• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Tftn findings to date esri uc
 

Tftn findings to date esri uc

on

  • 311 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
311
Views on SlideShare
297
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 14

http://www.tftn.org 14

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

    Tftn findings to date esri uc Tftn findings to date esri uc Presentation Transcript

    • TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NATION Discussion on Strategic Planning Findings to Date July 2010
    • Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” “Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities
      • The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition
        • We need ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible
      • Initial, minimal components might be:
        • Road naming
        • Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)
        • Persistent segment ID numbering
      • Additional potential components:
        • 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
    • Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” Content added by individual stakeholders Nationwide Roads Inventory “ HPMS roads” are a sub-set Bridges “special sauce” Accidents “special sauce”
    • A Potential Model for TFTN With 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
        • Detailed HPMS “attribute data” continues to be compiled on only a subset of the statewide inventory
        • Annual nature of HPMS reporting provides a data update mechanism
        • US-DOT works with states to develop basic standards
        • Reporting requirement would enable 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”
      • US-DOT collects and aggregates state inventories into a nationwide data set and publishes publicly available data
    • State-level Best Practices for Creating Statewide Road Inventories
      • Activate government partners at County and Local level
        • Provide funding and technical support
        • State collects and aggregates into statewide data
        • Examples of this approach include: AR and OH
      • Public-Private partnership with commercial mapping firms
        • State contracts with private sector for creation and maintenance of statewide inventories
        • State obtains licensed data and a mechanism for posting update requests
        • Examples of this approach include: NY and MA
    • Potential Benefits of TFTN Different benefits to different groups of stakeholders
      • Core business benefits to the US-DOT
        • To the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportation
        • To Highway Safety for nationwide accident mapping
        • To Bridge inventory efforts
      • 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 Different benefits to different groups of stakeholders ( Continued)
      • Benefits to State and Local Govt.
        • Potentially opens up FHWA 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 and programs to support citizen services
        • Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation