Narc tftn overview_v1

Transportation For The Nation:Overview of Strategic Planning ProcessPresentation to NARC21 September 2010

Presentation Overview
Concept & Project Activities
Project Findings to Date
Questions for the Discussion with NARC
TFTN StrategicPlan Overview

Background & Impetus
In 2008, an “Issues Brief” by the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) called for creation of TFTN
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direction on “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 is sponsoring the current project
Kick-off in Early 2010
Final Report Due in Early 2011
We’re about half-way through the process
Thanks in advance for participating in the process

The Concept“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the public domain”
Characteristics:
An initial focus on street centerlines, but eventually multi-modal
Nationwidedata 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 OutreachPresentations & Workshops
Coming Soon:
Today:

Stakeholder Outreach Interviews
Safety
Highway Performance Monitoring System
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Asset Management
Deputy Director of RITA

Findings from Outreach Activities
Very strong support for concept
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/counties as authoritative transportation data sources

A Potential Vision Emerges:Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” on top
The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition
Potential minimal components might be:
Road naming
Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)
Segment ID numbering
Seeking additional ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible

Baseline Geometry “Special Sauce” content is added by individual stakeholders
Nationwide Roads Inventory
“HPMS roads” are a sub-set
Bridges “special sauce”
Accidents “special sauce”

“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
Key take away from AASHTO GIS-T Symposium:
Current FHWA “reporting requirements” for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) could be expanded to include submission of a comprehensive statewide road inventory

How would an HPMS requirement work?
“HPMS attributes” on a subsetof 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 fundingfor creation and maintenance of inventory
States develop their own plans and data management strategies
US-DOT facilitates information exchange on state “best practices”

Challenges & Obstacles with the HPMS Model
US-DOT/FHWA solely responsible for any changes to the HPMS reporting requirements (e.g. if all roads were to be included)
Executive management wouldneed to be convinced, but seem willing
No US-DOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of nationwide data set
HPMS has a state by state outlook
But, other US-DOT program (e.g. Safety) could catalyze
States are not required to work with neighbors for connectivity
The level of quality, accuracy and readiness varies from State to State

Lessons LearnedStateBest Practicesfor 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

Core business benefits to the US-DOT
HPMS in the context of complete transportation data
Highway Safety - nationwide accident mapping
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

Benefits toState and Local Govt.
Potentially opens up US-DOTresources 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 to support citizen services
Publicly 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 setsto support automated routing

Questions for DiscussionWe want to hear from you!
Benefits of TFTN to regional councils
What would or should they be?
What do you need?
Relationship between regional councilsand state GIS coordination programs on transportation data sets
Spectrum of cooperation and collaboration
What’s working? What’s not? Best practices?
NARC perspective on regional roles relative to stateagencies
Who are producers? Who are consumers?
What states work well with regional councils?

Thank you
To see materials related to TFTN, please see:
http://www.TransportationResearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx

Narc tftn overview_v1

by KSI Koniag on Oct 01, 2010

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 7

Statistics

Narc tftn overview_v1 Presentation Transcript