nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
TRANSCRIPT
Transportation for the Nation
Strategic Plan Update
Presentation Overview
• Concept & Project Activities
• Project Findings to Date
• Set up the “NSGIC conversation”
– Starting for last 10 minutes
– Finishing tonight at 8pm
Background & Impetus
• 2008 NSGIC “Issues Brief” called for creation of TFTN
• “Geospatial Platform” calls for “geospatial data, services and applications contributed…by authoritative sources”– OMB Circular A-16 identifies US-DOT as “lead” for
“transportation”
• US-DOT business requirements for nationwide, “all roads” inventory– Bridge inventory
– Accident reporting
The Concept“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide
transportation data that is in the public domain”
• An initial focus on street centerlines, eventually multi-modal
• Nationwide data spanning all states and territories
• All roads, not just Federally funded roads
• Achieved by coordinated efforts from multiple levels of govt.
• Provides a common geometric baseline
• Data are in the public domain and readily shareable
Strategic Planning Effort
• Identify and engage the entire stakeholder community– All levels of government
– Private Sector
– Non-profit and Citizens ( OpenStreetMap, etc.)
• Define requirements, challenges and opportunities
• Document progress already made– Existing data sets
– Bet practices
– New ideas
• Explore implementation issues
• Evaluate funding requirements and sources
Stakeholder Outreach
Presentations & Workshops
Coming Soon:
Stakeholder Outreach
Interviews• Safety
• Highway Performance Management System
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
• Asset Management
• Deputy Director of Rita (TBD)
Findings from Outreach Activities
• Strong support
• Identified many activities that would benefit from TFTN
• Road safety could be a key element
– “All roads outlook” needed for many US-DOT Safety Initiatives
– “All roads outlook” needed for emergency response
– Significant federal funding of safety initiatives
• “Think Regionally Act Locally”
– States and counties are looking beyond their borders
– States and counties as the authoritative data source for their transportation data
A Potential Vision Emerges:Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” on top
• The specifics of what is included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition
• Potential Baseline Options– HPMS– Commercial road data – TIGER– Volunteered Geographic Information
• Potential 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
Nationwide Roads Inventory“HPMS roads” are a sub-setBridges “special sauce”Accidents “special sauce”
Baseline Geometry “Special Sauce” content is added by individual stakeholders
“Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities
Additional potential components:
• Address ranges/geocoding
• 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
A Potential Model for TFTNWith US-DOT leadership as prescribed by Circular A-16
Current FHWA “reporting requirements” for the Highway Performance Monitoring System
(HPMS) are expanded to include submission of a comprehensive statewide road inventory
How would an HPMS requirement work?
• Detailed “HPMS attributes” are compiled on a subset of a statewide road inventory
• Annual HPMS reporting provides a data update mechanism
• US-DOT works with states to develop basic standards
• Enables states to utilize FHWA funding for creation and maintenance of inventory
• States develop their own plans and data management strategies for meeting these requirements
• US-DOT facilitates information exchange on state “best practices”
Challenges & Obstacles with the HPMS Model
• US-DOT solely responsible for any changes to the HPMS reporting requirements to include all roads– They need to be convinced
• No US-DOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of nationwide data set– HPMS has a state by state outlook
• States are not required to work with neighbors for connectivity
• The level of quality, accuracy and readiness varies from State to State
Lessons LearnedState Best Practices for creating Statewide Road Inventories
• Activate local government partners– Provide funding and technical support
– State collects and aggregates into statewide data
– Involvement with emergency support community
– Examples include: AR and OH
• Public-Private partnership– Contracting for creation & maintenance of statewide inventory
– Mechanism for posting update requests
– State obtains licensed data
– Examples include: NY and MA
Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders
Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders
• Core business benefits to the US-DOT– HPMS in the context of complete transportation data
– Highway Safety - nationwide accident mapping
– All roads for Bridge inventory efforts
• Benefits to “sister” federal agencies– Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets
– Provides public domain data for sharing with partners
– Collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census
Potential Benefits of TFTNDifferent benefits to different groups of stakeholders
• Benefits to State and Local Govt.
– Potentially opens up DOT resources for statewide road inventories
– Streamlined requests for data
– Provides public domain data • Facilitates sharing with partners
• Better data – particularly for rural areas – for GPS-based navigation
– Easier cross border/multi-jurisdiction coordination and collaboration
• Benefits to the General Public
– Consistent data across agencies to support citizen services
– Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation
What have we heard so far about the HPMS oriented scenario?
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
• Multiple “process” models should be evaluated:– Public/private partnership
– Build on TIGER
– Build on HPMS
– Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)
– Something “outside-the-box” that we have yet to imagine
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
– Product contains fidelity to source materials that were provided• E.g., if source shows dual-carriageways, so does TIGER
• Planning for more frequent update– Based on population and growth considerations
– Plans are pending on budget
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
Questions for DiscussionRight now, and for tonight
• Benefits of TFTN to states– Why is this on NSGIC’s advocacy agenda?
• Relationship between state DOTs and state GIS Coordination programs– Spectrum of cooperation and collaboration
– Best practices where collaboration is high
• NSGIC perspective on roles of federal agencies– Who are producers? Who are consumers?
– Who works well with states?
Thank youPlease visit:
http://www.TransportationResearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx
Comments,
Questions &
Answers