Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)<br />Steve Lewis<br />Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT<br...
Agenda for Workshop<br />Overview of TFTN Strategic Planning Project– Steve Lewis, US-DOT<br />Overview of TFTN Strategic ...
TFTN Background<br />Influenced by several different efforts:<br />In 2008, an “issues brief” by NSGIC called for the crea...
TFTN Concept<br />“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the public domain”<...
Strategic Planning Effort – The Process<br />Identify and engage stakeholders <br />Define requirements, challenges and op...
What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award Outreach<br />Meeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009<br />NSGIC Annual Conference, ...
Stakeholder OutreachPresentations & Workshops<br />
Stakeholder OutreachInterviews<br /><ul><li>Safety
Highway Performance Management System
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Asset Management
Deputy Director of RITA</li></li></ul><li>Moving on to <br />Todd Barr<br />
Trends from the Workshops and Interviews<br />
Near Unanimous Support<br />
Learned about similar efforts <br />?<br />?<br />
Safety could be a key to success…<br />A Geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to <br />Meet many of the USDOTs...
“Think Regionally, Act Locally”<br />States and counties<br /> Are looking beyond their borders<br /> Are the authoritativ...
“Can you live with that?”<br />The Stakeholders have different needs<br />Need to find a baseline that works with everyone...
Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”<br />
Initial, Minimal Components<br />Road naming<br />Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)<br />Persistent segmen...
Additional Stakeholder Ideas<br />
Variety of stakeholders adds their own “special sauce” on top<br />Private Sector:  full routability and immersive imagery...
A Potential Model for TFTN - HPMS<br />FHWA reporting requirements for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) in...
Obstacles Associated With This Model<br />FHWA has to change the HPMS Reporting Requirements to include all roads in the g...
How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome?<br />Through State-level Best Practices<br />Some States work with their local govern...
Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders<br />
Examples of what have we heard so far…<br />
At the ESRI User Conference<br />Short-term and long-term considerations<br />Short term: don’t forget several nationwide ...
Census Bureau Interview Takeaways<br />TIGER is a mature product<br />Many users depend on it for a variety of application...
USGS Interview Takeaways<br />Requirement for nationwide roads in The National Map (TNM)<br />TIGER did not meet TNM requi...
At the NSGIC Annual Conference<br />Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches<br /><ul><li>“What are the shar...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando

457

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
457
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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----
  • TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando

    1. 1. Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)<br />Steve Lewis<br />Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT<br />Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS<br />Todd Barr<br />Geospatial Program Manager, Koniag Technology Solutions (KTS)<br />September 29, 2010<br />
    2. 2. Agenda for Workshop<br />Overview of TFTN Strategic Planning Project– Steve Lewis, US-DOT<br />Overview of TFTN Strategic Plan Findings– Todd Barr, Koniag<br />TFTN Perspectives Panel & Lightning Talks<br />NSGIC/State Perspective – Danielle Ayan, Georgia Tech<br />Private Sector Perspective – Skip Parker, NAVTEQ<br />Private Sector/Regional Perspective – Dr. Bruce Spear, Cambridge Systematics<br />Academic/Local Government Perpective – Al Butler<br />Questions & Answers, Discussion, Brainstorming <br />
    3. 3. TFTN Background<br />Influenced by several different efforts:<br />In 2008, an “issues brief” by NSGIC called for the creation of TFTN<br />OMB Circular A-16 identifies the USDOT as the “lead agency” for the “transportation theme” of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). <br />Emerging USDOT data requirements for geospatial data for all roads, such as accident reporting for enhanced safety and bridge inventory.<br />Aligned with several initiatives such the emerging federal Geospatial Platform concept. - one element of the “geospatial portfolio”<br />
    4. 4. TFTN Concept<br />“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the public domain”<br />An initial focus on street centerlines, but eventually multi-modal<br />Nationwide data spanning all states and territories<br />All roads, not just Federally funded roads<br />Provides a common geometric baseline<br />Road naming<br />Persistent segment ID numbering<br />Advanced functionality is built on top of baseline<br />Data is in the public domain and readily shareable<br />
    5. 5. Strategic Planning Effort – The Process<br />Identify and engage stakeholders <br />Define requirements, challenges and opportunities<br />Document progress already made<br />Existing Datasets<br />Best Practices<br />New Ideas<br />Explore implementation issues<br />Evaluate funding sources<br />
    6. 6. What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award Outreach<br />Meeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009<br />NSGIC Annual Conference, October 2009<br />National Geospatial Advisory Council, December 2009<br />Transportation Research Board Annual Meetings, January 2010<br />ESRI Federal User Conference, February 2010<br />
    7. 7. Stakeholder OutreachPresentations & Workshops<br />
    8. 8. Stakeholder OutreachInterviews<br /><ul><li>Safety
    9. 9. Highway Performance Management System
    10. 10. Intelligent Transportation Systems
    11. 11. Asset Management
    12. 12. Deputy Director of RITA</li></li></ul><li>Moving on to <br />Todd Barr<br />
    13. 13. Trends from the Workshops and Interviews<br />
    14. 14. Near Unanimous Support<br />
    15. 15. Learned about similar efforts <br />?<br />?<br />
    16. 16. Safety could be a key to success…<br />A Geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to <br />Meet many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives<br />Emergency response<br />Funded Efforts<br />
    17. 17. “Think Regionally, Act Locally”<br />States and counties<br /> Are looking beyond their borders<br /> Are the authoritative data source for their transportation data<br />
    18. 18. “Can you live with that?”<br />The Stakeholders have different needs<br />Need to find a baseline that works with everyone<br />Once the baseline is established, the consumers can add their own “special sauce”<br />
    19. 19. Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”<br />
    20. 20. Initial, Minimal Components<br />Road naming<br />Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)<br />Persistent segment ID numbering<br />
    21. 21. Additional Stakeholder Ideas<br />
    22. 22. Variety of stakeholders adds their own “special sauce” on top<br />Private Sector: full routability and immersive imagery<br />US Census: Polygon topology for census geographic units<br />USGS: Enhanced cartographic display and labeling<br />State DOTs: advanced attributes<br />State DOTs: Linear Referencing System (LRS)<br />State E911: Addresses<br />TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes<br />
    23. 23. A Potential Model for TFTN - HPMS<br />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<br />Current reporting requirements for the HPMS could be expanded to require all roads<br />Detailed HPMS attributes would continue to be provided for only Federal-aid roads<br />Annual nature of HPMS reporting provides a data update mechanism<br />USDOT works with states to develop basic standards<br />Reporting requirement would enable states to utilize FHWA funding for creation and maintenance of inventory<br />
    24. 24. Obstacles Associated With This Model<br />FHWA has to change the HPMS Reporting Requirements to include all roads in the geospatial submission<br />States are not required to work with neighbors for connectivity<br />No USDOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of a nationwide data set<br />The level of quality/accuracy varies from State to State<br />
    25. 25. How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome?<br />Through State-level Best Practices<br />Some States work with their local government partners<br />Provide funding and technical support<br />State collects and aggregates the data into a Statewide dataset<br />Involve the e-911 community<br />Examples include Arkansas and Ohio<br />Some states are using public-private partnerships<br />Contracting for creation and maintenance of Statewide inventory<br />Includes a mechanism for posting update requests<br />In some case, the State is allowed to distribute a version of the data<br />Examples include Massachusetts and New York<br />Through possible additional USDOT funding sources<br />
    26. 26. Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders<br />
    27. 27. Examples of what have we heard so far…<br />
    28. 28. At the ESRI User Conference<br />Short-term and long-term considerations<br />Short term: don’t forget several nationwide datasets currently exist<br />TIGER<br />Commercial<br />OpenStreetMap<br />Longer term: design and build something new<br />HPMS is not resourced to make a seamless nationwide data set<br />Look at other “process models” too!<br />Public/private partnership<br />Build on TIGER<br />Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)<br />Something “outside-the-box” that we have yet to imagine<br />
    29. 29. Census Bureau Interview Takeaways<br />TIGER is a mature product<br />Many users depend on it for a variety of applications <br />National broadband mapping (for Census geometry)<br />Significant improvements in latest TIGER files<br />Positional accuracy improved (7.6 meter)<br />Substantial input from local sources incorporated<br />Research into potential for OpenStreetMap<br />Planning for more frequent updates (depending on funding)<br />
    30. 30. USGS Interview Takeaways<br />Requirement for nationwide roads in The National Map (TNM)<br />TIGER did not meet TNM requirements<br />Positional accuracy<br />Depictions of interchanges and dual-carriageways<br />Attributes<br />Costs to retrofit TIGER were prohibitive<br />Have currently replaced TIGER with TeleAtlas data<br />Competitive price, but restricted use<br />Looking at OpenStreetMap and other alternatives, long-term<br />The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provides a positive example of Federal-State collaboration<br />
    31. 31. At the NSGIC Annual Conference<br />Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches<br /><ul><li>“What are the shared needs and commonalities?”
    32. 32. Develop an inventory of what each state has for street centerlines
    33. 33. Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets</li></ul>The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer per se; <br /><ul><li>Boundariesare the “real issue” for Census Bureau, not roads; DOTs might need greater detail</li></ul>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<br />
    34. 34. The Road Ahead<br />More interviews, meetings, surveys, case studies, etc.<br />Through these, we will:<br />Identify what’s working, what’s needed – current practices, requirements, strategies, standards, documentation<br />Identify institutional constraints, capacity, operational authority, motivation, benefits, etc.<br />Formulate strategies for implementation<br />Identify potential sources of funding<br />
    35. 35. Thank You<br />Check out our Web-site<br />http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx<br />
    36. 36. Questions & Discussion<br />Any questions for presenters and/or panelists?<br />We have some questions for you<br />We'd like this to be an open, interactive forum<br />All have a chance to speak<br />Please raise your hand<br />State your name and affiliation<br />
    37. 37. Discussion Questions<br />First and foremost: what's on your mind?<br />Does this make sense? Are we nuts?<br />New ideas?<br />Obvious concerns?<br />Additional perceived benefits of TFTN<br />GIS Pro draws a diverse audience<br />How does VGI fit into the picture?<br />Opportunities and/or concerns<br />Perspective on roles of federal agencies<br />Who are producers? <br />Who are consumers?<br />Who works well with states?<br />
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×