November Committee at Large Meeting

Strategic Planning for
Transportation for the Nation (TFTN)
Steve Lewis
Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT
Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS
November 10, 2010

Steering Committee Roles and Responsibilities
“At Large” Steering Committee
Participate in periodic teleconferences and webinars
Listen and advise during the planning process
Option to receive and review all documents
Prepare to adopt the resulting plan as a product in some fashion
Executive Steering Committee
Same as members of the at-large group, plus
Document review and feedback
Sounding board on difficult issues or questions
Adjudicating differences of opinion coming from different stakeholders
Support in gathering input and promoting the planning process

3
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”

4
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

5

6
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

7
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

8
Stakeholder Outreach

9
Stakeholder Outreach - Presentations &
Workshops

10
Stakeholder Outreach - Interviews
• Safety
• Highway Performance Management System
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
• Asset Management
• Deputy Director of RITA

11
Trends

12
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

13
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”

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
Examples of what have we heard so
far…

20
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

21
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

22
At the URISA GIS-Pro Conference
 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

23
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

24
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)

25
USFS Interview Takeaways
 USFS is a major road data manager with active road
mapping efforts
□ 370,000 total miles of roads
□ Regulatory requirement to produce a publicly available
“Transportation Atlas” covering “roads, trails and air fields”
 USFS has key attributes to identify “Closed roads” and
“Roads requiring high clearance vehicles”
 USFS has existing annual reporting relationship with US-
DOT/FHWA for 3500 bridges
 Depiction of USFS roads within TIGER is weak
 USFS has strong interest in and enthusiasm for TFTN
concept
□ “We want to be a contributor”

26
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

27
Steering Committee Input
 TFTN Minimum requirements vs. "add-ons" or special
sauce?
 What are the criteria to measure TFTN Strategic
Planning project success?
 What are your reactions to:
□ The HPMS model?
□ Using TIGER for TFTN?
□ Public/private partnerships for sharing transportation data?
□ Using VGI for TFTN?

28
Questions/Comments?
Steve Lewis
(202) 366-9223
steve.lewis@dot.gov
http://www.tftn.org
http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx

November Committee at Large Meeting

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (15)

Similaire à November Committee at Large Meeting

Similaire à November Committee at Large Meeting (20)

Plus de KSI Koniag

Plus de KSI Koniag (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

November Committee at Large Meeting

Notes de l'éditeur