate funding requirements and sources

Stakeholder Outreach

Presentations & Workshops

Coming Soon:

Stakeholder Outreach

Interviews• Safety

• Highway Performance Management System

• Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Asset Management

• Deputy Director of Rita (TBD)

Findings from Outreach Activities

• Strong support

• Identified many activities that would benefit from TFTN

• Road safety could be a key element

– “All roads outlook” needed for many US-DOT Safety Initiatives

– “All roads outlook” needed for emergency response

– Significant federal funding of safety initiatives

• “Think Regionally Act Locally”

– States and counties are looking beyond their borders

– States and counties as the authoritative data source for their transportation data

A Potential Vision Emerges:Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” on top

• The specifics of what is included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition

• Potential Baseline Options– HPMS– Commercial road data – TIGER– Volunteered Geographic Information

• Potential 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

Nationwide Roads Inventory“HPMS roads” are a sub-setBridges “special sauce”Accidents “special sauce”

Baseline Geometry “Special Sauce” content is added by individual stakeholders

“Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities

Additional potential components:

• Address ranges/geocoding

• Advanced attributes (e.g. width, lanes)

• Full routability (e.g. speeds, turn restrictions, etc.)

• Enhanced cartographic display (e.g. annotation, symbolization, etc.)

• Linear Referencing Systems (LRS)

• Integration with photo/imagery catalogs

A Potential Model for TFTNWith US-DOT leadership as prescribed by Circular A-16

Current FHWA “reporting requirements” for the Highway Performance Monitoring System

(HPMS) are expanded to include submission of a comprehensive statewide road inventory

How would an HPMS requirement work?

• Detailed “HPMS attributes” are compiled on a subset of a statewide road inventory

• Annual HPMS reporting provides a data update mechanism

• US-DOT works with states to develop basic standards

• Enables states to utilize FHWA funding for creation and maintenance of inventory

• States develop their own plans and data management strategies for meeting these requirements

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

Challenges & Obstacles with the HPMS Model

• US-DOT solely responsible for any changes to the HPMS reporting requirements to include all roads– They need to be convinced

• No US-DOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of nationwide data set– HPMS has a state by state outlook

• States are not required to work with neighbors for connectivity

• The level of quality, accuracy and readiness varies from State to State

Lessons LearnedState Best Practices for creating Statewide Road Inventories

• Activate local government partners– Provide funding and technical support

– State collects and aggregates into statewide data

– Involvement with emergency support community

– Examples include: AR and OH

• Public-Private partnership– Contracting for creation & maintenance of statewide inventory

– Mechanism for posting update requests

– State obtains licensed data

– Examples include: NY and MA

Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders

Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders

• Core business benefits to the US-DOT– HPMS in the context of complete transportation data

– Highway Safety - nationwide accident mapping

– All roads for Bridge inventory efforts

• Benefits to “sister” federal agencies– Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets

– Provides public domain data for sharing with partners

– Collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census

Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders

• Benefits to State and Local Govt.

– Potentially opens up DOT resources for statewide road inventories

– Streamlined requests for data

– Provides public domain data • Facilitates sharing with partners

• Better data – particularly for rural areas – for GPS-based navigation

– Easier cross border/multi-jurisdiction coordination and collaboration

• Benefits to the General Public

– Consistent data across agencies to support citizen services

– Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation

What have we heard so far about the HPMS oriented scenario?

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

• Multiple “process” models should be evaluated:– Public/private partnership

– Build on TIGER

– Build on HPMS

– 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

– Product contains fidelity to source materials that were provided• E.g., if source shows dual-carriageways, so does TIGER

• Planning for more frequent update– Based on population and growth considerations

– Plans are pending on budget

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

Questions for DiscussionRight now, and for tonight

• Benefits of TFTN to states– Why is this on NSGIC’s advocacy agenda?

• Relationship between state DOTs and state GIS Coordination programs– Spectrum of cooperation and collaboration

– Best practices where collaboration is high

• NSGIC perspective on roles of federal agencies– Who are producers? Who are consumers?

– Who works well with states?

Thank youPlease visit:

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

Comments,

Questions &

Answers