HIFLD Presentation

711 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
711
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
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)
  • HIFLD Presentation

    1. 1. Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN) Steve Lewis Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS November 1, 2010
    2. 2. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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”
    3. 3. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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
    4. 4. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Strategic Planning Effort - History RITA/BTS agreed to fund and manage the effort Funds obligated and contractor selected in October 2009 □ Koniag Technology Solutions □ Applied Geographics Suffered through many contracting glitches associated with “end-of-year” money Contract finally awarded in March 2010
    5. 5. 5 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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. 6. 6 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Stakeholder Outreach - Presentations & Workshops
    7. 7. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Stakeholder Outreach - Interviews • Safety • Highway Performance Management System • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Asset Management • Deputy Director of RITA
    8. 8. 8 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Trends from the Workshops and Interviews  Near Unanimous Support □ All of those interviewed and most of those who attended the workshops have indicated their support for this effort  Learned of a number of similar efforts underway that benefit from TFTN  Safety could be a key to the success of TFTN □ A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to meet many of the USDOTs Safety Initiatives □ A geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed for emergency response □ Lots of federal money for safety initiatives
    9. 9. 9 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Trends from the Workshops and Interviews  “Think Regionally Act Locally” □ States and counties are beginning to look beyond their borders □ States and counties are the authoritative data source for their transportation data  “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”
    10. 10. 10 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”  The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition  Initial, minimal components might be: □ Road naming □ Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification) □ Persistent segment ID numbering  Seeking additional ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible  “Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities
    11. 11. 11 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Variety of stakeholders adds their own “special sauce” on top •TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes •State DOTs: Linear Referencing System (LRS) •State DOTs: advanced attributes •Private Sector: full routability and immersive imagery •USGS: Enhanced cartographic display and labeling •US Census: Polygon topology for census geographic units •State E911: Addresses
    12. 12. 12 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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
    13. 13. 13 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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
    14. 14. 14 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Potential Vision for TFTN ProduceCatalyze & Standardize Aggregate & Publish USDOT via HPMS • HPMS annual reporting requirement • Opens funding • Develops standards • Products support broader US-DOT business needs, such as Safety • Ability to provide funding support to local entities US Census via TIGER • Existing, branded product • Existing staffing resources for nationwide data integration • Expertise in nationwide data assemblage • Expertise in nationwide data publishing OpenStreetMap Opportunity for authoritative sources to detect data updates Private Sector Value Add Products State DOTs Private Sector Partnership Engagement w/ County or Regional Govts. • States choose their own methods • Coordination with state E911 and NG911 efforts • All roads USDOT Trans. Products
    15. 15. 15 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Potential Benefits of TFTN Different benefits to different groups of stakeholders
    16. 16. 16 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Examples of what have we heard so far…
    17. 17. 17 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration At the ESRI User Conference  Short-term and long-term considerations □ Short term: don’t forget several nationwide datasets currently exist ▪ TIGER ▪ Commercial ▪ OpenStreetMap □ 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
    18. 18. 18 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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)
    19. 19. 19 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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 □ Attributes □ 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
    20. 20. 20 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration At the NSGIC Annual Conference  Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches – “what are the shared needs and commonalities?”  Develop an inventory of what each state has for statewide street centerlines  Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of success  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  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
    21. 21. 21 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration GIS Pro Takeaways  Data Sharing is two way relationship □ “Co-dependency” can lead to success  Increased involvement in planning process from local government stakeholders is desirable  Public/Private Partnership: “knotty issues” of licensing will need to be addressed. □ 2004 study from National Academy of Science titled “Licensing of Geographic Data and Services” could be a resource.  Needs to be an emphasis on identifying what is in the core, common base of TFTN (vs. special sauce). □ US Census pointed to “Federal Survey” of 19 agencies that identified their common needs as a starting place.  Baseline data elements should not be complex; added complexity can affect the success of the project
    22. 22. 22 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration 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
    23. 23. 23 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Questions? Steve Lewis (202) 366-9223 steve.lewis@dot.gov http://www.tftn.org http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx

    ×