This document discusses the strategic planning effort for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN), which aims to create and maintain high-quality, nationwide transportation data in the public domain. The effort is influenced by calls for a common geospatial baseline of all roads and emerging USDOT data needs. Stakeholder outreach and interviews have identified strong support and trends, including the need to think regionally and find a minimal common baseline with opportunities for additional data. Potential models and benefits are discussed, such as building on existing efforts like HPMS. Moving forward, the strategic planning process will further engage stakeholders to identify requirements, strategies and funding sources to implement TFTN.

1. Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)Steve LewisGeospatial Information Officer, USDOTDirector, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTSSeptember 23, 2010

2. BackgroundInfluenced by several different efforts:In 2008, an “issues brief” by NSGIC called for the creation of TFTNOMB 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. 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-modalNationwide data spanning all states and territoriesAll roads, not just Federally funded roadsProvides a common geometric baselineRoad namingPersistent segment ID numberingAdvanced functionality is built on top of baselineData is in the public domain and readily shareable

4. Strategic Planning Effort - HistoryRITA/BTS agreed to fund and manage the effortFunds obligated and contractor selected in October 2009Koniag Technology SolutionsApplied GeographicsSuffered through many contracting glitches associated with “end-of-year” moneyContract finally awarded in March 2010

5. Strategic Planning Effort – The ProcessIdentify and engage the entire stakeholder communityAll levels of governmentPrivate SectorCitizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community)Define requirements, challenges and opportunitiesDocument progress already madeExisting DatasetsBest PracticesNew IdeasExplore implementation issuesEvaluate funding requirements and sources

6. What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award OutreachMeeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009NSGIC Annual Conference, October 2009National Geospatial Advisory Council, December 2009Transportation Research Board Annual Meetings, January 2010ESRI Federal User Conference, February 2010

7. What Has Been Done? – TFTN WorkshopsAASHTO GIS-T Symposium, April 2010ESRI International User Conference, July 2010NSGIC Annual Conference, September 2010National Association of Regional Councils, September 2010 (webinar)URISA GIS-Pro Conference, September 2010 (next week)

8. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010U.S. Department of TransportationSafetyAsset ManagementIntelligent Transportation SystemsHighway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)Other Federal AgenciesU.S. Department of AgricultureFederal Communications CommissionU.S. Geological SurveyBureau of the Census

9. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - ContinuedAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsTransportation Research BoardI-95 Corridor Coalition

10. Trends from the Workshops and InterviewsNear Unanimous SupportAll of those interviewed and most of those who attended the workshops have indicated their support for this effortLearned of a number of similar efforts underway that benefit from TFTNSafety could be a key to the success of TFTNA geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed to meet many of the USDOTs Safety InitiativesA geospatial representation of ALL ROADS is needed for emergency responseLots of federal money for safety initiatives

11. Trends from the Workshops and Interviews“Think Regionally Act Locally”States and counties are beginning to look beyond their bordersStates and counties are the authoritative data source for their transportation data“Can you live with that?”The Stakeholders have different needsNeed to find a baseline that works with everyoneOnce the baseline is established, the consumers can add their own “special sauce”

12. Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce”The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definitionInitial, minimal components might be:Road namingBasic attributes (e.g. functional classification)Persistent segment ID numberingSeeking additional ideas and input from stakeholders on what’s feasible

13. “Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilitiesPossibilities for “Special Sauce”Address ranges/geocoding (could be a minimal component?)Advanced attributes (e.g. width, lanes)Full routability (e.g. speeds, turn restrictions, etc.)Enhanced cartographic display (e.g. annotation, symbolization, etc.)Linear referencing systems (LRS)Integration with photo/imagery catalogs

14. A Potential Model for TFTN - HPMSFHWA reporting requirements for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) include the submission of a geospatial network of all Federal-aid roads by each State DOTCurrent reporting requirements for the HPMS could be expanded to require all roadsDetailed HPMS attributes would continue to be provided for only Federal-aid roadsAnnual nature of HPMS reporting provides a data update mechanismUSDOT works with states to develop basic standardsReporting requirement would enable states to utilize FHWA funding for creation and maintenance of inventory

15. Obstacles Associated With This ModelFHWA has to change the HPMS Reporting Requirements to include all roads in the geospatial submissionStates are not required to work with neighbors for connectivityNo USDOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of a nationwide data setThe level of quality/accuracy varies from State to State

16. How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome?Through State-level Best PracticesSome States work with their local government partnersProvide funding and technical supportState collects and aggregates the data into a Statewide datasetInvolve the e-911 communityExamples include Arkansas and OhioSome states are using public-private partnershipsContracting for creation and maintenance of Statewide inventoryIncludes a mechanism for posting update requestsIn some case, the State is allowed to distribute a version of the dataExamples include Massachusetts and New YorkThrough possible additional USDOT funding sources

17. Potential Benefits of TFTNCore business benefits to the USDOTTo the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportationTo Highway Safety for nationwide accident mappingTo bridge inventory effortBenefits to “sister” federal agenciesReduces costs from redundant nationwide data setsProvides public domain data for sharing with partnersPotential collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census

18. Potential Benefits of TFTNBenefits to State and Local Governments Potentially opens up FHWA resources for statewide road inventoriesProvides public domain data Facilitates sharing with partnersBetter data – particularly for rural areas – for GPS-based navigationEasier cross border /multi-jurisdiction coordination and collaborationBenefits to the General PublicConsistent data across agencies and programs to support citizen servicesPublically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation

19. Examples of what have we heard so far…

20. At the ESRI User ConferenceShort-term and long-term considerationsShort term: don’t forget several nationwide datasets currently existTIGERCommercialOpenStreetMapLonger term: design and build something newHPMS is not resourced to make a seamless nationwide data setLook at other “process models” too!Public/private partnershipBuild on TIGERVolunteered Geographic Information (VGI)Something “outside-the-box” that we have yet to imagine

21. Census Bureau Interview TakeawaysTIGER is a mature productMany users depend on it for a variety of applications National broadband mapping (for Census geometry)Significant improvements in latest TIGER filesPositional accuracy improved (7.6 meter)Substantial input from local sources incorporatedResearch into potential for OpenStreetMapPlanning for more frequent updates (depending on funding)

22. USGS Interview TakeawaysRequirement for nationwide roads in The National Map (TNM)TIGER did not meet TNM requirementsPositional accuracyDepictions of interchanges and dual-carriagewaysAttributesCosts to retrofit TIGER were prohibitiveHave currently replaced TIGER with TeleAtlas dataCompetitive price, but restricted useLooking at OpenStreetMap and other alternatives, long-termThe National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provides a positive example of Federal-State collaboration

23. At the NSGIC Annual ConferenceDevelop 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 centerlinesDevelop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of successThe 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 detailNext Generation 911 is and will be a big driver for GIS-based initiatives to build statewide street centerline data sets to support automated routing

24. The Road AheadMore interviews, meetings, surveys, case studies, etc.Through these, we will:Identify what’s working, what’s needed – current practices, requirements, strategies, standards, documentationIdentify institutional constraints, capacity, operational authority, motivation, benefits, etc.Formulate strategies for implementationIdentify potential sources of funding

25. Questions?Steve Lewis(202) 366-9223steve.lewis@dot.govhttp://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx