Lewis tftn ngac_09232010


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lewis tftn ngac_09232010

  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 />September 23, 2010<br />
  2. 2. 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 />
  3. 3. 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 />
  4. 4. Strategic Planning Effort - History<br />RITA/BTS agreed to fund and manage the effort<br />Funds obligated and contractor selected in October 2009<br />Koniag Technology Solutions<br />Applied Geographics<br />Suffered through many contracting glitches associated with “end-of-year” money<br />Contract finally awarded in March 2010<br />
  5. 5. Strategic Planning Effort – The Process<br />Identify and engage the entire stakeholder community<br />All levels of government<br />Private Sector<br />Citizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community)<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 requirements and 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. What Has Been Done? – TFTN Workshops<br />AASHTO GIS-T Symposium, April 2010<br />ESRI International User Conference, July 2010<br />NSGIC Annual Conference, September 2010<br />National Association of Regional Councils, September 2010 (webinar)<br />URISA GIS-Pro Conference, September 2010 (next week)<br />
  8. 8. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010<br />U.S. Department of Transportation<br />Safety<br />Asset Management<br />Intelligent Transportation Systems<br />Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)<br />Other Federal Agencies<br />U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />Federal Communications Commission<br />U.S. Geological Survey<br />Bureau of the Census<br />
  9. 9. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - Continued<br />American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials<br />Transportation Research Board<br />I-95 Corridor Coalition<br />
  10. 10. Trends from the Workshops and Interviews<br />Near Unanimous Support<br />All of those interviewed and most of those who attended the workshops have indicated their support for this effort<br />Learned of a number of similar efforts underway that benefit from TFTN<br />Safety could be a key to the success of TFTN<br />A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to meet many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives<br />A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed for emergency response<br />Lots of federal money for safety initiatives<br />
  11. 11. Trends from the Workshops and Interviews<br />“Think Regionally Act Locally”<br />States and counties are beginning to look beyond their borders<br />States and counties are the authoritative data source for their transportation data<br />“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 />
  12. 12. Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”<br />The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition<br />Initial, minimal components might be:<br />Road naming<br />Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)<br />Persistent segment ID numbering<br /><ul><li>Seeking additional ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible
  13. 13. “Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities</li></li></ul><li>Possibilities for “Special Sauce”<br />Address ranges/geocoding (could be a minimal component?)<br /><ul><li>Advanced attributes (e.g. width, lanes)</li></ul>Full routability (e.g. speeds, turn restrictions, etc.)<br />Enhanced cartographic display (e.g. annotation, symbolization, etc.)<br />Linear referencing systems (LRS)<br />Integration with photo/imagery catalogs<br />
  14. 14. 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 />
  15. 15. 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 />
  16. 16. 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 />
  17. 17. Potential Benefits of TFTN<br />Core business benefits to the USDOT<br />To the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportation<br />To Highway Safety for nationwide accident mapping<br />To bridge inventory effort<br />Benefits to “sister” federal agencies<br />Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets<br />Provides public domain data for sharing with partners<br />Potential collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census<br />
  18. 18. Potential Benefits of TFTN<br />Benefits to State and Local Governments <br />Potentially opens up FHWA resources for statewide road inventories<br />Provides public domain data <br />Facilitates sharing with partners<br />Better data – particularly for rural areas – for GPS-based navigation<br />Easier cross border /multi-jurisdiction coordination and collaboration<br />Benefits to the General Public<br />Consistent data across agencies and programs to support citizen services<br />Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation<br />
  19. 19. Examples of what have we heard so far…<br />
  20. 20. 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 />
  21. 21. 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 />
  22. 22. 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 />
  23. 23. At the NSGIC Annual Conference<br />Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches – “what are the shared needs and commonalities?”<br />Develop an inventory of what each state has for statewide street centerlines<br />Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of success<br />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<br />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 />
  24. 24. 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 />
  25. 25. Questions?<br />Steve Lewis<br />(202) 366-9223<br />steve.lewis@dot.gov<br />http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx<br />