Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lewis tftn ngac_09232010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Lewis tftn ngac_09232010


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. 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
  • 2. 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”
  • 3. 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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. 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
  • 7. 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)
  • 8. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010
    U.S. Department of Transportation
    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
  • 9. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - Continued
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    Transportation Research Board
    I-95 Corridor Coalition
  • 10. 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
  • 11. 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”
  • 12. 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
    • 13. “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
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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
  • 18. 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
  • 19. Examples of what have we heard so far…
  • 20. At the ESRI User Conference
    Short-term and long-term considerations
    Short term: don’t forget several nationwide datasets currently exist
    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
  • 21. 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)
  • 22. 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
    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
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. Questions?
    Steve Lewis
    (202) 366-9223