Lewis tftn ngac_09232010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lewis tftn ngac_09232010

on

  • 401 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
401
Views on SlideShare
401
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Lewis tftn ngac_09232010 Lewis tftn ngac_09232010 Presentation Transcript

    • Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)
      Steve Lewis
      Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT
      Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS
      September 23, 2010
    • 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 effort
      Funds 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 the entire stakeholder community
      All levels of government
      Private Sector
      Citizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community)
      Define requirements, challenges and opportunities
      Document progress already made
      Existing Datasets
      Best Practices
      New Ideas
      Explore implementation issues
      Evaluate funding requirements and sources
    • What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award Outreach
      Meeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009
      NSGIC Annual Conference, October 2009
      National Geospatial Advisory Council, December 2009
      Transportation Research Board Annual Meetings, January 2010
      ESRI Federal User Conference, February 2010
    • What Has Been Done? – TFTN Workshops
      AASHTO GIS-T Symposium, April 2010
      ESRI International User Conference, July 2010
      NSGIC Annual Conference, September 2010
      National Association of Regional Councils, September 2010 (webinar)
      URISA GIS-Pro Conference, September 2010 (next week)
    • What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010
      U.S. Department of Transportation
      Safety
      Asset Management
      Intelligent Transportation Systems
      Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
      Other Federal Agencies
      U.S. Department of Agriculture
      Federal Communications Commission
      U.S. Geological Survey
      Bureau of the Census
    • What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - Continued
      American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
      Transportation Research Board
      I-95 Corridor Coalition
    • 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
    • Possibilities for “Special Sauce”
      Address ranges/geocoding (could be a minimal component?)
      • 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 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 TFTN
      Core business benefits to the USDOT
      To the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportation
      To Highway Safety for nationwide accident mapping
      To bridge inventory effort
      Benefits to “sister” federal agencies
      Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets
      Provides public domain data for sharing with partners
      Potential collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census
    • Potential Benefits of TFTN
      Benefits to State and Local Governments
      Potentially opens up FHWA resources for statewide road inventories
      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 and programs to support citizen services
      Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation
    • 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 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
    • 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
    • Questions?
      Steve Lewis
      (202) 366-9223
      steve.lewis@dot.gov
      http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx