• Like
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando



  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    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
  • Identify and engage stakeholders -All levels of government-Private Sector-Citizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community)
  • Handoff graphic
  • A Geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to Meet many of the USDOTs Safety InitiativesEmergency responseFunded Efforts
  • Graphics for Geometry----


  • 1. Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)
    Steve Lewis
    Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT
    Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS
    Todd Barr
    Geospatial Program Manager, Koniag Technology Solutions (KTS)
    September 29, 2010
  • 2. Agenda for Workshop
    Overview of TFTN Strategic Planning Project– Steve Lewis, US-DOT
    Overview of TFTN Strategic Plan Findings– Todd Barr, Koniag
    TFTN Perspectives Panel & Lightning Talks
    NSGIC/State Perspective – Danielle Ayan, Georgia Tech
    Private Sector Perspective – Skip Parker, NAVTEQ
    Private Sector/Regional Perspective – Dr. Bruce Spear, Cambridge Systematics
    Academic/Local Government Perpective – Al Butler
    Questions & Answers, Discussion, Brainstorming
  • 3. TFTN 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”
  • 4. 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
  • 5. Strategic Planning Effort – The Process
    Identify and engage stakeholders
    Define requirements, challenges and opportunities
    Document progress already made
    Existing Datasets
    Best Practices
    New Ideas
    Explore implementation issues
    Evaluate funding 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. Stakeholder OutreachPresentations & Workshops
  • 8. Stakeholder OutreachInterviews
    • Safety
    • 9. Highway Performance Management System
    • 10. Intelligent Transportation Systems
    • 11. Asset Management
    • 12. Deputy Director of RITA
  • Moving on to
    Todd Barr
  • 13. Trends from the Workshops and Interviews
  • 14. Near Unanimous Support
  • 15. Learned about similar efforts
  • 16. Safety could be a key to success…
    A Geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to
    Meet many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives
    Emergency response
    Funded Efforts
  • 17. “Think Regionally, Act Locally”
    States and counties
    Are looking beyond their borders
    Are the authoritative data source for their transportation data
  • 18. “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”
  • 19. Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”
  • 20. Initial, Minimal Components
    Road naming
    Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)
    Persistent segment ID numbering
  • 21. Additional Stakeholder Ideas
  • 22. Variety of stakeholders adds their own “special sauce” on top
    Private Sector: full routability and immersive imagery
    US Census: Polygon topology for census geographic units
    USGS: Enhanced cartographic display and labeling
    State DOTs: advanced attributes
    State DOTs: Linear Referencing System (LRS)
    State E911: Addresses
    TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. 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
  • 26. Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders
  • 27. Examples of what have we heard so far…
  • 28. 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
  • 29. 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)
  • 30. 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
  • 31. At the NSGIC Annual Conference
    Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches
    • “What are the shared needs and commonalities?”
    • 32. Develop an inventory of what each state has for street centerlines
    • 33. Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets
    The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer per se;
    • Boundariesare 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
  • 34. 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
  • 35. Thank You
    Check out our Web-site
  • 36. Questions & Discussion
    Any questions for presenters and/or panelists?
    We have some questions for you
    We'd like this to be an open, interactive forum
    All have a chance to speak
    Please raise your hand
    State your name and affiliation
  • 37. Discussion Questions
    First and foremost: what's on your mind?
    Does this make sense? Are we nuts?
    New ideas?
    Obvious concerns?
    Additional perceived benefits of TFTN
    GIS Pro draws a diverse audience
    How does VGI fit into the picture?
    Opportunities and/or concerns
    Perspective on roles of federal agencies
    Who are producers?
    Who are consumers?
    Who works well with states?