SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 25
Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN) Steve Lewis Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS September 23, 2010
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”
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
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
Strategic Planning Effort – The Process Identify and engage the entire stakeholder community All levels of government Private Sector Citizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community) Define requirements, challenges and opportunities Document progress already made Existing Datasets Best Practices New Ideas Explore implementation issues Evaluate funding requirements and sources
What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award Outreach Meeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009 NSGIC Annual Conference, October 2009 National Geospatial Advisory Council, December 2009 Transportation Research Board Annual Meetings, January 2010 ESRI Federal User Conference, February 2010
What Has Been Done? – TFTN Workshops AASHTO GIS-T Symposium, April 2010 ESRI International User Conference, July 2010 NSGIC Annual Conference, September 2010 National Association of Regional Councils, September 2010 (webinar) URISA GIS-Pro Conference, September 2010 (next week)
What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 U.S. Department of Transportation Safety Asset Management Intelligent Transportation Systems Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Other Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Communications Commission U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of the Census
What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - Continued American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Transportation Research Board I-95 Corridor Coalition
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
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”
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 ,[object Object]
“Special sauce” can be content and/or capabilities,[object Object]
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
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
How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome? Through State-level Best Practices Some States work with their local government partners Provide funding and technical support State collects and aggregates the data into a Statewide dataset Involve the e-911 community Examples include Arkansas and Ohio Some states are using public-private partnerships Contracting for creation and maintenance of Statewide inventory Includes a mechanism for posting update requests In some case, the State is allowed to distribute a version of the data Examples include Massachusetts and New York Through possible additional USDOT funding sources
Potential Benefits of TFTN Core business benefits to the USDOT To the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportation To Highway Safety for nationwide accident mapping To bridge inventory effort Benefits to “sister” federal agencies Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets Provides public domain data for sharing with partners Potential collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census
Potential Benefits of TFTN Benefits to State and Local Governments  Potentially opens up FHWA 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 and programs to support citizen services Publically 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 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 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
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
Questions? Steve Lewis (202) 366-9223 steve.lewis@dot.gov http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

November Committee at Large Meeting
November Committee at Large MeetingNovember Committee at Large Meeting
November Committee at Large MeetingKSI Koniag
 
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in OrlandoTFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in OrlandoKSI Koniag
 
TFTN Strategic Plan Final Draft
TFTN Strategic Plan Final DraftTFTN Strategic Plan Final Draft
TFTN Strategic Plan Final DraftKSI Koniag
 
HIFLD Presentation
HIFLD PresentationHIFLD Presentation
HIFLD PresentationKSI Koniag
 
Tftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucTftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucKSI Koniag
 
StevenABert_Project Experience
StevenABert_Project ExperienceStevenABert_Project Experience
StevenABert_Project ExperienceSteven Bert
 
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"Sean Barbeau
 
Mountain View AGT
Mountain View AGTMountain View AGT
Mountain View AGTAdina Levin
 
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsNsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsKSI Koniag
 
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...Sean Barbeau
 

La actualidad más candente (15)

New York
New YorkNew York
New York
 
November Committee at Large Meeting
November Committee at Large MeetingNovember Committee at Large Meeting
November Committee at Large Meeting
 
Michigan
Michigan Michigan
Michigan
 
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in OrlandoTFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
TFTN GIS Pro in Orlando
 
TFTN Strategic Plan Final Draft
TFTN Strategic Plan Final DraftTFTN Strategic Plan Final Draft
TFTN Strategic Plan Final Draft
 
HIFLD Presentation
HIFLD PresentationHIFLD Presentation
HIFLD Presentation
 
I-95 Corridor
I-95 CorridorI-95 Corridor
I-95 Corridor
 
Tftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucTftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri uc
 
UT Rural Telecom Conf 3.16.11
UT Rural Telecom Conf 3.16.11UT Rural Telecom Conf 3.16.11
UT Rural Telecom Conf 3.16.11
 
StevenABert_Project Experience
StevenABert_Project ExperienceStevenABert_Project Experience
StevenABert_Project Experience
 
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"
APTA TransITech 2013 - "Open Transit Data - A Developers Perspective"
 
Mountain View AGT
Mountain View AGTMountain View AGT
Mountain View AGT
 
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsNsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
 
Virginia
VirginiaVirginia
Virginia
 
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...
ITS World Congress 2014 - Open Data in Public Transport: Challenges and Oppor...
 

Destacado (9)

50 States Next Steps
50 States Next Steps50 States Next Steps
50 States Next Steps
 
NAIP and TNRIS
NAIP and TNRISNAIP and TNRIS
NAIP and TNRIS
 
TNM for NSGIC
TNM for NSGICTNM for NSGIC
TNM for NSGIC
 
Hop On or Get Run Over
Hop On or Get Run OverHop On or Get Run Over
Hop On or Get Run Over
 
Massachgusetts, USGS, and Fugro/Earthdata
Massachgusetts, USGS, and Fugro/EarthdataMassachgusetts, USGS, and Fugro/Earthdata
Massachgusetts, USGS, and Fugro/Earthdata
 
GIS in Ohio
GIS in OhioGIS in Ohio
GIS in Ohio
 
Inside the Inner Circle
Inside the Inner CircleInside the Inner Circle
Inside the Inner Circle
 
TFTN Strategic Planning
TFTN Strategic PlanningTFTN Strategic Planning
TFTN Strategic Planning
 
Oregon Strategic Plan
Oregon Strategic PlanOregon Strategic Plan
Oregon Strategic Plan
 

Similar a Strategic Planning for a National Transportation Dataset (TFTN

Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010
Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010
Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010KSI Koniag
 
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2KSI Koniag
 
Narc tftn overview_v1
Narc tftn overview_v1Narc tftn overview_v1
Narc tftn overview_v1KSI Koniag
 
Tftn overview gis dot
Tftn overview gis dotTftn overview gis dot
Tftn overview gis dotKSI Koniag
 
Lewis TFTN FGDC
Lewis TFTN FGDCLewis TFTN FGDC
Lewis TFTN FGDCKSI Koniag
 
Tftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucTftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucKSI Koniag
 
Tftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucTftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucKoniag
 
Tftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucTftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucKSI Koniag
 
Team overview gist april 2010
Team overview gist april 2010Team overview gist april 2010
Team overview gist april 2010KSI Koniag
 
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4Overview oftransportationforthenation v4
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4Koniag
 
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010KSI Koniag
 
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010Koniag
 
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010KSI Koniag
 
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010Koniag
 
NSGIC TFTN Workshop
NSGIC TFTN WorkshopNSGIC TFTN Workshop
NSGIC TFTN WorkshopKSI Koniag
 
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)KSI Koniag
 
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsNsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsKSI Koniag
 
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviated
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviatedThe many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviated
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviatedCTeixeira2
 
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5min
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5minSpatial igniteorlando tftn_in5min
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5minKSI Koniag
 

Similar a Strategic Planning for a National Transportation Dataset (TFTN (20)

Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010
Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010
Lewis tftn fgdccg_08102010
 
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
Nsgic annual status_briefing v0.2
 
Narc tftn overview_v1
Narc tftn overview_v1Narc tftn overview_v1
Narc tftn overview_v1
 
Tftn overview gis dot
Tftn overview gis dotTftn overview gis dot
Tftn overview gis dot
 
Lewis TFTN FGDC
Lewis TFTN FGDCLewis TFTN FGDC
Lewis TFTN FGDC
 
Tftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri ucTftn findings to date esri uc
Tftn findings to date esri uc
 
Tftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucTftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri uc
 
Tftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri ucTftn overview esri uc
Tftn overview esri uc
 
Team overview gist april 2010
Team overview gist april 2010Team overview gist april 2010
Team overview gist april 2010
 
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4Overview oftransportationforthenation v4
Overview oftransportationforthenation v4
 
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
 
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
Nsgic mid year_strategic_plannning_for_tftn_presentation_march_2010
 
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
 
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
Lewis tftn fed_uc_2192010
 
NSGIC TFTN Workshop
NSGIC TFTN WorkshopNSGIC TFTN Workshop
NSGIC TFTN Workshop
 
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)
TFTN Executive Steering Committee (10-20-2010)
 
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findingsNsgic annual 2010 findings
Nsgic annual 2010 findings
 
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviated
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviatedThe many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviated
The many-uses-of-gtfs-data-–-its-america-submission-abbreviated
 
Big data – Use case
Big data – Use caseBig data – Use case
Big data – Use case
 
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5min
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5minSpatial igniteorlando tftn_in5min
Spatial igniteorlando tftn_in5min
 

Más de KSI Koniag

NSGIC Mid-Year Meeting
NSGIC Mid-Year MeetingNSGIC Mid-Year Meeting
NSGIC Mid-Year MeetingKSI Koniag
 
November Committee at Large Notes
November Committee at Large NotesNovember Committee at Large Notes
November Committee at Large NotesKSI Koniag
 
GIS-T Notes Public
GIS-T Notes PublicGIS-T Notes Public
GIS-T Notes PublicKSI Koniag
 
ESRI UC Public
ESRI UC PublicESRI UC Public
ESRI UC PublicKSI Koniag
 
Agenda Executive Steering Committee Notes
Agenda Executive Steering Committee NotesAgenda Executive Steering Committee Notes
Agenda Executive Steering Committee NotesKSI Koniag
 
Interview trends
Interview trendsInterview trends
Interview trendsKSI Koniag
 
GIS-T April 2010 findings
GIS-T April 2010 findingsGIS-T April 2010 findings
GIS-T April 2010 findingsKSI Koniag
 
GIS-Pro September 2010 findings
GIS-Pro September  2010 findingsGIS-Pro September  2010 findings
GIS-Pro September 2010 findingsKSI Koniag
 
Federal roads mtg trans survey-results 9
Federal roads mtg  trans survey-results 9Federal roads mtg  trans survey-results 9
Federal roads mtg trans survey-results 9KSI Koniag
 
2.3 blackstone tfn panel
2.3 blackstone tfn panel2.3 blackstone tfn panel
2.3 blackstone tfn panelKSI Koniag
 
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentationKSI Koniag
 
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parkerKSI Koniag
 
1.4 widner panel presentation
1.4 widner panel presentation1.4 widner panel presentation
1.4 widner panel presentationKSI Koniag
 

Más de KSI Koniag (15)

Ohio final
Ohio finalOhio final
Ohio final
 
Washington
WashingtonWashington
Washington
 
NSGIC Mid-Year Meeting
NSGIC Mid-Year MeetingNSGIC Mid-Year Meeting
NSGIC Mid-Year Meeting
 
November Committee at Large Notes
November Committee at Large NotesNovember Committee at Large Notes
November Committee at Large Notes
 
GIS-T Notes Public
GIS-T Notes PublicGIS-T Notes Public
GIS-T Notes Public
 
ESRI UC Public
ESRI UC PublicESRI UC Public
ESRI UC Public
 
Agenda Executive Steering Committee Notes
Agenda Executive Steering Committee NotesAgenda Executive Steering Committee Notes
Agenda Executive Steering Committee Notes
 
Interview trends
Interview trendsInterview trends
Interview trends
 
GIS-T April 2010 findings
GIS-T April 2010 findingsGIS-T April 2010 findings
GIS-T April 2010 findings
 
GIS-Pro September 2010 findings
GIS-Pro September  2010 findingsGIS-Pro September  2010 findings
GIS-Pro September 2010 findings
 
Federal roads mtg trans survey-results 9
Federal roads mtg  trans survey-results 9Federal roads mtg  trans survey-results 9
Federal roads mtg trans survey-results 9
 
2.3 blackstone tfn panel
2.3 blackstone tfn panel2.3 blackstone tfn panel
2.3 blackstone tfn panel
 
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation
2.3 mel seigler virginia panelpresentation
 
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker
2.2 navteq tftn presentation skip parker
 
1.4 widner panel presentation
1.4 widner panel presentation1.4 widner panel presentation
1.4 widner panel presentation
 

Strategic Planning for a National Transportation Dataset (TFTN

  • 1. Strategic Planning for Transportation for the Nation (TFTN) Steve Lewis Geospatial Information Officer, USDOT Director, Office of Geospatial Information Systems, USDOT/RITA/BTS September 23, 2010
  • 2. 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”
  • 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-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
  • 4. 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
  • 5. Strategic Planning Effort – The Process Identify and engage the entire stakeholder community All levels of government Private Sector Citizens (e.g. OpenStreetMap community) Define requirements, challenges and opportunities Document progress already made Existing Datasets Best Practices New Ideas Explore implementation issues Evaluate funding requirements and sources
  • 6. What Has Been Done? - Pre-Award Outreach Meeting of Federal Stakeholders, October 2009 NSGIC Annual Conference, October 2009 National Geospatial Advisory Council, December 2009 Transportation Research Board Annual Meetings, January 2010 ESRI Federal User Conference, February 2010
  • 7. What Has Been Done? – TFTN Workshops AASHTO GIS-T Symposium, April 2010 ESRI International User Conference, July 2010 NSGIC Annual Conference, September 2010 National Association of Regional Councils, September 2010 (webinar) URISA GIS-Pro Conference, September 2010 (next week)
  • 8. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 U.S. Department of Transportation Safety Asset Management Intelligent Transportation Systems Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Other Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Communications Commission U.S. Geological Survey Bureau of the Census
  • 9. What Has Been Done? – Stakeholder Interviews, Summer 2010 - Continued American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Transportation Research Board I-95 Corridor Coalition
  • 10. 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
  • 11. 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”
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. How Can These Obstacles Be Overcome? Through State-level Best Practices Some States work with their local government partners Provide funding and technical support State collects and aggregates the data into a Statewide dataset Involve the e-911 community Examples include Arkansas and Ohio Some states are using public-private partnerships Contracting for creation and maintenance of Statewide inventory Includes a mechanism for posting update requests In some case, the State is allowed to distribute a version of the data Examples include Massachusetts and New York Through possible additional USDOT funding sources
  • 17. Potential Benefits of TFTN Core business benefits to the USDOT To the HPMS program: see HPMS in the context of complete transportation To Highway Safety for nationwide accident mapping To bridge inventory effort Benefits to “sister” federal agencies Reduces costs from redundant nationwide data sets Provides public domain data for sharing with partners Potential collaboration and synergy with other significant mapping programs at USGS and US Census
  • 18. Potential Benefits of TFTN Benefits to State and Local Governments Potentially opens up FHWA 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 and programs to support citizen services Publically accessible data for citizen and commercial innovation
  • 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. 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)
  • 22. 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
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. Questions? Steve Lewis (202) 366-9223 steve.lewis@dot.gov http://www.transportationresearch.gov/TFTN/default.aspx