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.

3 5 APPENDIX C Previous Reports on Geospatial Data Infrastructure During the past decade, several documents haverecognized or evaluated the need for geospatialdata as part of a comprehensive information decision-support environment. Findings from these reports consistently maintain the theme that the com- prehensive data necessary for effective decisions at a national level or to be provided to state or local decision makers do not exist, except for very specific applica- tions, and that integration across data sets has not been practical. Recommendations routinely support the enhancement of the quality, interoperability, and dis- semination of these data through coordinated activities at the national level and through partnerships with stakeholders. The committee interprets the lack of suc- cess in meeting expectations as primarily a result of underestimating the complexity of potential partner- ships and the difficulty of demonstrating specific respon- sibilities and benefits for various potential partnership arrangements. While progress has been significant, the committee suggests that each potential data-sharing arrangement be carefully analyzed by potential stake- holders. This appendix presents a summary of those reports and their recommendations. Recommendations from the current study are listed in parentheses in bold as they relate to these earlier recommendations. Source: Special Report 234: Data for Decisions: Require- ments for National Transportation Policy Making. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992. • Provides independent assessment of the data needed for national transportation decision making. • Concurs with the assessment of the Secretary of Transportation that the data to inform national trans- portation policy making are seriously inadequate and concludes that the organization of data activities in the department is not conducive to providing them. (Relates to Recommendations 1a and 1b.) • The decentralized, modally focused data programs are appropriate for individual operating units, but they are not well structured to address strategic systemwide issues. (Relates to Recommendation 1b.) • Calls for establishment of a transportation data center (TDC). (Relates to Recommendations 2a, 3a, and 3c.) • Calls for development of a national transporta- tion performance monitoring system by the center to track key indicators of the nation’s transportation sys- tem and its environment from the viewpoint of markets and users. • Calls for preparation of a biennial report by TDC on the state of the nation’s transportation system. The report is to contain a summary and analysis of trends in system performance and impacts. Source: NCHRP Research Results Digest 191: Manage- ment Guide for Implementation of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in State DOTs. Trans- portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993.

• Provides managers with a basic understanding of geographic information systems for transportation (GIS-T) and their benefits. • Describes the factors involved in successful planning and implementation of GIS-T. • Provides managers with cost–benefit considerations and metrics. Source: Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infra- structure for the Nation. Mapping Science Com- mittee, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993. • Mapping Science Committee concludes that a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) needs to be established if the United States is to succeed as a highly competitive nation. • Mapping Science Committee makes the following recommendations to accomplish the improvements: –Develop effective national policies, strategies, and organizational structures at the federal level for inte- gration of national spatial data collection, use, and distribution. (Relates to Recommendation 1a.) –Continue and strengthen the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as the working body of agencies to coordinate the interagency program. (Relates to Recommendation 1a.) –Establish procedures to foster ready access to information describing spatial data available within government and the private sector through existing networks. (Relates to Recommendations 2a and 3a.) –Establish a spatial data sharing program to (a) enrich national spatial data coverage, (b) minimize redundant data collection at all levels, and (c) create new opportunities for the use of spatial data throughout the nation. (Relates to Recommendation 1a, 1b, and 1c.) Source: Promoting the National Spatial Data Infra- structure Through Partnerships. Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, Washing- ton, D.C., 1995. • Viable partnerships will require focal points within the federal government for coordinating data production and partnership activities. (Relates to Recommendations 1a, 1b, and 3a.) • Clear guidelines for cost sharing in partnerships need to be developed. • States and other organizations must be involved in standards development, and only standards essential to NSDI objectives should be required in partnership agreements. (Relates to Recommendation 1c.) • Incentives are needed to encourage partnerships that are designed to maximize use and benefits to the broader user community. (Relates to Recommendation 3d.) • FGDC should investigate the extent to which fed- eral procurement rules impede the formulation of spa- tial data partnerships and identify steps to ease them. (Relates to Recommendations 1b and 3c.) Source: A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995. • The Mapping Science Committee recommends that geodetic control, orthorectified imagery, and terrain (elevation) data be considered the critical foundation of the NSDI. • FGDC should be responsible for coordinating the development and certification of a foundation and for its maintenance and availability. Data partnerships should be a key component of this effort. (Relates to Recommendation 3b.) • Specific spatial themes should be designated as framework data. • FGDC should (a) coordinate identification of components of existing framework data through its clearinghouse, (b) encourage efforts to integrate those data with the foundation, and (c) identify gaps in data coverage and encourage programs that include partner- ships to populate these framework data themes. (Relates to Recommendations 3b and 3d.) • To accomplish the needed compilation, mainte- nance, quality control, and access of the foundation and framework data, additional research and development efforts are required. Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Priorities for the Future. C. F. Citro and J. L. Norwood, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997. • The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 established the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) as a statistical agency. • BTS has the responsibility to set quality standards for data release and documentation, conduct evaluations and research on methods, develop key national indica- tors for policy use, and coordinate data collection to identify and fill gaps and reduce duplication and costs. • BTS has focused primarily on compiling data and making them accessible. • BTS should develop guidelines for data quality throughout United States Department of Transportation. (Relates to Recommendation 1c.) • BTS should improve documentation of the trans- portation data it makes available. (Relates to Recommendation 3c.) • BTS should develop a broad vision of a comprehensive transportation data system that can serve the information needs of users over the long term. (Relates to this study.) 3 6 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS

• BTS should develop a long-term strategy with a structured implementation plan that specifies short- term, intermediate, and long-term activities and goals. (Relates to this study.) • BTS should develop key national statistical indicators for the transportation system. Source: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus. Mapping Science Committee, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Purpose of assessment: Was the NSDI developing according to plan, with FGDC partnership programs working to advance its goals, or was some degree of redirection appropriate? • Found little evidence that the programs have –Reduced redundancy in geospatial data creation and maintenance, –Reduced the costs of geospatial data creation and maintenance, or –Improved the accuracy of the geospatial data used by the broader community. • Recommendations: –Development of measures by FGDC that can be used to monitor long-term progress. –Adoption of a funding formula that provides resources to all participants on a noncompetitive basis, coupled with grants of sufficient size and dura- tion to achieve expected outcomes. (Relates to Recommendation 1d.) –Funding of projects of sufficient scale to provide well-designed empirical tests of the hypotheses underlying the NSDI goals, and allowance for ade- quate documentation and dissemination of results. (Relates to Recommendation 1d.) 3 7PREVIOUS REPORTS ON GEOSPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE