Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
19 Table 1. (Continued). Data Subject Transportation Mode Covered Covered Traffic Control Transportation Cargo/Freight Freight Data Source/Dataset Acronym Agency in Charge Container Network Vehicle/ Pipeline System Water Truck Rail Air United Business Media (UBM) Port Import Export Reporting Service PIERS x x x Global Trade Council of Supply Chain State of Logistics Report x x Management Professionals (CSCMP) Worldwide Airport Traffic Reports Airports Council International (ACI) x x Freight-Related Architectures, Frameworks, Programs, and Standards Commodity, Product, and Industry Classifications Several x x x x x x Electronic Data Interchange Standards EDI Several x x x x x x x Research and Innovative Technology National ITS Architecture x x Administration (RITA) Federal Geographic Data National Spatial Data Infrastructure NSDI x x x x x x x Committee (FGDC) Initiatives under Development Electronic Freight Management EFM FHWA x x x x x Freight Performance Measurement FHWA x x Multimodal Hazmat Intelligence Portal HIP PHMSA x x x x x x x about ports, warehouses, and crossings). These datasets sup- business processes would be impractical--if not impossible-- plement national-level datasets. Likewise, Table 1 does not to develop. include data from trade associations, such as the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) and the National Association of Retailers. Although the list does not include System and Architecture Review all of the potential data sources that deal with freight trans- The following systems and architectures in Table 1 were of portation, the list is useful because it provides a sample of the particular interest because of the processes that led to their typical national-level data sources that may need to be evalu- development: ated in detail while building the national freight data archi- tecture, as well as any potential system implementations that · Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade could be derived from that data architecture. Data System, Readers should also note that some data sources in Table 1 · Carload Waybill Sample, might include multiple datasets. For compactness, the table · Commodity Flow Survey, does not disaggregate data sources into datasets. For exam- · Electronic Data Interchange Standards, ple, Table 1 does not show all of the datasets associated with · Freight Analysis Framework, the National Transportation Atlas Database or that may be · Highway Performance Monitoring System, available through Statistics Canada. · National Income and Product Accounts, Furthermore, relationships between freight data, data · National ITS Architecture, source, and business processes are too complex for a single · National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and table or diagram. The number of business processes that · National Transportation Atlas Database. deal with freight transportation at any given point in time (ranging from planning to policymaking, operations, and Lessons learned from the development and implementation emergency management) is huge. Providing a single table that of these systems and architectures can provide invaluable infor- illustrates all of the relationships between freight data and mation for, and help to minimize the costs of, the development
OCR for page 20
20 and implementation of a national freight data architecture. · Purpose and content; This section presents a summary of the analysis completed on · Development, challenges, strategies, and adaptability; and those systems and architectures. The analysis covered several · Lessons learned. topics, including the following: Automated Commercial · Purpose and intended benefits; Environment/International · Content; Trade Data System · Institutional arrangements used for developing and main- taining the system or architecture; Purpose and Content · Challenges and issues faced in creating and maintaining ACE is a trade data processing system that CBP is imple- the architecture or system; menting to support customs activities at U.S. borders (15). · Strategies and methods for dealing with data integration The ACE effort is a multi-year, multi-million-dollar project issues, such as data quality, timeliness, and proprietary and that is replacing the 1984 ACS legacy system. privacy concerns; ACE uses a secure data portal that enables the trade com- · Adaptability to serve evolving purposes and data sources; and munity and participating government agencies (PGAs) to · Assessment of how well the system or architecture works connect to the ACE database as well as to legacy databases in the form of lessons learned. (Figure 5). ACE provides a single, centralized access point for communications and information related to cargo shipments. In reality, institutional arrangements, issues faced during Through the portal, it is possible to manage accounts, perform development, implemented strategies, and adaptability are periodic payments, enter data for electronic truck manifests interrelated. The reason is that, historically, systems tend to (also called e-Manifests), and generate reports. E-Manifests evolve and strategies are put in place not just to meet the enable tracking of crew, equipment, shipper, consignee, and goals and objectives of an initial master plan but also in shipment data. E-Manifests are now required when entering response to challenges and issues faced during the implemen- the country through any of the 99 land border ports of entry. tation and/or maintenance phases of those systems. For con- CBP plans to extend ACE to provide cargo processing capa- venience, to avoid redundancy in the presentation, and for bilities across all modes of transportation, replacing existing readability purposes, each analysis in this section includes systems with a single, multimodal manifest system for land, three subsections, as follows: air, rail, and sea cargo. Figure 5. ACE framework (16).
OCR for page 21
21 ITDS is a federal program that encourages PGA participa- due to operational considerations at the port following the tion in ACE (17). The program assists PGAs in identifying, September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. documenting, and executing plans to improve business oper- · In 2003, the first ACE portal accounts were established. ations through their participation in ACE. Currently, 46 PGAs · In 2003, the U.S. Customs Service moved to DHS and are involved in the ITDS program. Nearly 500 users from became U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Following 27 PGAs have access to the ACE portal. One of the mecha- this transition, the ITDS program focus changed to pro- nisms the ITDS program uses to support the integration of vide support to the integration of PGAs into ACE. As pre- PGAs into ACE is through the development of the ACE/ITDS viously mentioned, one of the mechanisms to promote this standard dataset. This dataset is a collection of data require- integration is through the development of the ACE/ITDS ments for international trade and U.S. border regulatory and standard dataset. enforcement processes. Its purpose is to ensure data harmo- · In 2004, ACE e-Manifest was deployed in Blaine, WA (20). nization to facilitate the full implementation of ACE across all Since then, e-Manifest has been deployed at all 99 land bor- relevant federal agencies. CBP is working to align the dataset der ports of entry. In 2006, CBP conducted an evaluation with the international data standards developed by the World of the e-Manifest initiative (21). From surveys, site visits, Customs Organization (WCO). and telephone interviews, the study found that using elec- tronic manifests resulted in smoother border crossing oper- ations, a lower number of secondary inspections, and a Development, Challenges, Strategies, higher number of post-secondary inspections. and Adaptability Critical milestones in the creation and development of ACE Developing the ACE/ITDS dataset was a significant chal- and ITDS are the following: lenge over a 2-year period, which involved compiling a list of data elements from PGAs, clarifying data element definitions · In 1993, the U.S. Customs Service commissioned a report required by each PGA, working with PGAs to identify and (Future Automated Commercial Environment Team [FACET] eliminate overlapping data requirements, and translating those Report) to make recommendations for the redesign of its data elements into specific software requirements while ensur- commercial processing systems. ing consistency with ACE (22). From the 10,000 data elements · In 1994, a multi-agency task force composed of representa- that PGAs identified, ACE/ITDS staff reduced the number of tives of 53 agencies was formed to develop recommendations required data elements by 96 percent to a standard dataset of for implementing an international trade data system that 400 data elements. CBP is also working to harmonize the ITDS could meet the needs of the federal government, business standard dataset with the WCO data model. community, and public. As mentioned, 46 PGAs are currently involved in the ITDS · In 1995, vice presidential memoranda chartered the ITDS program. Different PGAs are at different stages of ACE inte- Project Office in the Department of the Treasury as well as gration (23). Several U.S.DOT operating administrations plan a multi-agency ITDS board of directors. Over time, this to access CBP data through an interface between ACE and the management structure has evolved to include committees, U.S.DOT's planned International Freight Data System (IFDS) working groups, and integrated product teams, frequently (24), with different levels of access depending on the statutory with PGA participation. authority of each U.S.DOT operating administration. For · In 1998, formal design and concept of operations documents example, were prepared and a pilot system called the North American Trade Automation Prototype (NATAP) was approved to · BTS plans to use ACE data such as entry data from importers, demonstrate the benefits of ITDS. manifest data from carriers, and carrier contact informa- · In 2000, the ITDS Project Office was transferred to the U.S. tion from ACE carrier account tables to conduct a variety Customs Service and its goals were refined to fit better into of statistical analyses. the U.S. Customs Service operational environment. · FHWA plans to access summary and manifest data to ana- · In 2001, ACE started with an initial appropriation of $130 lyze cargo and conveyance movements in order to better million (18). Development of ACE started the same year. allocate resources among states. In 2004, it was estimated that the full deployment of ACE · FMCSA plans to access ACE data to analyze international would be completed by December 2007 at an estimated cost truck freight flows in connection with enforcement activi- of $2.24 billion (19). ties and the allocation of federal resources among state · In August 2001, the ITDS pilot project went live in Buffalo, motor carrier safety agencies. The interface between CBP NY. The pilot project was suspended the following month and FMCSA is currently undergoing testing to analyze the
OCR for page 22
22 volume of screening issues and system screening perform- However, there were inconsistencies in the process, which ance. Over the next 2 years, various functions will be phased resulted in some data needs not being properly identified. in, including screening of manifest information, notifica- tions to carriers, and warnings to send vehicles to an FMCSA Carload Waybill Sample inspection facility. Purpose and Content RITA is the primary agency responsible for developing and The Carload Waybill Sample is a stratified sample of car- managing IFDS. load waybills for terminated shipments at railroad carriers (25). STB is the agency responsible for the management of the Lessons Learned Carload Waybill Sample. Railinc, Corp., a wholly-owned sub- sidiary of AAR, is under contract with STB for the production Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- of the sample. The Carload Waybill Sample captures data lution, and maintenance of ACE and ITDS follow: about O-D points, number of carloads, tonnage, participat- ing railroads, interchange locations, and total freight revenue. · Develop robust implementation plan with adequate stake- The sample is one of the main sources of information for the holder involvement. By all accounts, ACE has been a huge development of trip generation estimates and is often used by undertaking. Developing a brand new system to replace the regulators, planners, nongovernmental agencies, and other myriad of ad hoc programs and procedures that have stakeholders. evolved for decades at Customs (while taking into consid- The sampling rate for carload waybill samples is a function eration the needs of all affected stakeholders) is not a triv- of the number of carloads per waybill and the method the ial task. Despite the magnitude and complexity of the proj- railroad uses to submit the documentation (i.e., manually or ect, CBP essentially relied on its external contractors during using a computerized system) (25, 26). Table 2 lists current the development phase without ensuring adequate PGA par- sampling rate requirements. The vast majority of railroads ticipation. This lack of coordination affected the ACE/ITDS submit sample data electronically. Because of the threshold for development process. submission, the Carload Waybill Sample does not account · Clearly define expected outcomes and development and for many Class II or III railroads. In 2007, there were 565 freight coordination plan. The process to consolidate 10,000 data railroads in the United States, with only 63 freight railroads elements into a list of 400 data elements was highly itera- filing a sample of waybills (27, 28). The sample does not cap- tive and required the involvement of a large number of stake- ture data from export shipments carried on Canadian rail- holders. Therefore, it was critical to identify the expected roads operating inside the United States. The Carload Way- goals and outcomes as well as the procedures for coordina- bill Sample has increased in size over the years, from 346,903 tion and data element conflict resolution. However, the in 1986 to 666,989 in 2007 (27). process was not clearly defined, eventually resulting in The stratified sample of carload waybills provides informa- two versions of the dataset. There also were issues related tion about shipments by rail, including STCC codes, origins, to dataset ownership and responsible-party designation to and destinations. The sample results in two types of files as modify and/or add data elements. follows (26): · Address needs of stakeholders. Developing an accurate understanding of the data needs of affected stakeholders · Master file. The master file contains movement-specific is an important project development requirement. For the confidential waybill data and is therefore limited to author- development of the ACE/ITDS standard dataset, it was crit- ized users as required by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ical to properly document the needs of all the PGAs involved. Title 49 Section 1244 (49 CFR 1244). Current regulations Table 2. Carload waybill sampling rates (25, 26). Reporting Method Number of Carloads per Waybill Expected Sampling Rate Manual 15 1/100 Manual 625 1/10 Manual 26 and more 1/5 Computerized 12 1/40 Computerized 315 1/12 Computerized 1660 1/4 Computerized 61100 1/3 Computerized 101 and more 1/2
OCR for page 23
23 for use of the master file pertain to the protection of spe- nongovernmental agencies, and other stakeholders. The sam- cific shipper or carrier data that are considered proprietary. ple is also used for the calculation of the Rail Cost Adjustment The master file includes 176 data items. Factor (RCAF), which measures the rate of inflation in railroad · Public use file. The public use file is an aggregated, less inputs such as labor and fuel and is therefore used to determine detailed file that contains non-confidential data and is avail- shipment rate adjustments (31, 32). AAR submits all of the able to the public without restrictions. This file removes RCAF components to STB for review and approval, first as a several fields to shield confidential data and provides the forecast and then actual data two quarters later. data in a geographically aggregated manner. The public use data file includes 63 data items. Lessons Learned Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- Development, Challenges, Strategies, lution, and maintenance of the Carload Waybill Sample follow: and Adaptability Shipper freight movement data have been collected and · Provide clear, uniform guidance. The regulations clearly analyzed since the late 1800s (27). The Interstate Commerce identify which freight railroads are required to submit a Commission (ICC) was responsible for these data until 1995, Carload Waybill Sample. They also clearly state who is eli- when it was replaced by STB. The Carload Waybill Sample gible to receive the data and the restrictions for those par- has been continuously collected since 1946. As required in ties in which to use the data. In addition, both STB and 49 CFR 1241-1248, railroads must submit reports to document Railinc have developed several documents that assist rail- their operations to STB (26), as follows: roads in the understanding of the reporting requirements. · Develop mechanisms that facilitate use of data for vari- · 49 CFR 1241 requires Class I railroads to submit annual ous purposes but also maintain necessary confidential- financial data, covering elements such as total revenue, ity. The Carload Waybill Sample data are both necessary inventory of equipment, track and traffic conditions, and and desired by a variety of users. The guiding regulations mileage (26, 29). clearly define five classes of users of the data and statutory · 49 CFR 1243 requires Class I railroads to submit quarterly requirements for each group to use the data. This regula- reports documenting revenues, expenses, income, fuel costs, tion is designed to maintain confidentiality of the data while fuel consumption, and fuel surcharges. also providing critical information. Relevance of the data · 49 CFR 1244 requires railroads terminating at least 4,500 cars is also maintained by the role that Railinc plays, which per year or that transport at least 5 percent of any state's total includes collecting and processing data on behalf of the traffic to submit carload waybill samples. Railroads must railroads and submitting the data collected to STB. Rail- submit waybill samples at least quarterly. These samples are inc also provides real-time data exchange services to the the basis for the STB Carload Waybill Sample (25, 26). railroad industry. · 49 CFR 1245 requires Class I railroads to submit quar- terly and annual reports of railroad employees, service, and Commodity Flow Survey compensation. · 49 CFR 1246 requires Class I railroads to submit monthly Purpose and Content reports of the number of railroad employees. CFS is a joint effort between the U.S. Census Bureau and · 49 CFR 1248 requires Class I railroads to submit quarterly BTS to gather and compile data on the movement of goods in and annual freight commodity statistics using CCTS codes the United States (33 36). CFS is a shipper-based survey that issued by the Bureau of the Budget (i.e., the predecessor of gathers data from shipments in the United States. With the the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]). Railroads exception of operating status and the verification of name must report on a number of data elements for each com- and location, CFS does not collect data on shipper or receiver modity code, including revenue, number of carloads, and descriptors. CFS includes the following shipment data: tonnage. Railroads also must report on the average num- ber of miles operated and gross freight revenue. · Shipment ID number, date, value, and weight; · SCTG commodity code; In addition, as required by 49 CFR 225, all railroads regardless · Commodity description; of size must submit safety reports to FRA (30). · Destination (and port of exit in the case of exports); As previously mentioned, the Carload Waybill Sample is one · Mode(s) of transportation; of the main sources of information for the development of trip · Mode of export; and generation estimates and is often used by regulators, planners, · Hazardous material (hazmat) code.
OCR for page 24
24 CFS collects shipment data from a sample of establish- the economic census (38). BTS provides 80 percent of the ments selected from the U.S. Census Bureau Business Regis- funding, while the U.S. Census Bureau provides the remain- ter. These establishments are from manufacturing, mining, ing 20 percent (35). wholesale, select retail and service industries (electronic shop- CFS has been conducted four times, as follows: ping, mail-order houses, and fuel dealers), and auxiliary estab- lishments (i.e., warehouses and managing offices) of multi- · In 1993, the CFS sample size was about 200,000 establish- establishment companies. CFS does not include establishments ments based on a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) from the following industries: crude petroleum and natural stratification. The 1993 CFS used STCC codes. The budget gas extraction, farms, government establishments, trans-border for the 1993 CFS was $15 million. shipments, imports (until the shipment reaches the first · In 1997, the CFS sample size was reduced to about 100,000 domestic shipper), and remaining service industries. Many of establishments based on a SIC-based industry group strat- these industries (e.g., farms and government establishments) ification. The response rate was 75 percent. The 1997 CFS are not included in the Business Register. Each establishment used SCTG codes. The reporting period was reduced to selected is mailed a questionnaire four times during the year. 1 week (from 2 weeks required in the 1993 CFS). The budget For each questionnaire, the establishment provides specific for the 1997 CFS was $19 million. data about a sample of individual outbound shipments dur- · In 2002, the CFS sample size was reduced to about 50,000 ing a pre-specified 1-week period. establishments based on a North American Industry Clas- CFS data are available at several levels of geographic reso- sification System (NAICS) stratification. The response rate lution, such as national, state, metropolitan area, and census was about 70 percent. The 2002 CFS used SCTG codes. The regions and divisions. Key statistics from CFS include the budget for the 2002 CFS was $13 million. following: · In 2007, the CFS sample size was increased to about 100,000 establishments based on an NAICS-based stratification. The · Value, tons, ton miles, average miles per shipment; 2007 CFS used SCTG codes. · Commodity shipped; · Modes of transportation; and Although CFS is widely used for a variety of applications, · O-D flows. it has some limitations, including the following (35, 37): CFS data are used to assess demand on existing transporta- · Gaps in shipment and industry coverage. CFS does not tion systems and assist with critical investments in future collect shipment data for certain industries and commodi- transportation facilities and services. For example, CFS data ties, and does not collect shipment data for shipments pass- are used to build truck O-D trip tables, for traffic simulation ing through the United States. In addition, cross-border analyses, to benchmark the Carload Waybill Sample (37), and shipment paths only include U.S. mileage. According to as input to the Freight Analysis Framework. Commercial data- a 2002 estimate, non-CFS shipments were 36 percent by bases such as TRANSEARCH® Insight also use CFS data. value, about 40 percent by tonnage, and about 29 percent by ton-miles (36). Further, the survey does not capture route information beyond shipper and receiver locations, which Development, Challenges, Strategies, makes estimating intermodal drayage components difficult. and Adaptability In general, intermodal freight volumes may be low due to CFS is a component of the 5-year U.S. Census Bureau's the CFS definition of "intermodal." Economic Census. It was first conducted in 1993. Between · Lack of geographic and commodity detail at the state and 1963 and 1977, information about commodities transported local levels. There is widespread agreement that increased in the United States was collected through a survey of Amer- geographic and commodity detail at the state and local ican businesses as part of the economic census. However, due levels would greatly enhance the usefulness of the survey. to data reliability issues, this survey was last published in 1977 The challenge is how to determine the optimum level of (38). Data reliability problems also affected a smaller com- disaggregation. Geographic strata for the 1993 and 1997 modity transportation study in 1983, which caused the U.S. CFSs included 89 national transportation analysis regions Census Bureau not to publish the results (38). In 1991, a TRB (NTARs). These regions were consolidated 1987 BEA report identified the lack of commodity flow data as one of economic areas to keep O-D tables within 8,000 cells. the greatest gaps in the U.S.DOT data program (39). Follow- Geographic strata in the 2002 CFS included the top 50 ing its creation that year, BTS instituted CFS and arranged metropolitan areas (MAs) based on population in the with the U.S. Census Bureau to conduct the survey as part of 2000 Census, with establishments not located in an MA
OCR for page 25
25 assigned to the remainder of the state. Geographic strata Electronic Data Interchange Standards in the 2007 CFS will use 73 MAs, with establishments not located in an MA assigned to the remainder of the state. Purpose and Content Several ideas have been suggested to increase CFS regions, EDI standards are data exchange standards that facilitate the including using three-digit zip code regions (of which exchange and interpretation of formatted data messages there are 929 around the country) and BEA areas (of which between computers. EDI formatted data messages are business there are 172 around the country) (37). A recent study of documents, examples of which include rate proposals, invoices, techniques to generate national freight analysis zones purchase orders, and ship notices. The two parties in an EDI (FAZs) for transportation models recommended a system transaction are usually called trading partners. Although the of 400 zones (40). term EDI can be used in connection with any formatted · Insensitivity to short-term economic changes. CFS follows exchange of data between computers, EDI frequently applies to a 5-year cycle, which is inadequate for freight analyses in the standards developed by the American National Standards connection with phenomena such as recessions or droughts. Institute Accredited Standards Committee (ANSI ASC) X12 The 2-year lag between data collection and release of results (41). Other formatted data exchange standards used by the is also a weakness. freight community include the following: · United Nations Electronic Data Interchange for Adminis- Lessons Learned tration, Commerce, and Transport (UN/EDIFACT) stan- Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- dards (42). These standards are predominant outside of lution, and maintenance of CFS follow: North America. · Universal Business Language (UBL) (43). UBL is a library · Continue to involve the U.S. Census Bureau for the use of of standard extensible markup language (XML) electronic survey instruments. CFS is a joint effort between the U.S. business documents developed by the Organization for Census Bureau and BTS. According to BTS, this partner- the Advancement of Structured Information Standards ship has been beneficial because the U.S. Census Bureau (OASIS), which is an international non-profit organiza- had previous experience conducting commodity-based tion that seeks the adoption of open interoperability stan- surveys, an establishment list, and in-house resources for dards for business applications. data collection (37). · Create crosswalks to ensure the compatibility of survey Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS data internally over time and externally across other PUB) 1612 describes the requirements to use EDI standards datasets. Over time, key CFS characteristics have changed, within the federal government (44). such as sample size, industry classification, commodity ANSI ASC X12 standards define data message (or transac- classification, survey methodology, and data items. A doc- tion set) components such as message syntax, message type, umented crosswalk between CFS surveys to link survey control data elements, data segments, message grouping, and data over time is needed (37). In addition, while CFS is a message authentication. A transaction set is divided into data shipment survey, other surveys that can be used to supple- segments, where a segment is a collection of data elements ment CFS data (e.g., carrier surveys) contain data that are that typically includes a segment ID, data elements separated not necessarily compatible with the CFS data structure. by delimiters, and a segment terminator. A segment within a There is also a need for an integrated data collection pro- transaction set can be mandatory, optional, or conditional. gram and coordination on definitions for commodity codes Many transaction sets have three parts: header (which starts and vehicle types (37). with a header segment), detail, and summary (which ends with · Consider importance of adequate resources for data col- a trailer segment). lection and fully understanding implications of small ANSI ASC X12 has sponsored the development of more sample sizes. Due to delays and limited funding, the 2002 than 300 EDI standard transaction sets (and, increasingly, CFS design made limited use of prior surveys and did not XML schemas) in a wide range of areas such as materials, incorporate pilot studies (37). The sample size also was warehousing, product services, and transportation. Many EDI reduced from 100,000 to 50,000 establishments, which transaction sets are related to freight and cover topics such as degraded the quality and usefulness of the data. There also rate proposals, freight details and invoices, trailer manifests, were communication issues such as not sharing sampling shipment information, shipment status inquiries and status procedures and relevant documentation with CFS data messages, and tariff information. Table 3 lists a short sample users (35). of freight-related ANSI ASC X12 transaction sets.
OCR for page 26
26 Table 3. Sample of freight-related ANSI ASC X12 · In 1999, an XML task group was formed to draft policies transaction sets. and procedures related to EDI and XML. · In 2000, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabil- No. Description 104 Air Shipment Information ity Act (HIPAA) transaction regulation (45 CFR 160 and 109 Vessel Content Details 162) was published adopting nine ASC X12 transaction sets 110 Air Freight Details and Invoice for the health care industry (45). ASC X12 signed a mem- 210 Motor Carrier Freight Details and Invoice 211 Motor Carrier Bill of Lading orandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department 214 Transportation Carrier Shipment Status Message of Health and Human Services and standards development 215 Motor Carrier Pick-up Manifest organizations to manage the EDI standards adopted under 216 Motor Carrier Shipment Pick-up Notification HIPAA. 217 Motor Carrier Loading and Route Guide 218 Motor Carrier Tariff Information · In 2001, ASC X12 and the UN/EDIFACT working group 309 Customs Manifest started work to create a single set of core components that 310 Freight Receipt and Invoice (Ocean) could work on both standards environments. 311 Canadian Customs Information · In 2005, ASC X12 published the first set of XML schemas. 315 Status Details (Ocean) 319 Terminal Information 322 Terminal Operations and Intermodal Ramp Activity Although EDI standards are independent of hardware and 323 Vessel Schedule and Itinerary (Ocean) software communication technologies, EDI implementations 350 U.S. Customs Status Information 353 U.S. Customs Events Advisory Details typically require the use of special-purpose software for the 404 Rail Carrier Shipment Information transmission and interpretation of EDI transaction sets. Tra- 410 Rail Carrier Freight Details and Invoice ditional EDI implementations use direct modem-to-modem 426 Rail Revenue Waybill connections. However, the number of EDI implementations 435 Standard Transportation Commodity Code Master 437 Railroad Junctions and Interchanges Activity that use Web-based communication protocols (e.g., hyper- 440 Shipment Weights text transfer protocol over secure socket layer [HTTPS] and 451 Railroad Event Report Applicability Statement [AS]), is increasing rapidly. Many 470 Railroad Clearance implementations rely on value-added networks (VANs) to 601 U.S. Customs Export Shipment Information 715 Intermodal Group Loading Plan facilitate communications between trading partners. 853 Routing and Carrier Instruction There are several versions and releases of the ANSI ASC 857 Shipment and Billing Notice X12 standards (e.g., 3040, 4010, 5010, and 6010). EDI appli- 858 Shipment Information 859 Freight Invoice cations are normally built upon specific version releases. Dif- ferent releases are not compatible, which adds complexity to the data exchange process. The decision to upgrade an EDI application to a more recent version of the standard depends Development, Challenges, Strategies, on a number of factors, including cost to upgrade and what and Adaptability versions are used by current and potential trading partners. Significant milestones in the development of the ASC X12 In large companies, it is common to have internal technical standards include the following (41): teams that support the development and maintenance of in- house applications. In smaller companies, it is more common · In 1979, ANSI formed Accredited Standards Committee to outsource EDI communications to third-party vendors. X12 to develop uniform standards for electronic exchange The alternative to upgrading is to purchase EDI translation of business transactions. software (which often costs in excess of $50,000) or contract · In 1982, ANSI published Version 1 of the American National with third parties to translate data formats, data elements, Standards. Over the years, ANSI has published revised ver- and qualifiers to ensure compatibility with the EDI standard sions of these standards, which are ANSI-certified releases versions required by trading partners in the supply chain. of draft ASC X12 standards. The disparities between different versions of EDI standards · In 1986, project teams were formed as precursors to func- currently in use may at least partially explain why many sup- tional subcommittees. Currently, ASC X12 has seven sub- ply chain stakeholders either build their own systems to the committees (communications and control, finance, gov- minimum "mandatory" specifications and omit the more ernment, insurance, supply chain, technical assessment, robust ("optional") data elements or outsource EDI data and transportation) as well as several task groups. exchange to a third-party provider. · In 1990, an alignment task group was formed to recom- To address some of the limitations associated with tradi- mend steps to converge ASC X12 standards and EDIFACT tional EDI transaction sets (including proprietary software messages. implementations, cryptic format, and implementation com-
OCR for page 27
27 plexity), ASC X12 developed a Context Inspired Component · National Motor Freight Classification. As previously Architecture (CICA) that enables the construction of XML- mentioned, NMFC groups commodities into 18 classes based message sets that rely on reusable vocabulary across according to four commodity "transportability" charac- multiple industries (41). In CICA, data element definitions teristics: density, stowability, handling, and liability (46). (e.g., date, time, and name) are XML constructs that can be the access and use of NMFC codes is limited by 49 U.S. reused multiple times as needed. ASC X12 has published a Code Section 13703 (49 USC 13703) to specific regulated number of XML schemas, including the following, which are carriers (51, 52). related to transportation: · North American Product Classification System (NAPCS). NAPCS is a product classification system the United States, · Transportation freight invoice, Canada, and Mexico are developing to complement · Transportation status--general use, NAICS (53). · Transportation status--small package use, · Price Look-Up (PLU). PLU codes are used by the produce · Transportation status--general use request, sector to describe products such as fruits, vegetables, dried · Transportation empty car release--rail request, fruit, herbs and flavorings, and nuts (54). Typically, sealed, · Transportation empty car release--rail response, and containerized, or packaged produce falls outside the scope · Transportation price distribution--rail. of the PLU coding system. Also excluded is produce that has undergone additional processing. · Standard Classification of Transported Goods. SCTG Commodity, Product, and Industry codes are commodity codes that were developed to support Classification Standards the needs of the 1997 CFS (55). SCTG uses a five-digit hier- As previously mentioned, many EDI transactions sets are archical structure that aggregates HS codes into categories related to freight. Of particular interest are transaction sets that CFS planners considered more suitable for statistical that provide information about the commodities being trans- analyses and the collection of freight movement data. ported. For motor carrier shipments, ANSI ASC X12 Transac- · Standard Transportation Commodity Codes. STCCs are tion Set 211 describes commodity items using national motor commodity codes used by the railroad industry to describe freight classification (NMFC) codes. NMFC is a standard product information in waybills and other shipping docu- maintained by the National Motor Freight Traffic Association ments. AAR developed STCC in 1962 using a seven-digit (NMFTA) that groups commodities into 18 classes according structure that provided five levels of commodity code res- to four commodity "transportability" characteristics: density, olution (56). It may be worth noting that CFS shifted from stowability, handling, and liability (46). STCC to SCTG codes in 1997. As a result, other applica- NMFC is one of several commodity and product classifica- tions that rely on CFS data (such as FAF) also changed to tion standards available to the freight community. Widely SCTG (57). known standards include the following: Most of the product classification standards above provide · Central Product Classification (CPC). CPC is a product a mapping of product codes to industrial classification sys- classification system sponsored by the United Nations, which tems such as the following: uses a five-digit hierarchical structure that provides three levels of product code resolution (47). With some excep- · International Standard Industrial Classification of All tions, CPC subclasses are groupings and rearrangements of Economic Activities. ISIC classifies industries using a Harmonized System (HS) codes. CPC code listings provide four-digit hierarchical structure that provides three levels an indication of the corresponding HS codes, along with of industry code resolution (47). At the top level, the two- International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) activ- digit division codes are grouped into sections designated ity classes (47). CPC provides the base for the Standards by letters (which are not included in the ISIC codes). Nomenclature for Transport Statistics (NST 2007) classi- · North American Industry Classification System. NAICS fication system (48). classifies industries using a six-digit hierarchical structure · Harmonized System. HS is an international product cod- that provides six levels of industry code resolution (58). ing system developed by the WCO (49). HS uses a six-digit NAICS replaced SIC in 1997. hierarchical structure that provides three levels of com- · Standard Industrial Classification. SIC classified indus- modity code resolution. Most countries have adopted HS, tries using a four-digit hierarchical structure that provided including the United States, which used HS as the basis for four levels of industry code resolution (59). SIC has been the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) maintained by the replaced by NAICS and is no longer in use by the federal U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) (50). government.
OCR for page 28
28 Examples of crosswalk tables that enable the mapping of nately, different releases are not compatible, which adds codes across systems include the following: complexity to the data exchange process. The disparities between different versions of EDI standards currently in · Five-digit CPC codes and six-digit HS codes (47), use may at least partially explain why many supply chain · Five-digit CPC codes and four-digit ISIC codes (47), stakeholders either build their own systems to the mini- · Two-digit HS codes and two-digit SCTG codes (57), mum "mandatory" specifications and omit the more robust · Two-digit SCTG codes and four-digit STCC codes (57), ("optional") data elements or outsource EDI data exchange · Six-digit NAICS codes and four-digit SIC codes (58), and to a third-party provider. · Four-digit ISIC codes and six-digit NAICS codes (60). · Participate in the standards development process. For motor carrier shipments, ANSI ASC X12 Transaction Set It is worth noting that crosswalk tables are actually snapshot 211 describes commodity items using NMFC codes. NMFC views because they use specific versions of the corresponding is a standard maintained by NMFTA, which groups com- codes linked by the crosswalk tables. Crosswalk table mainte- modities into 18 classes according to four commodity nance practices vary widely from agency to agency. In addi- "transportability" characteristics: density, stowability, han- tion, there is no centralized repository of links to current and dling, and liability. NMFC codes are not compatible with historical crosswalk tables. other commodity classification codes commonly used by Readers also should be aware that the list of classification the freight community. Active participation by other freight standards provided above is only a sample. Additional classi- stakeholders in the development of ASC X12 standards fication standards that should be taken into consideration for would be an effective mechanism to help address code the development of a national freight data architecture include incompatibility problems. the following: · HMIS regulations and classification standards, Freight Analysis Framework · Federal and state vehicle type/class classification standards, Purpose and Content · Vessel classification standards, · Railcar classification standards, and FAF is a commodity O-D database and analytical frame- · Facility classifications. work that provides estimates of tonnage and values of goods shipped according to origin, destination, commodity, and mode (57, 61). In addition to commodity O-D data, FAF pro- Lessons Learned vides estimates of commodity movements by truck and vol- Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- umes of long-distance trucks over specific highways. FAF lution, and maintenance of EDI standards follow: was originally developed as a policy analysis tool within the U.S.DOT. Over time, FAF products have also used to convey · Develop applications that rely on widely used data stan- freight profile and statistics to the states and the public, and dards. The ANSI ASC X12 EDI standards have been around as a tool to support economic analyses that involve commod- for almost 30 years and are widely used in industries such ity flow trends in areas other than transportation. Additional as retail, transportation, education, health care, travel, and examples of FAF applications are documented in reports such insurance. Many EDI transactions sets are related to freight as the Quick Response Freight Manual (62). and cover topics such as rate proposals, freight details and FAF includes 138 origin and destination "zones," consist- invoices, trailer manifests, shipment information, shipment ing of 114 regions as defined in the 2002 CFS, 17 international status inquiries and status messages, and tariff information. gateways (which supplement FAF regions that are both gate- Traditional EDI implementations use direct modem-to- ways and domestic zones), and 7 international regions. Com- modem connections. However, the number of EDI imple- modities are defined at the two-digit SCTG level. Although mentations that use Web-based communication protocols the 2002 CFS defines 11 separate modes, multimodal combi- (e.g., HTTPS and AS) is increasing rapidly. To support this nations, and unknown modes, FAF only uses 7 aggregated transition, ASC X12 is beginning to develop XML schemas, modes. FAF relies primarily on data collected every 5 years as which facilitate data exchange using modern communica- part of the economic census. tion technologies. Conceptually, the database of origins and destinations in · Develop applications with backward compatibility. There FAF can be thought of as a four-dimensional matrix of ori- are several versions and releases of the ANSI ASC X12 stan- gins, destinations, commodities, and modes, in which each dards (e.g., 3040, 4010, 5010, and 6010). EDI applications cell in the four-dimensional matrix represents tonnage or are normally built upon specific version releases. Unfortu- value of goods shipped (57). The actual implementation of
OCR for page 29
29 FAF uses a database composed of several tables (63), includ- destination, and mode, using publicly available publica- ing the following: tions that are less complete and detailed than the data used for the 2002 base estimate. The most recent year for which · Domestic tonnage and value tables. These tables contain there are O-D estimates is 2007. the following data: · FAF2 version 2.3 (FAF2.3). FAF2.3, scheduled for release in Origin: one of the 114 FAF/CFS domestic regions, 2009, will be the final version of the FAF2 series (64). This Origin state: state where the FAF origin region is located, version will include minor adjustments to the 2002 O-D Destination: one of the 114 domestic regions, database, a distance matrix for estimating ton-miles, major Destination state: state where the FAF destination region corrections to the 1997 historical O-D file, and a Web- is located, based tool for creating tables and extracting portions of the Commodity: one of the 43 SCTG commodities, O-D database. Mode: one of the 7 aggregated modes, and · FAF3. FHWA is currently working on FAF version 3 (FAF3) Years 20022035: thousand tons or million dollars for (64). FHWA anticipates releasing FAF3.0 by mid 2010, each year. including the 2007 O-D commodity flow database, the 2007 · International tonnage and value tables. These tables (for highway network database, and initial ton-mile estimates transborder, sea, and transocean air) contain the following by state. FHWA also expects to release FAF3.1 by the end data: of 2010 with forecasts, the rail and waterway network data- Origin: one of the 7 international regions (for imports) bases, and detailed ton-mile estimates. The current plan is or one of the 114 domestic regions (for exports), to use FAF2 to release provisional 2008 and 2009 estimates Origin state: state or international region where the FAF (in 2009 and 2010, respectively) and use FAF3 to release origin region is located, 2010 provisional estimates (released in 2011) and other Destination: one of the 7 international regions (for future years. imports) or one of the 114 domestic regions (for exports), Destination state: state or international region where the FAF1 was developed as a policy analysis tool within the FAF destination region is located, U.S.DOT. FAF1 products were also used to convey freight Commodity: one of the 43 SCTG commodities, profile and statistics to the states and the public, and as a tool Port: one of the 17 international gateways, to support economic analyses that involved commodity flow Mode: one of the 7 aggregated modes used for the domes- trends in areas other than transportation. However, FAF1's tic portion of the movement, and shortcomings, including its reliance on proprietary data and Years 20022035: thousand tons or million dollars for little use of CFS data, resulted in inconsistencies between FAF1 each year. and CFS and the inability to publish estimates of commodity flows for areas smaller than states (64). A 2004 FHWA report identified improvement needs in areas related to geographic Development, Challenges, Strategies, detail, completeness, accuracy, and timeliness (65). The 2004 and Adaptability report also outlined six goals for FAF2, as follows (64, 65): FAF versions include the following: 1. Integrate economic census data more effectively, · FAF1 (or "original" FAF). This version of FAF, released in 2. Assure quality of FAF data for the benchmark years, 2000, includes commodity O-D data for base year 1998 3. Provide timely updates to FAF data products, and future years 2010 and 2020. FAF1 relied partly on pro- 4. Assure that FAF methods and products are transparent prietary data. and can be reproduced, · FAF2 version 2.1 (FAF2.1). This version of FAF, released in 5. Help state and local governments make effective use of FAF January 2006, includes commodity O-D data for base year products in conjunction with developing a local under- 2002. standing of freight activity, and · FAF2 version 2.2 (FAF2.2). This version of FAF, released in 6. Continue to work with customers to improve the useful- November 2006, includes commodity O-D data for base ness of FAF products. year 2002 and future years 2010 through 2035 at 5-year intervals. Version 2.2 includes minor corrections to 2002 Specific changes in FAF2 to meet these goals included the base year flows in Version 2.1. FAF2 also includes provi- following: sional data. Because the movement of goods may experi- ence shifts between economic census years, FHWA pro- · Modes of transportation. FAF2 was expanded to include duces provisional estimates of goods movement by origin, all modes of transportation, including truck, rail, water,
OCR for page 35
35 6. Domestic capital account, and vices to the U.S. economy (82). These accounts make a dis- 7. Foreign transactions capital account. tinction between hired transportation services and transporta- tion services that businesses provide for their own use, identify The supporting tables are available on the BEA Website industries that account for most transportation activities or are and also can be downloaded in .xls or .csv formats (81). The the largest users of transportation services, estimate the impact BEA Web interface enables users to access data annually or of transportation in the production costs of these industries, quarterly within a specified year range. and estimate relative expenditures in transportation infrastruc- Examples of NIPA uses include the following (80): ture and equipment by government and businesses. · Macroeconomic analysis and forecasting, Development, Challenges, Strategies, · U.S. economic measurement, and Adaptability · Economic policymaking and evaluation, · Federal budget and tax projection preparation, The origin of the NIPAs can be traced back to the 1930s with · International economy comparison, the publication of the first estimates of national income, which · Evaluation of interrelationships between different economic were needed to measure the effectiveness of the strategies sectors, implemented to combat the Great Depression (83). In 1942, · Financial and investment planning by businesses and indi- annual estimates of gross national product (GNP) were intro- viduals, and duced and estimates were developed to detail how income was · Development of other economic accounts. generated, received, and spent by various sectors of the econ- omy. In 1947, the national income and product estimates were BEA uses a number of satellite accounts that provide more integrated into a complete, consistent accounting system with detail than the NIPAs and facilitate the analysis of specific 48 tables. Since then, there have been annual revisions and sev- aspects of the economy. The transportation satellite accounts eral comprehensive revisions. Table 5 summarizes major mile- (TSAs), which were jointly developed by BTS and BEA, focus stones associated with the development and evolution of the on transportation services and the contribution of these ser- NIPAs (83, 84). Table 5. Major milestones in the development of the NIPAs. Year Major Milestones/Revisions 1934 First publication of national income estimates 1942 Annual GNP estimates introduced to complement the estimates of national income 1947 National income and product statistics presented as part of a complete, consistent accounting system 1954 Estimates of real GNP and implicit price deflators added to the NIPA tables Five summary accounts adopted Quarterly estimates of real GNP, regional estimates, and estimates of the net stock of fixed assets in 1958 manufacturing introduced Government-sector tables and foreign-transactions tables modified 1965 Components of GNP benchmarked for the first time in the 1958 I-O table 1976 Estimates of consumption of fixed capital (CFC) shifted to a current-cost basis 1985 Quality-adjusted price indexes for computers and peripheral equipment introduced 1991 National production measure changed from GNP to GDP 1993 NIPA improvements started following the System of National Accounts 1993 framework Methods for estimating changes in real GDP and for CFC calculation improved 1996 Government expenditures for equipment and structures recognized as fixed investment Several key definitions improved 1999 New method introduced for calculating real value of non-priced bank services Consumer price indexes revised back to 1978 More advanced measures of insurance services and banking services adopted New treatment of government activity adopted 2003 National income definition expanded to follow international guidelines New tables including two new summary accounts added New treatments of disasters and insurance services provided by government enterprises introduced Transactions between the federal government and U.S. territories and commonwealths reclassified New classification system for personal consumption expenditures added 2009 2002 benchmark I-O accounts incorporated Statistical measure for estimating personal consumption expenditures, wages and salaries, and proprietors' income improved
OCR for page 36
36 Comprehensive revisions have normally taken place at to sensitive information is restricted, estimates are accessible 5-year intervals that correspond with the integration of updated only to authorized individuals, employees are prevented statistics from BEA's benchmark I-O accounts (85). The com- from pre-releasing information, and releases follow a pre- prehensive revisions typically introduce major improve- determined schedule. ments to definitions and classifications, statistical methods, BEA relies on its own research and development workforce and/or presentations of NIPA tables. Annual revisions com- for the preparation of the NIPAs and other economic accounts plement the comprehensive revisions. The annual revisions (80). BEA also relies on scholars and experts from various generally take place each summer and cover the last 3 years. sources to improve definitions, presentations, and relevant In 2010, BEA will start using "flexible" annual revisions that statistical methods. will retain the features of the current annual revisions while allowing for improvements normally associated with the major Lessons Learned revisions (85). Data for the economic accounts come from a variety of Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, BEA, USDA, BLS, lution, and maintenance of the NIPAs follow: the U.S. Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and OMB. Close cooperation from these agencies is · Emphasize data quality, reliability, and integrity. A critical critical for the production of the NIPAs. BEA complements requirement for BEA has been to ensure that calculations government-produced or -maintained data with data from and estimates be accurate, reliable, and relevant. Integrity trade associations, businesses, international organizations, in the form of objective, timely estimates and open, trans- and other sources. After collecting the data, BEA processes parent processes are also key requirements. Meeting these the data and produces NIPA estimates using a combination requirements is critical to ensure the public's trust in of statistical methods. processes and data. BEA uses the following criteria and methodologies to main- · Schedule major and regular revisions effectively. The NIPA tain the usefulness and effectiveness of the NIPA estimates (80): revision process consists of annual revisions and compre- hensive revisions. The comprehensive revisions enable not · Accuracy. Accuracy refers to how close the estimates mea- just the revision of estimates, but also a review of NIPA def- sure the concepts they are designed to measure. In order to initions, statistical methods, and presentations of NIPA keep pace with innovations in the economy, BEA periodi- tables. Comprehensive revisions take place at regular inter- cally reviews and updates procedures and data to make vals (every 5 years) that correspond with the integration of sure they provide complete, consistent estimates. updated statistics from BEA's benchmark I-O accounts. · Reliability. Reliability refers to the size and frequency of This regularity provides a sense of continuity and ensures NIPA estimate revisions. BEA's objective is to develop ini- the feasibility and relevance of the NIPA process. tial estimates that provide reliable indicators of economic growth characteristics and where the economy is in rela- tion to the business cycle. National ITS Architecture · Relevance. Relevance refers to the length of time before Purpose and Content estimates become available and the ability of the accounts to provide estimates that help answer relevant questions. To The National ITS Architecture is a collection of tools that address the first issue, BEA has developed a release cycle for describe functions, entities or subsystems where these func- the estimates, which addresses timeliness and accuracy tions reside, and data flows that connect functions and sub- tradeoffs. To address the second issue, BEA has periodically systems in connection with the implementation of systems incorporated improvements to the NIPAs and the other that use computing, sensing, and communication technolo- economic accounts to ensure the estimates reflect current gies in transportation operations (87). The National ITS conditions and changes in analytical and statistical practice. Architecture has been used for many implementations around · Integrity. Integrity refers to the independence and objec- the country, including traffic management centers (TMCs), tiveness of the estimates. To ensure integrity, BEA strives to traffic signal systems, and tolling operations. develop objective, timely estimates and make its processes The National ITS Architecture includes user services, a log- open and transparent. ical architecture, a physical architecture, and standards, as summarized below. In addition, BEA devotes considerable time and effort to ensure the security of the data before releasing any data to · User services. User services represent what a system would the public (86). For example, physical and computer access do from the perspective of the user. A user might be the
OCR for page 37
37 public or a system operator. Currently, there are 33 user · Physical architecture. The physical architecture provides services grouped into eight categories (called bundles). a representation (although not a detailed design) of how an · Logical architecture. The logical architecture defines integrated system would provide the functionality defined processes, data flows among processes, terminators (i.e., by the user services and the logical architecture. This goal entry and exit points such as sensors, computers, and human is achieved by defining subsystems based on functional operators), and data stores required to satisfy the functional similarity of process specifications and physical locations requirements of the 33 user services (88). The logical archi- of functions within the transportation system. As Figure 6 tecture is presented to readers using nested data flow dia- shows, there are four general categories of subsystems: grams (DFDs) that provide graphical representations of Centers, Field, Travelers, and Vehicles. In general, the phys- processes, data flows, terminators, and data stores at vari- ical architecture handles subsystems, architectural flows ous disaggregation levels. (that connect subsystems and terminators), and equipment At the highest level is a DFD called Manage ITS that has packages (that break up subsystems into deployment-sized nine first-level processes, all of which are DFDs. In turn, pieces). each of these processes has subordinate processes, some of The physical architecture also handles market pack- which are DFDs. Version 6.0 of the National ITS Architec- ages, which represent slices of the physical architecture ture includes 3,475 logical data flows, of which 344 data that address specific services. In general, a market pack- flows have as a source node one of the Manage Commercial age includes several different subsystems, equipment Vehicles processes or subprocesses. Freight-related data ele- packages, terminators, and architectural flows that pro- ments typically cover vehicles and their interaction with the vide the desired service. The physical architecture includes road environment. However, some elements address cargo 13 market packages related to commercial vehicle oper- data needs. ation (CVO). Figure 6. National ITS Architecture subsystems (87).
OCR for page 38
38 · Standards. There are 96 ITS standards in the RITA ITS During the late 1980s and early 1990s, U.S. investments standard database (without including withdrawn or sus- in IVHS were relatively minor, although growing. For exam- pended standards): 2 standards under development, 2 stan- ple, U.S.DOT's research expenditures in IVHS were $2.3 mil- dards in ballot, 4 approved standards, and 88 published lion in fiscal year 1990 but grew to about $20 million in fis- standards (89). The standards include document types such cal year 1991 (93). A number of organizations recognized as guides, data dictionaries, message sets, and protocols. the increasing role of advanced technology in transporta- tion and called for actions such as increasing the level of Although the National ITS Architecture is generic, it can be funding for research and demonstration programs, devel- tailored to meet unique local or regional transportation needs. oping organizational arrangements involving public and In the architecture, functions, subsystems, and data flows have private sectors, and including IVHS in federal legislation. precise definitions and associated data elements, which facil- Impetus for work in this area in the United States was also itates data exchange within and among jurisdictions at several the awareness of major IVHS investments in Europe and levels. Readers should note that the National ITS Architecture Japan and the concern that the United States might lose its is not a system architecture in that it does not prescribe spe- competitive advantage and become dependent on foreign cific hardware or software configurations and interfaces, leav- developments. ing that responsibility to individual agencies that implement Two significant efforts that shaped the future of IVHS were the systems. Mobility 2000 (91, 92) and TRB Special Report 232 (94). Mobil- ity 2000, an informal group of representatives of universities, industry, and federal, state, and local governments, conducted Development, Challenges, Strategies, workshops in 1989 and 1990 that and Adaptability The U.S.DOT manages the implementation of the National · Produced key recommendations (including developing an ITS Architecture through a program governed by a board of organizational structure to develop policy and legislative directors called the ITS Management Council (90). In 2006, recommendations related to IVHS); the RITA Administrator became the Chair of the ITS Man- · Estimated the investment needs in IVHS by different sectors agement Council and, in this capacity, has overall responsi- (including federal, local, and private) to be around $34 bil- bility for the strategic direction and oversight of the ITS Pro- lion through year 2010; and gram. In 2004, the ITS Management Council reorganized the · Identified institutional needs, including developing a frame- functions of the ITS Program to focus on the following nine work to facilitate the development of standards for inter- initiatives: faces and communications, noting that efforts should be made to coordinate ATMS, ATIS, AVCS, and CVO elements 1. Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (recently renamed in a flexible manner to accommodate changes. IntelliDriveSM), 2. Next Generation 9-1-1, Mobility 2000 led to the formation of IVHS America in 1990 3. Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems, (later to become ITS America) as a private, non-profit mem- 4. Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems, bership organization with a mission to advise the U.S.DOT and 5. Integrated Corridor Management Systems, serve as the primary representative of the IVHS community. 6. Clarus, TRB Special Report 232 was the result of an effort by the 7. Emergency Transportation Operations, U.S.DOT, NCHRP, TRB, and private industry from 1988 to 8. Mobility Services for All Americans, and 1991 to document a vision for IVHS and formulate specific 9. Electronic Freight Management. recommendations for implementing IVHS (94). The report evaluated the Mobility 2000 recommendations and identified The national ITS Program started with the Intelligent key IVHS components and issues, including the following: Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) initiative in the late 1980s, which focused on the development and implementation of · It formalized the concept of an IVHS system architecture as advanced technologies to improve mobility, enhance safety, the framework within which individual systems and compo- and maximize the use of existing facilities, at a time when the nents would operate and relate to each other. The architec- bulk of the Interstate highway construction program was end- ture would be a standards-based open system architecture ing (91, 92). IVHS was an effort to better integrate a host of to ensure component interoperability and interchangeabil- related technologies such as advanced traffic management sys- ity. The report also identified a requirement for the architec- tems (ATMS), advanced traveler information systems (ATIS), ture to be flexible to accommodate changes in requirements advanced vehicle control systems (AVCS), and CVO. and technology.
OCR for page 39
39 · It recognized the need to identify human-machine inter- the need to focus on setting standards (which would also faces, specifically, the information processing demands that require cooperation and coordination among participants). IVHS would impose on human operators and users. · It highlighted the need to use a systems engineering approach The ISTEA mandate called for a three-pronged effort, for developing the architecture as well as the need to evalu- including basic research and development, operational tests, ate alternative architecture approaches. and deployment support activities. Nonetheless, a 1994 GAO · It recommended the U.S.DOT (in a leadership role) and report on traffic control signal systems found that federal IVHS America (in an advisory role) work together to imple- protocols to review state and local governments' operations ment the IVHS program. plans for signal systems were inconsistent and that technical expertise deficiencies of FHWA staff, which FHWA had iden- TRB Special Report 232 also included a summary of the tified in 1990, had not improved significantly (95). development of other similar architectures, specifically, those During the early 1990s, the U.S.DOT developed strategic associated with the Aeronautical Telecommunications Net- and program plans for implementing IVHS. At that time, work (ATN), the Advanced Train Control Systems (ATCS) FHWA had primary responsibility for the program, although Project, and the European Dedicated Road Infrastructure for the FTA and NHTSA also had active roles in funding and Vehicle Safety (DRIVE) Program. managing IVHS projects. State and local governments, private In 1991, ISTEA (69) resulted in significant increases in industry, and the research community were active participants IVHS investment levels (95). As a reference, Table 6 provides in shaping the program and conducting research and opera- a summary of critical pieces of federal legislation related to tional tests. Significant input also was available through IVHS IVHS and ITS since 1991, along with the corresponding allo- America. cation of federal funds. A critical initiative in the early 1990s was the development In 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed of a national architecture and standards for IVHS. The main 38 major studies conducted in the 1980s and concluded that motivation for this development was the recognition that IVHS was seen as promising, although the empirical evidence the absence of common IVHS architecture and standards in for judging its benefits was still limited (93). In addition to the Europe was having a negative impact on the European Com- need for a more detailed analysis of anticipated benefits and munity's goal of a seamless IVHS environment across national costs, the 1991 GAO report identified three types of barriers boundaries, delaying the development of a common market (cost barriers, institutional barriers, and technological barri- for European IVHS products. The vision for the national IVHS ers) that could affect the overall success of IVHS. In particu- architecture in the United States was that it would define a gen- lar were the following: eral framework within which IVHS system components would work, while standards would specify the technical require- · The report recommended finding a proper mix of burden ments of individual IVHS applications. Developing a national sharing between private and government sectors to absorb IVHS architecture would ensure compatibility among differ- the costs of developing and operating IVHS, noting that an ent IVHS hardware and software technologies and accelerate inappropriate distribution of costs could prevent full real- the implementation of IVHS by reducing the risks to private- ization of IVHS potential. and public-sector stakeholders. Without the assurance of · The report highlighted the requirement for various stake- compatibility, stakeholders would be reluctant to invest in holders to work together to ensure the success of IVHS and IVHS infrastructure. Table 6. Important pieces of federal legislation related to IVHS and ITS. Legislation Comment/Allocation of Funds* ISTEA (ITS Program: 19921997) $659 million for research and testing $564 million for deployment Total: $1.22 billion National Highway System Designation Act Replaced IVHS with ITS. TEA-21 (ITS Program: 19982005), $823 million for research and testing including a 2-year extension $923 million for deployment Total: $1.75 billion SAFETEA-LU (ITS Program: 20062009) $440 million for research and testing Deployment was discontinued Total: $440 million * Fund allocation information provided by the U.S.DOT.
OCR for page 40
40 To develop a common national IVHS architecture, the determine the costs and benefits of ITS implementations, U.S.DOT instituted an IVHS architecture development pro- making it difficult to justify expenditures on ITS-related proj- gram and contracted several key aspects of this development, ects (100) and a lack of funds at the local level to support these including the following (96): projects in light of other transportation priorities (101). In 1998, TEA-21 consolidated this trend by launching a · System architecture development. The first phase involved transition to more integrated ITS application deployments. four contractors (Hughes Aircraft, Loral, Rockwell Inter- In the process, it consolidated eight ITS program areas into national, and Westinghouse) to develop candidate IVHS two subprograms: infrastructure (metropolitan infrastruc- architectures (97). The second phase involved a consor- ture, rural infrastructure, and commercial vehicle infrastruc- tium between Loral and Rockwell International to develop ture) and intelligent vehicle initiatives (including Commercial the most promising architecture concepts from the first Vehicle Information Systems and Networks [CVISN]) (102). phase into a single architecture. This architecture was com- It also recognized the need to accelerate the development of pleted in July 1996. standards and the identification of critical standards to ensure · System architecture manager. The purpose of this con- national interoperability. Specific strategies the U.S.DOT pur- tract (awarded to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory) was sued at that time to address challenges affecting ITS deploy- to work closely with the architecture development teams, ments included the following: providing technical review and evaluation of the candidate architectures. · Accelerate the development of standards, · System architecture consensus building. The purpose of · Provide professional capacity training, this contract was to develop an outreach program, includ- · Conduct ITS infrastructure and vehicle research, ing regional briefings on the progress of the IVHS architec- · Provide ITS deployment assistance, ture definition effort. · Conduct workshops to encourage consistency with the · Commercial vehicle operations institutional issues. The National ITS Architecture and standards, purpose of these studies was to evaluate institutional issues · Showcase the benefits of integrated deployments, and that would impede the achievement of national commer- · Evaluate the ITS program. cial vehicle operations goals. In 2001, the U.S.DOT finalized a rule (23 CFR 940.9) The U.S.DOT has continued to support the architecture requiring ITS projects to conform to a regional architecture through deployment and maintenance contracts. According (103). The purpose of the rule was to ensure compliance with to information provided by the U.S.DOT, the total federal national standards in a regional, integrated way. Regions and investment on the architecture program has been $65 million states were required to complete their regional ITS architec- so far. tures by April 2005 (if they had ITS implementations in 2001) During the mid 1990s, ITS--federal legislation replaced or within 4 years of the first ITS project advancing to final IVHS references with ITS in 1995--grew rapidly, from a few design (if the region or state did not have an ITS implemen- projects in 1992 to 268 projects in 1995. Appropriations also tation in 2001). grew to more than $800 million (98, 99). By the end of 1996, In 2005, SAFETEA-LU ended the ITS deployment pro- the total federal funding committed to ITS since 1991 had gram, although it continued to support ITS research and oper- grown to $1.2 billion. ational testing at $110 million each year through fiscal year In the mid 1990s, FHWA changed the focus of the ITS Pro- 2009. (Note: ITS projects are still eligible for regular federal- gram from research and operational tests to deployment and aid highway funding.) Relevant provisions in SAFETEA-LU training. FHWA viewed outreach and training as critical related to ITS in connection with this research included the because of the realization (backed by several studies) that following: many local officials did not have the technical skills needed to operate and maintain ITS infrastructure investments (100). · It required states and regions developing or updating their One of the reasons for this shortage was that most transporta- regional ITS architectures to address real-time highway tion agencies had staff with a background in civil engineering, and transit information needs, and the systems needed to not electrical engineering or systems integration. Lack of ITS meet those needs. The regional ITS architectures also had awareness also was common among agency managers and to incorporate data exchange formats to ensure the data from decisionmakers. These limitations were barriers to successful highway and transit monitoring systems could be made ITS deployment. Additional barriers were the lack of eco- available to state and local governments as well as to the nomic models that local transportation officials could use to traveling public.
OCR for page 41
41 · It required the designation of a panel of experts to recom- · U.S.DOT's chief information officer, mend ways to expedite and streamline the process of devel- · FHWA administrator, oping standards and protocols. · FMCSA administrator, · FTA administrator, In 2005, GAO (which by then had been renamed as the · NHTSA administrator, U.S. Government Accountability Office) reviewed a variety of · RITA administrator (chair), reports that documented ITS deployments around the coun- · FRA administrator, and try and interviewed officials from several agencies at the fed- · Maritime Administration (MARAD) administrator. eral, state, and local level (104). The report concluded that, although ITS technologies could be beneficial to help relieve The ITS Strategic Planning Group advises the ITS Manage- congestion, the original goal to deploy ITS systems to relieve ment Council. The group, which is chaired by the ITS program congestion had not been met. The report highlighted that manager, includes members at the associate administrator measures the U.S.DOT had in place to determine deployment and office director level. levels (e.g., whether a metropolitan area had transportation The ITS program manager leads the ITS Joint Program management centers) were inadequate and did not take into Office (JPO), which includes program managers and coordi- consideration other factors such as operational requirements nators of the U.S.DOT's multimodal ITS initiatives. The (e.g., number of hours a center had to operate each day). The program includes staff support for functions such as Website report also identified a number of barriers to ITS deploy- development and maintenance, outreach, program evalua- ment, including the following: tion, training, architecture, and standards. The ITS Joint Pro- gram Office is administratively located in FHWA under the · At the state or local levels, viewing options such as adding policy direction of RITA. a new highway lane more favorably than ITS when decid- ing how to spend transportation funds; · Lack of funding for both ITS installations and operations Archived ITS Data and lack of awareness that federal funds also can be used The national ITS Program evolved primarily to assist real- for operational costs; time and near-real-time transportation operations needs. · Lack of technical expertise at the local and state level; and Although placeholders for transportation planning needs were · Lack of technical standards, slow pace in standard devel- included in the National ITS Architecture from the beginning, opment, or standards that do not keep pace with techno- and there were examples of traffic sensor data archival efforts logical advances. going back to the 1970s, the process to develop an archived According to information provided by the U.S.DOT, the data user service (ADUS) only started in 1997 after the first total federal investment on the development of standards has release of the National ITS Architecture (105). ADUS was been $109.3 million so far ($20 million under ISTEA, $68 added as a user service in Version 3 of the architecture in 1999. million under TEA-21, and $21.3 million under SAFETEA- As with other user services, which represent what a system LU). As previously mentioned, there are 96 ITS standards in would do from the perspective of the user, ADUS provides the RITA ITS standard database (without including with- tools and describes processes related to ITS data archiving. drawn or suspended standards) (89). Nonetheless, the lack of Although all ITS deployments use and/or produce data, ADUS standards and the slow pace in standard development are fre- is not mandatory. However, having ADUS in the architecture quently cited as important factors that explain ITS deploy- facilitates the inclusion of ITS data archival functions in ITS ments delays. The standards development process can be a deployments. lengthy process. In some cases, technological innovations Over the last 10 years, the focus on ADUS development has evolve faster than standards. been the development of standards. Currently, there are three The RITA administrator became the chair of the ITS Man- ITS standards for archived ITS data. The first standard, pub- agement Council in 2006 (90). The ITS Management Coun- lished in 2003, provides guidance for archiving and retrieving cil develops and directs federal ITS policy and ensures the ITS data. The second standard, published in 2006, contains a effectiveness of the ITS Program. Members of the council metadata standard for ITS data. The foundation for this stan- include the following: dard was the FGDC metadata standard (106). The third stan- dard, published in 2008, contains a detailed data dictionary · Under secretary of transportation for policy, for archived ITS data. Unfortunately, additional work on · Assistant secretary for transportation policy and inter- archived ITS data standards stopped due to lack of funding. modalism, This funding was used to pay a consultant to do the technical
OCR for page 42
42 work and support travel of public-sector officials to attend itan areas in the country. However, partly because of the standards development meetings. lack of appropriate measures to determine whether that goal was being attained, the current level of ITS deploy- ment is not what the original visionaries had in mind. Like- Lessons Learned wise, although it was clear from the beginning that national Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- ITS standards had to be developed to ensure compatibility lution, and maintenance of the National ITS Architecture and interoperability, managers of the ITS Program did not (and associated standards) follows: anticipate the slow pace with which ITS standards would be developed. · Involve stakeholders early and often. It was critical to · Develop tools to measure benefits and costs early. For involve various stakeholders (federal, state, and local gov- many years, the ITS community did not have access to prac- ernments, as well as private industry) early to develop a tical tools to measure the costs and benefits of ITS imple- vision for a national ITS Program. These stakeholders mentations. To assist in this process, RITA now has on its also had a clear picture of what a national ITS architecture Website benefit and cost databases (including unit costs) to (and related standards) should focus on and accomplish. help planners and engineers determine the technical and Nonetheless, it took nearly 3 years to develop and docu- economic feasibility of their proposed projects. The need ment that picture. In addition, although the U.S.DOT has for this type of tools became critical after SAFETEA-LU played a critical leadership role in the development and ended the ITS deployment program and ITS projects had to implementation of the national ITS Program, other stake- compete for funding just like any other transportation proj- holders also have played a critical role in shaping that pro- ect. A critical requirement in this process is the develop- gram. For example, ITS America continues to provide an ment of appropriate performance measures to determine advisory, advocacy role on behalf of some 450 member the effectiveness of ITS investments. organizations that include public-sector agencies (including · Develop and implement professional capacity and train- state, county, and local levels) and private-sector agencies. ing programs early. A factor that hampered acceptance and Roughly half of the member organizations in ITS America implementation of ITS deployments was the lack of techni- are public-sector agencies. cal skills in critical areas (e.g., systems integration and elec- · Develop and compare candidate architecture concepts. trical engineering) to operate and maintain ITS infrastruc- The National ITS Architecture as implemented was the ture investments. Lack of ITS awareness also was common result of a two-phase approach. The first phase involved among agency managers and decisionmakers. These limi- having competing teams develop candidate architecture tations were barriers to successful ITS deployments. · Integrate archived data needs into frameworks and concepts. The second phase involved selecting a consortium from the first phase and developing an architecture using architectures early. The national ITS program evolved the best elements from the first phase. primarily to assist real-time and near-real-time transporta- · Consider federal legislation to support and develop the tion operations needs. Although placeholders for trans- portation planning needs were included in the National program. The ITS program was a major initiative at a time ITS Architecture from the beginning, the recognition of when the bulk of the Interstate highway construction pro- the need for an archived data user service did not happen gram was ending. Without the support of federal legisla- until the National ITS Architecture was already published. tion, the U.S.DOT would not have received the level of The development of ITS archived data standards also has funding needed to develop and implement the program, as been slow. Although there are now three ADUS-related well as to help maintain national attention on that program. data standards, there are no documented examples of their Developing and maintaining the National ITS Architecture use yet. and standards also was included in the federal legislation. · Develop long-term plans with flexibility in mind. The national ITS Program has evolved since its inception in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure early 1990s. Along the way, changes have been instituted to Purpose and Content respond to issues that were not anticipated in the original vision. For example, the requirement to develop regional NSDI is a dissemination effort to "acquire, process, store, ITS architectures evolved as a strategy to encourage com- distribute, and improve utilization of geospatial data through- pliance with national standards in a regional, integrated way. out all levels of government, the private and non-profit sec- There are also ambitious goals that have not fully material- tors, and academia" (106). NSDI is managed by FGDC. NSDI ized yet. For example, when the ITS program started, the goals include (1) reducing duplicative efforts among agencies; goal was to fully deploy ITS systems at all major metropol- (2) improving quality and reducing the costs of geospatial
OCR for page 43
43 data; (3) making the benefits of geographic data more acces- · Partnerships. Partnerships include institutional arrange- sible to the public; and (4) establishing partnerships to increase ments with federal agencies and other recognized stake- data availability. holder groups that share a common interest in critical data NSDI includes five major components, as follows (106): themes, standards, metadata, and information sharing. To support this effort, FGDC has developed an interagency · Framework. The framework is a collaborative approach organizational structure that includes a steering commit- and effort to facilitate the development of datasets that are tee, a coordination group, working groups and subcom- critical at the national level. The framework has three parts mittees, and partner organizations. Interaction with other (sometimes presented as four components: information agencies also takes place through a variety of initiatives, content, technical context, operational context, and business including the following: context ), as follows: Fifty State Initiative, which focuses on assisting states in Seven data themes (also called framework data): geo- developing strategic and business plans to facilitate pro- detic control, orthoimagery, elevation and bathymetry, grams, policies, and technologies to support NSDI; transportation, hydrography, cadastral, and governmen- NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program, which focuses tal units; on assisting the geospatial data community through Procedures and references for building and using frame- funding and other resources in implementing NSDI work data, e.g., spatial data models, permanent feature components; and identification codes, support for multiple resolution lev- Geospatial Line of Business (LoB), which is a presiden- els, and a common coordinate referencing system; and tial initiative that focuses on fostering collaboration, Institutional arrangements and business practices to reducing redundancies, and improving accountability encourage the maintenance and use of the data, e.g., and transparency across the federal government. through open, distributed access to framework data. · Metadata. FGDC is responsible for maintaining a meta- Institutional Arrangements, Challenges, data standard for geospatial data called Content Standard and Strategies for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM). CSDGM became Important milestones in the development and evolution of mandatory for federal agencies in January 1995. Nation- FGDC and NSDI include the following: wide, state and local agencies are increasingly adopting and using CSDGM, partly because of the availability of user- · In 1983, OMB established the Federal Interagency Coordi- friendly CSDGM editors such as those included in com- nating Committee on Digital Cartography (FICCDC), from monly used GIS applications. which FGDC evolved (109). · Standards. FGDC maintains a list of FGDC-endorsed stan- · In 1990, OMB revised Circular A-16 to establish FGDC dards. The standards, which are sponsored and maintained within the Department of the Interior to support the nation- by different organizations including FGDC, cover areas such wide use, sharing, and distribution of geospatial data (110). as data transfer, data content, and geospatial positional accu- · In 1994, Presidential Executive Order 12906 made FGDC racy. The status of a standard throughout its life cycle could responsible for coordinating the development of a national be one of several options, including reaffirmed, to be deter- spatial data infrastructure to address redundancy and mined, not applicable, requiring changes, or retired. It is not incompatibility issues related to geospatial information clear to what degree FGDC-endorsed standards are used (110). The same year, FGDC developed a strategy for NSDI nationwide, particularly by agencies other than the federal with help from stakeholders (111). agencies that sponsor and/or have maintenance responsibil- · In 1997, FGDC developed an updated strategy for NSDI ity for individual standards. In the case of content standards to continue major components of NSDI and to increase (e.g., cadastral, digital orthoimagery, remote sensing swath awareness (112). data, framework data, and utility facilities--which has been · In 2002, OMB revised Circular A-16 to reflect changes in retired), the GIS industry is developing and promoting spa- geographic information management and technology, fur- tial data models outside the FGDC environment, which, in ther describe NSDI components, and assign agency roles practice, might render some FGDC content standards irrel- and responsibilities for the development of NSDI (113). evant, particularly for state and local agencies. · In 2003, FGDC started a new initiative, called the NSDI · Clearinghouse Network. The Clearinghouse Network is a Future Directions Initiative, to develop a geospatial strategy community of distributed data providers that publish infor- and implementation plan for further developing NSDI (114). mation about, and links to, available digital spatial data and · In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) selected a con- services. FGDC coordinates sharing geographic data, maps, tractor to manage the Geospatial LoB initiative under the and online services through the geodata.gov portal (108). coordination of FGDC (115, 116).
OCR for page 44
44 The 1994, 1997, and 2003 strategic plan documents reflect · Make federal NSDI funding contingent on compliance with efforts by FGDC to maintain and continue developing NSDI. collaboratively established criteria and requirements (i.e., Most of the initiatives and programs currently in place at similar to the federal highway funding model); and FGDC (see previous section) are the result of those plans. · Develop a national strategy to communicate about, and However, the 2004 NSDI Future Directions Initiative report advocate for, NSDI. acknowledged a number of issues and needs voiced by stake- holders (114), including the following: Finally, although the level of awareness about NSDI is increasing, many geospatial data stakeholders (particularly · Need for more effective data sharing and coordination outside the federal government) have difficulty understand- within the entire geospatial community, ing NSDI's purpose, its governance structure, or its products. · Need for a level playing field in the design and implemen- There is plenty of documentation (e.g., reports, brochures, tation of NSDI and a need for FGDC to play a neutral facil- presentations, and papers) about NSDI and FGDC, much of itator role, it on the FGDC Website (106). However, navigating through · Lack of an effectively communicated shared vision, this information is difficult because the information is not · Lack of a clear business case for stakeholder participation, properly grouped or indexed (e.g., by subject or date of and publication) which means it is common to find information · Emphasis on isolated geospatial programs at many govern- without proper thematic or temporal context. An example of ment agencies. this situation is the description of the NSDI framework on the NSDI Website. On some pages, the framework is described as Other reports have produced similar observations. For having three parts, but on other pages, it is described as hav- ing four components. Without a proper thematic or tempo- example, GAO reports in 2003 and 2004 concluded that the ral context, it is difficult to understand which categorization NSDI program was successful in promoting basic concepts, is current or if there is a difference between parts and compo- the clearinghouse, and development of several standards, nents. Likewise, the NSDI Website provides various incon- including CSDGM (110, 117). The CSDGM standard, in par- sistent definitions even for basic terms such as NSDI, NSDI ticular, is increasingly used outside federal agencies. How- framework, clearinghouse, and partnerships. ever, the reports noted a number of issues, including that developing standards to meet stakeholder needs and achiev- ing stakeholder participation remained a challenging task, Lessons Learned and that the FGDC reporting process was not sufficiently Lessons learned in connection with the development, evo- developed. More importantly, the GAO reports concluded lution, and maintenance of NSDI follow: that the NSDI programs had not resulted in significant reduc- tions in geospatial data redundancy and costs or improve- · Articulate programs well and provide good documenta- ments in geospatial data accuracy. Reasons mentioned include tion. Of the five main NSDI components, the metadata the following: and the clearinghouse components have been considered successful. Nationwide, state and local agencies are increas- · Lack of up-to-date strategic plans with specific measures ingly adopting and using the CSDGM metadata standard, for identifying and reducing redundancies, partly because of the availability of user-friendly CSDGM · Many federal geospatial datasets not being compliant with editors such as those included in commonly used GIS FGDC standards or published outside NSDI clearinghouse applications. The acceptance of other NSDI components procedures, and has been mixed. One of the reasons NSDI has not been · Lack of effectiveness in OMB's oversight of federal geospa- more successful is the lack of adequate, consistent, prop- tial activities. erly indexed information and documentation on the FGDC Website. NSDI is frequently considered an ambigu- A recent National States Geographic Information Council ous concept. As a result, many geospatial data stakeholders report concluded that there was a need to refocus national do not really understand what NSDI is, its purpose, its gov- efforts to complete the development of NSDI and to devise ernance structure, or even its products. appropriate data maintenance methods (118). This report · Develop systems that are relevant to stakeholders. As men- produced several recommendations, including the following: tioned, the CSDGM standard has been successful partly because user-friendly CSDGM editors are now included in · Formulate an effective national strategy for implementing commonly used GIS applications. Another reason is that NSDI across federal, state, and local levels; CSDGM is more comprehensive than the relatively simple
OCR for page 45
45 data dictionaries in use at many agencies nationwide. In portation community. The transportation atlas is available on other words, migrating to a "better" standard, particularly digital video disk (DVD) and for download on the BTS Web- when the standard implementation is already available on a site (119). Table 7 shows the list of datasets included in the user-friendly interface, is a logical step. In contrast, migrat- 2009 version of NTAD. Many of those datasets are relevant to ing to one of the FGDC data content standards might not be freight planning and operations. desirable, particularly at the state or local level, considering that the GIS industry is developing and promoting spatial Development, Challenges, Strategies, data models outside of the FGDC standards environment, and Adaptability which, in practice, might render some FGDC content standards irrelevant. ISTEA created BTS with the mission to enhance transporta- · Provide incentives to encourage participation, particu- tion data collection, analysis, and reporting (69). BTS received larly in the case of state and local entities. A major imped- $90 million to support its activities over a first 6-year period iment cited in relation to the promotion of NSDI nation- starting in fiscal year 1992. NTAD was one of the early initia- wide is that states and local jurisdictions do not perceive a tives that BTS undertook (120). TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU benefit in implementing NSDI within their jurisdictions. reemphasized this commitment by requiring BTS to main- Lack of funding is another reason frequently cited for the tain geographic databases that depict transportation net- works; flows of people, goods, vehicles, and craft over the net- lack of acceptability of NSDI nationwide. works; and social, economic, and environmental conditions that affect, or are affected by, the networks (70, 71). National Transportation Atlas Database BTS released the first NTAD version in 1995, and since then it has continued to publish yearly updates. NTAD was Purpose and Content originally published on CDs and then on DVDs. The latest NTAD is a product compiled and published by BTS that NTAD version is also available online (119). The North Amer- contains several geographic databases of interest to the trans- ican Transportation Atlas Database (NORTAD) was a special Table 7. Datasets included in the 2009 version of NTAD (119). Dataset Type Maintained By 111th Congressional Districts Boundaries Polygon U.S. Census Bureau Airport Runways Polyline FAA Airports Point FAA Alternative Fuels Point BTS Amtrak Stations Point FRA Automatic Traffic Recorder Stations Point FHWA Core Based Statistical Areas Polygon U.S. Census Bureau Fixed-Guideway Transit Facilities Polyline FTA Freight Analysis Framework Polyline FHWA Hazardous Material Routes Polyline FMCSA Highway Performance Monitoring System Polyline FHWA Hydrographic Features Polygon BTS Hydrographic Features Polyline BTS Intermodal Terminal Facilities Point BTS Metropolitan Planning Organizations Polygon BTS and FHWA National Bridge Inventory Point FHWA National Highway Planning Network Point FHWA National Highway Planning Network Polyline FHWA National Park System Boundary Dataset Polygon National Park Service National Populated Places Point U.S. Census Bureau Navigable Waterway Network Polyline USACE Non Attainment Areas Polygon EPA Ports Point USACE Railroad Grade Crossings Point FRA Railway Network Point FRA Railway Network Polyline FRA U.S. County Boundaries Polygon U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Military Installations Polygon Transportation Engineering Agency U.S. State Boundaries Polygon U.S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Boundaries Polygon U.S. Census Bureau Weigh in Motion Stations Point FHWA