Narc tftn overview_v1

Transportation For The Nation:Overview of Strategic Planning Process

Presentation to NARC21 September 2010

Presentation Overview

• Concept & Project Activities

• Project Findings to Date

• Questions for the Discussion with NARC

TFTN Strategic Plan Overview

Background & Impetus

• In 2008, an “Issues Brief” by the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) called for creation of TFTN

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direction on “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 is sponsoring the current project– Kick-off in Early 2010– Final Report Due in Early 2011– We’re about half-way through the process– Thanks in advance for participating in the process


The Concept“Creation and maintenance of high-quality, nationwide transportation data that is in the

public domain”

• Characteristics:– An initial focus on street centerlines, but 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:


Today:

Stakeholder Outreach

Interviews

• Safety• Highway Performance Monitoring System• Intelligent Transportation Systems• Asset Management• Deputy Director of RITA


Findings from Outreach Activities

• Very strong support for concept

• 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/counties as authoritative transportation data sources


A Potential Vision Emerges:Baseline Geometry with “Special Sauce” on top

• The specifics of what’s included in “baseline geometry” requires further definition

• Potential minimal components might be:– Road naming– Basic attributes (e.g. functional classification)– 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

Key take away from AASHTO GIS-T Symposium:

Current FHWA “reporting requirements” for the Highway Performance Monitoring System

(HPMS) could be expanded to include submission of a comprehensive statewide road inventory


How would an HPMS requirement work?

• “HPMS attributes” 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

• US-DOT facilitates information exchange on state “best practices”


Challenges & Obstacles with the HPMS Model• US-DOT/FHWA solely responsible for any changes to the HPMS

reporting requirements (e.g. if all roads were to be included)– Executive management would need to be convinced, but seem

willing

• No US-DOT resources currently available for aggregation, assembly and publication of nationwide data set– HPMS has a state by state outlook– But, other US-DOT program (e.g. Safety) could catalyze

• 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


• Core business benefits to the US-DOT– HPMS in the context of complete transportation data– Highway Safety - nationwide accident mapping– 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



• Benefits to State and Local Govt. – Potentially opens up US-DOT resources for statewide road inventories– 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– Publicly accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation


Examples of what have we heard so far…


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 imagineTFTN Strategic Plan Overview

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)


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


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


Questions for DiscussionWe want to hear from you!

• Benefits of TFTN to regional councils– What would or should they be?– What do you need?

• Relationship between regional councils and state GIS coordination programs on transportation data sets– Spectrum of cooperation and collaboration– What’s working? What’s not? Best practices?

• NARC perspective on regional roles relative to state agencies– Who are producers? Who are consumers?– What states work well with regional councils?


Thank you

To see materials related to TFTN, please see:

http://www.TransportationResearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx


Narc tftn overview_v1

Education

Transcript of Narc tftn overview_v1