Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
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

TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando


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
  • 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----
  • Transcript

    • 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?