Geospatial Information Infrastructure for Transportation Organizations (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S 3 1 Geospatial Information Infrastructure for Transportation Organizations Toward a Foundation for Improved Decision Making Committee on Multimodal Transportation Requirements for Spatial Information Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 WWW.TRB.org

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 31 ISSN 1073-1652 ISBN 0-309-09468-2 Subscriber Category IA planning and administration Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (tele- phone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The conference that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The conference was sponsored by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Committee on Multimodal Transportation Requirements for Spatial Information Infrastructure Ysela Llort, Florida Department of Transportation, Chair David S. Ekern, Idaho Department of Transportation Kathleen L. Hancock, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Robert C. Johns, University of Minnesota Brian C. Logan, Kansas Department of Transportation Xavier R. Lopez, Oracle Corporation Harvey J. Miller, University of Utah Randall J. Murphy, Consultant Michael J. Shiffer, Chicago Transit Authority James M. Sims, Southern California Association of Governments (retired) Wayne Watanabe, King Metro Transit Francis M. Winters, Jr., New York State Department of Transportation Transportation Research Board Staff Mark Norman, Director, Technical Activities Thomas M. Palmerlee, Transportation Data Specialist Frederick N. Scharf, Program Assistant TRB Publications Office Norman Solomon, Senior Editor Jennifer Correro, Proofreader Jennifer J. Weeks, Senior Editorial Assistant Juanita Green, Production Manager Cover image: Orthophotograph of Chicago, Illinois, Loop with overlays of several Chicago Transit Authority bus and rail routes. (Courtesy of Chicago Transit Authority.)

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per- taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to asso- ciate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisci- plinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and pol- icy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, fed- eral agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................1 1 FOUNDATION FOR ACTION ..................................................................................................................3 2 CURRENT DECISION MAKING USING GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION...........................................................6 National Perspective for Aviation ....................................................................................................6 State Perspective for Highways ........................................................................................................9 Data Provider Perspective for Maritime Transportation ................................................................10 Federal Perspective for Railways ....................................................................................................11 Local Perspective for Transit .........................................................................................................12 Local Perspective from a Metropolitan Planning Organization ......................................................13 3 TRENDS IN DECISION-MAKING TOOLS: GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................15 Industry Trends ..............................................................................................................................15 GIS Trends .....................................................................................................................................15 GISci Trends ..................................................................................................................................17 Location-Based Services .................................................................................................................18 4 A VISION FOR STRENGTHENING DECISION MAKING ...........................................................................21 Institutional Roles and Responsibilities ..........................................................................................22 Capacity and Commitment Building ..............................................................................................23 Geospatial Information ..................................................................................................................25 5 CALL TO ACTION .............................................................................................................................29 Past and Current Reports ...............................................................................................................29 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................30 APPENDICES A Example of Geospatial Digital Information................................................................................31 B The Process: Multimodal Transportation Requirements for Geospatial Information Infrastructure ....33 C Previous Reports on Geospatial Data Infrastructure ..................................................................35 D Descriptions of Workshops .......................................................................................................38 COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................68

v i i Preface As a basis for advancing sound decision making,the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is committed to developing high-quality transportation data and information. With the under- standing that geospatial data provide an important infrastructure for managing and integrating informa- tion necessary for informed decision making, BTS asked the Transportation Research Board to conduct a project to provide recommendations for improving geospatial information infrastructure among and across all modes of transportation. The objectives of this project were to (a) characterize the current practice in geospatial information technolo- gies in transportation organizations; (b) identify prob- lems and opportunities in coordination, communication, and cooperation on geospatial information among trans- portation modes; (c) suggest mechanisms for the devel- opment, management, and coordination of geospatial information technologies throughout USDOT; and (d) recommend approaches for enhancing geospatial infor- mation within transportation organizations. The intent is to provide recommendations to transportation agencies, primarily at the federal level but also at the state and local levels, to enhance decision making through rethink- ing institutional roles and responsibilities; building capacity and commitment; and augmenting the creation, sharing, and use of geospatial information. To prepare this report, the committee drew on infor- mation presented at three workshops held in three cities during 2002 and on committee research and deliberations during and after the workshops. The workshops were cosponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The first workshop, held in Chicago in May 2002, examined the role of geospatial data in the project delivery process. The second work- shop, held in Seattle in June 2002, focused on safety, security, and mobility. In each of these workshops, committee members provided background material on the state of the art, and speakers presented subject mat- ter on the use of geospatial technology related to their mode, organization, and discipline. The third work- shop, held in Washington, D.C., in October 2002, reviewed current activities of the modal administra- tions within USDOT in using the Global Positioning System, geographic information systems, and remote sensing to make decisions. Representatives of each modal administration were invited to present their per- spectives. All three workshops included ample time for discussion of the issues through breakout sessions designed to provide feedback to the committee. The committee met in December 2002 to review the workshop results and draft a summary report to address the mission and objectives of the project. This document is the result of that meeting. The report commences with an executive summary, which briefly summarizes the importance of geospatial information in decision making and the recommenda- tions resulting from this project. This is followed by a presentation of selected current practices, trends in decision-making tools, and a detailed discussion of the

v i i i GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS committee’s findings and recommendations. The report concludes with a call to action to all decision makers to take responsibility for ensuring that decisions are made with the best information possible. This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi- viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and techni- cal expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: James Altenstadter, Pima County Association of Governments, Tucson, Arizona; Michael F. Goodchild, University of California, Santa Barbara; Michael McNerney, DMJM Aviation, Fort Worth, Texas; Brian Rowback, New York State Department of Transportation, Buffalo; William G. Schuman, Iowa Department of Trans- portation, Ames; and Joseph M. Sussman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Although these review- ers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by C. Michael Walton, University of Texas, Austin. Appointed by NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an indepen- dent examination of this report was carried out in accor- dance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The committee thanks the many individuals who contributed to this study, especially committee member Kathleen L. Hancock, who took the lead in consolidat- ing much of the committee’s work. The support of AASHTO in organizing the three workshops was instrumental in ensuring strong representation from state departments of transportation.