TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)

637 views

Published on

Presentation from the executive steering committee meeting help on 10-20-2010

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
637
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
35
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
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)
  • NARC National Association of Regional Communities
  • SafetyHighway Performance Management SystemIntelligent Transportation SystemsAsset ManagementDeputy Director of RITA
  • Road namingBasic attributes (e.g. functional classification)Persistent segment ID numbering
  • LRS, routing and addresses could or might need to be part of the base
  • Early October Survey is sent outFirst Meeting October 19th 2009November 16th Survey must be returnedFollow up conference call December 15th 2009 Sample Agencies- Census- NGA- OSD- Oak Ridge National Lab- DOI- BLM- DOI - Fish and Wildlife- DOI USGS- DOT FHWA- EPA- Library of Congress- FGDC- USDA Farm Agency- USDA Forest Service- USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
  • Current positional accuracy improved to 7.6 meterBoundaries are the “real issue” for Census Bureau, not roads; DOTs might need greater detail
  • 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
  • TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)

    1. 1. Executive Steering Committee Meeting<br />October 20th, 2010<br />Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)<br />
    2. 2. TFTN Concept<br />“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the public domain”<br /><ul><li>An initial focus on street centerlines, but eventually multi-modal
    3. 3. Nationwide data spanning all states and territories
    4. 4. All roads, not just Federally funded roads
    5. 5. Provides a common geometric baseline
    6. 6. Road naming
    7. 7. Persistent segment ID numbering
    8. 8. Advanced functionality is built on top of baseline
    9. 9. Data is in the public domain and readily shareable</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />2<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    10. 10.
    11. 11. TFTN Strategic Planning Effort<br /><ul><li>Identify and engage stakeholders
    12. 12. Define requirements, challenges and opportunities
    13. 13. Document progress already made
    14. 14. Existing Datasets
    15. 15. Best Practices
    16. 16. New Ideas
    17. 17. Explore implementation issues
    18. 18. Evaluate funding sources</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />4<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    19. 19. Steering Committee Roles and Responsibilities<br />10/20/2010<br />5<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    20. 20. Stakeholder Outreach<br />
    21. 21. Presentations & Workshops<br />10/20/2010<br />7<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    22. 22. Interviews<br />10/20/2010<br />8<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    23. 23. Trends and Findings<br />
    24. 24. Interview TrendsCommonalities we have found<br /><ul><li>General consensus and support for the concept–
    25. 25. All the interviewees so far have indicated their support for this effort
    26. 26. Identified several existing national data sets and potential business models
    27. 27. Several stakeholders observed that ‘the time was right’ for this kind of initiative
    28. 28. Road safety opens opportunities–
    29. 29. DOT Safety group is interested in all roads. Road safety provides a significant funding opportunity
    30. 30. Will allow Emergency Managers to see outside their state’s “Keyhole”</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />10<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    31. 31. Interview TrendsCommonalities we have found<br /><ul><li>Trending Toward “Think Regionally Act Locally” –
    32. 32. States are beginning to look beyond their borders
    33. 33. States are the authoritative data source for their transportation data
    34. 34. “Can you live with that”–
    35. 35. All interviewees have different needs
    36. 36. Need to find a baseline that works with everyone
    37. 37. Once the baseline is established, then consumers can add their own “special sauce”</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />11<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    38. 38. Baseline Geometry<br />
    39. 39. With Initial Minimal Requirements…<br />
    40. 40. ……and “Special Sauce”<br />
    41. 41. Private Sector: Full routability and immersive imagery<br />USGS: Enhanced cartographic display and labeling<br />US Census: Polygon topology for census geographic units<br />US & State DOTs: Full routability, Linear Referencing System (LRS) & advanced attributes<br />State E911: Addresses<br />TFTN: Common baseline foundation of geometry, basic attributes<br />
    42. 42. Geospatial Transportation Data Requirements Collected from Federal AgenciesCensus and USGS Survey on road requirements - October 2010Meeting October 19, 200918 Federal Agencies<br />
    43. 43. Examples of road features & attributes required by Federal Agencies <br />10/20/2010<br />17<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    44. 44. Examples of road geometry characteristics required by Federal Agencies<br />10/20/2010<br />18<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    45. 45. Potential Data Sources<br />
    46. 46. FHWA Highway Performance <br />Monitoring System (HPMS)<br />10/20/2010<br />20<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    47. 47. TIGER<br />10/20/2010<br />21<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    48. 48. Private/Public Partnerships<br />10/20/2010<br />22<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    49. 49. OpenStreetMap (OSM) & Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)<br />10/20/2010<br />23<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    50. 50. The <br /> Road<br /> Ahead!<br />
    51. 51. The Road Ahead…<br /><ul><li> Interviews (Forest Service), meetings, case studies, etc.
    52. 52. Through these, we will:
    53. 53. Identify what’s working, what’s needed – current practices, requirements, strategies, standards, documentation
    54. 54. State use cases
    55. 55. Characterize existing data sets and business models
    56. 56. Identify institutional constraints, capacity, operational authority, motivation, benefits, etc.
    57. 57. Formulate strategies for implementation
    58. 58. Identify potential sources of funding
    59. 59. Final Report Timeline
    60. 60. Draft Report to Steering Committee by mid December
    61. 61. Final Report mid-January</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />25<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    62. 62. Executive Steering Committee Input<br /><ul><li> TFTN Minimum requirements vs. "add-ons" or special sauce?
    63. 63. Criteria to measure TFTN Strategic Planning project success.
    64. 64. What are your reactions to the notion of a public/private partnership?</li></ul>10/20/2010<br />26<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />
    65. 65. Open Discussion<br />10/20/2010<br />27<br />http://www.tftn.org<br />

    ×