1. ESRI User Conference
PRINTED: 1/29/2015 PAGE 1 OF 2
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
ESRI UC
The TFTN Workshop/Panel at the ESRI UC was attended by 27 individuals, plus 9 speakers/panel members and TFTN
Strategic Planning Team reps. Five members of the Steering committee were present, including Don Cooke (Executive
Group), Gene Trobia (Executive Group), Skip Parker (NAVTEQ/At-Large), Randy Fusaro (Census Bureau/At-Large), and
Eric Floss (ESRI, At-Large). The organizational breakdown of the 27 attendees was as follows:
The speakers and TFTN team members included:
Speaker Representing
Steve Lewis TFTN Team Leader, USDOT GIO
Ron Vaughn FHWA/HPMS
Gene Trobia NSGIC (AZ)
John Farley State DOT(NC)
Val Noronha Research (NCGIA)
Eric Floss Software Vendors (ESRI)
Marc Berryman Emergency Management (NENA)
Todd Barr TFTN Team/Koniag
Rich Grady TFTN Team/AppGeo
1) There are short and long-term scenarios that may answer TFTN requirements with different approaches, as a
function of time:
a. Short-Term: Nationwide datasets exist now that have seamless geometry and attributes, from both the
public (i.e. TIGER) and private sectors (e.g. NAVTEQ, TeleAtlas), as well as the crowd-sourced
OpenStreetMap (potential action: we should look at this more closely to more fully understand and
characterize); the immediate advantagesand disadvantages of each should be identified in concise
terms, such as: frequency of updates; fulfillment of basic TFTN requirements (e.g., accurate geometry, basic
attributes); and, release-ability to the public domain.
b. Long-Term: HPMS, with its established annual reporting requirements, could be modified to include
geometry for all roads; also, funding and resource commitments would be required at the federal-level for
edge-matching between states to achieve a seamless network, and adding TFTN attributes from other
sources if not included with LRS geometry from the individual states, such as addresses.
2) While the initial focus is on centerlines for all roads, some consideration should be given in the current
timeframe to other modes of transportation, to ensure future extensibility for multi-modal applications.
3) The rationale for requiring persistent segment ID numbering should be explained with an example (Don Cooke
questioned the need for persistent IDs in a side conversation, based on his experience with adding, deleting,
and modifying streets during quarterly updating at GDT and TeleAtlas).

2. ESRI User Conference
PRINTED: 1/29/2015 PAGE 2 OF 2
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
4) The notional feasibility of transactional updates should be considered, in Don’s opinion (e.g. “what is the generic
transaction that defines a TFTN update?”)
5) Answer the following question: “Why is the contemplated long-term approach of using HPMS as a feeder
program for TFTN different from and preferred to what Census has done, or with what commercial data vendors
are doing?” (Paraphrased from separate conversations with Don Cooke and John Farley.)
6) Randy Fusaro of Census Bureau challenged whether HPMS is a feasible and practical model for TFTN, and
asked the question “What’s wrong with TIGER for TFTN?” She thinks that TIGER should be used as a starting
point, not HPMS.
7) There seemed to be a general consensus that “one size does not fit all,” and John Farley of NCDOT
suggested we describe “3 or 4 process models” for the states to consider (our current position paper describes
two).
8) On the potential for collaboration across federal agencies on TFTN (e.g. Census, USGS, and USDOT), how
should this work? Randy Fusaro suggested that funding support could be shifted to Census as one
scenario, since she feels they have been shouldering the cost burden of maintaining a nationwide street
centerline dataset, even though it is used more broadly than for their own mission requirements.
9) Since there is a direct correlation between HPMS reporting and the apportionment of Federal Highway Aid to
state governments (and, in turn, to local governments), the business requirement for reporting on HPMS
roads is clearly understood by state and local entities, and has already resulted in a sustainable
programmatic approach; leveraging this for all roads is very appealing from the perspective of Paul Tessar of the
City and County of Denver, and formerly Colorado DOT -- and the annual reporting requirement for HPMS
mitigates his concern over the frequency of TIGER updates, which are tied to the long-term cycles of the
census-taking.
10) John Farley of NCDOT pointed out that HPMS is the business driver for road inventories across state DOTs, and
it would be preferable if there was a single data call from one federal agency for the same data, rather than
the way it currently works. This is true down to the local level. As well as the notion of “collect once, use many
times,” we might add, “ask once for the same data, and share it once you get it.” Census collected road data
from approximately 1700 counties (about 50% of total) to update TIGER, according to Randy Fusaro in
response to a question from Chuck Matthys of USGS TNM Program.