using gis to improve project delivery outcomes · agencies are using geospatial tools to improve...

Using GIS to Improve Project Delivery Outcomes

Brian Gardner Systems & Analysis Team

FHWA Office of Planning

GIS & NEPA

Both evolving for decades Concerted effort to reduce project

delivery times Intersection of process and technology ◦ Process streamlining ◦ Collaborative GIS

Benefits and lessons of recent applications

Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects

3

The Eco-Logical Approach A multi-step process that: ◦ Increases Predictability ◦ Promotes Connectivity ◦ Improves Conservation ◦ Provides Transparency

Collaboration and Integration Collaboration: Agencies agree to work together

Identify data that group will use

Agree how to handle other data needs

Integration: Resource data groups are combined

Transportation data overlain

Assess effects: Identify areas of concern/opportunity

AASHTO Innovation Initiative State DOTs Participating in UPlan

Image courtesy AASHTO

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts

Geospatial Data Collaboration

Bridging between organizations to improve working relationships

Facilitating data sharing among process participants

Improving communications and information flow within the environmental process

Collaborative GIS

DOT

Resource Agencies

Other Stakeholders

FHWA

Map image courtesy UT DOT

Benefits Organizational efficiency ◦ Improve focus of IT and planning staff resources ◦ Additional IT options for implementation ◦ Help manage engagement of all parties in the

environmental process Process efficiency ◦ Reduce time required for data assembly and

management ◦ Automate repetitive analyses and transactions ◦ Improve relevance, quality, and timeliness of

decision-support documents

Florida’s EST

Map image courtesy FDOT

Utah’s UPlan

Map image courtesy UT DOT

Synthesis of State Efforts

Screening Tools Data Libraries Multi-Agency

Decision Support Systems

Graphics courtesy SCDOT

Synthesis of State Practices How State DOTs and other transportation

agencies are using geospatial tools to improve project delivery ◦ collecting geospatial data, ◦ integrating or consolidating geospatial data into a

common framework, ◦ developing standards and common formats for

these data, accessing them, and ◦ using these data to communicate better with

stakeholders.

Geospatial Tools Case Studies

Agreements Some formal arrangements ◦ MOA, PA, OA ◦ Data flows and access ◦ Operational responsibilities

Mostly informal arrangements ◦ How and when to share data ◦ How a given tool will be used in the process

Frequent common broker ◦ Designated state agency responsible for

maintaining all authoritative data

Types of Tools

Static Data Repositories Interactive Gateways ◦ Viewers ◦ Screening Tools ◦ Web Portals

Common Gateway Features

Federated web services Mapping functionality Contribute and modify information Layered access control

Benefits of Repositories and Gateways Improved communications Increased efficiencies Improved data quality Streamlined project screening and

development Improved strategic decision-making

Challenges of Repositories and Gateways

Standardizing data Sharing sensitive data Maintaining data Adapting to change Identifying opportunities

SHRP2: Eco-Plan

Starts with SHRP2 C40

2011 TRB workshop sought recommendations SHRP2 could take to ◦ overcome barriers to implementing Eco-Logical and ◦ “reduce the transaction costs. ◦ Addressing the data and analysis issues was the number

one recommendation. Result was a project to integrate national-level environmental

resources with locally–available data, with three proof of concept pilots:

SHRP2 C40A Scope ◦ Build a national-level GIS tool to provide the data and analysis ◦ Support Eco-Logical and Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) ◦ Focus on novice users with little in-house GIS resources ◦ Leverage Federal web services to provide up-to-date data ◦ Pre-NEPA ecological screening

Process ◦ Form several groups to provide design input and testing feedback C40Bs, User Group, Technical Expert Task Group, Beta Testers

◦ Gathered and documented needs ◦ Developed a vision ◦ Designed the architecture ◦ Tested and updated based on feedback

Eco-Plan Vision

Primary users are state and MPO planners

Provide Federal data sets

Allow upload of local data

Not a replacement of existing tools

Support the IEF

Only for pre-NEPA screening

Architecture - Data

Maps

Gallery of themes maps and data services

Add Other Data From Web

Search for authoritative data sets identified by Eco-Plan

Add data sets from ArcGIS Online or the Web

Customize Maps

Find and copy existing theme maps for customization

Show/hide data layers

Ecological Screening Provide a simple

ecological screening tool based on the user’s shape

Prototype functionality limited to – Several states – Only critical

habitat, wetlands, and protected areas data

Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Wetlands

Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Critical Habitat and Species

EDC II – Geospatial Data Collaboration Brian Gardner FHWA Office of

Planning brian.gardner@dot.gov 202-366-4061

Mark Sarmiento FHWA Office of Planning mark.sarmiento@dot.gov 202-366-4828

Ben Williams FHWA Resource Center ben.williams@dot.gov 404-562-3671

Who can you contact?

SHRP II – Eco-Logical Shari Schaflein FHWA Office of Human

Environment Shari.Schaftlein@dot.gov 202-366-5570

Marlys Osterhues FHWA Office of Project Delivery & Environmental Review Marlys.Osterhues@dot.gov, 202-366-2052

Brian Yanchik FHWA Resource Center 443-522-9446

Who can you contact?