The document discusses the Transportation for the Nation Strategic Plan Update project. It provides an overview of stakeholder outreach conducted to date which indicates strong support for creating a nationwide transportation dataset. A potential vision is outlined where a baseline geometry dataset containing basic road attributes could be established using an expanded Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) reporting requirement. Individual stakeholders could then add "special sauce" enhancements to the baseline data. Challenges include varying data quality between states and coordinating a nationwide effort. Benefits to different stakeholders are discussed, including improved safety mapping and data sharing capabilities.
2. Presentation Overview Concept & Project Activities Project Findings to Date Set up the “NSGIC conversation” Starting for last 10 minutes Finishing tonight at 8pm
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
19. 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”
20. 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
21. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. What have we heard so far about the HPMS oriented scenario?
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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?
