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.

6CHAPTER 2 Current Decision Making Using Geospatial Information Transportation decisions range from simple,straightforward decisions to complex multi-modal, multijurisdictional, multilevel decisions. Prioritizing road repairs requires knowing where repairs are needed and what measures to use for pri- oritization. The necessary information is probably col- lected and maintained by the office that makes these decisions. Identifying possible transportation corri- dors between Canada and Mexico requires informa- tion from multiple modes, jurisdictions, levels of government, and other stakeholders. The comprehen- sive data that are required by decision makers to make effective decisions must come from multiple sources with varying degrees of interpretation, integration, and analysis from each of those sources. These data must then be integrated to provide the necessary infor- mation for making informed decisions. An effective data integrator is geographic location, which is the core of geospatial information. Currently, the level at which different sources of information are combined and integrated is primarily a function of the day-to-day operating activities of deci- sion makers. Figure 2-1 provides a schematic of one way to consider the different areas in the transportation decision-making structure. In most current structures, interaction among levels is limited to day-to-day requirements usually focusing on particular modes, jurisdictions, and functional areas. Because resources for all participants are constrained, transportation agencies are beginning to identify strategic partners to provide and integrate data for a broader systems approach to decision making. To support optimization of the multimodal capacity of the transportation net- work, information should flow smoothly along paths identified as critical on each of the three axes. These interactions should be expanded and enhanced to pro- vide the necessary information for effective and informed decision making. The following sections provide examples of how transportation professionals currently use geospatial information. The examples were selected to demon- strate both the limitations and the potential for geospa- tially based decision making as it is currently applied in a wide variety of types and levels of organizations. NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FOR AVIATION Over the past decade, the challenge of increasing capac- ity while maintaining safety has been one of the most important facing the aviation industry. The challenge was intensified by a healthy economy in the late 1990s, growing urban densities, and a society increasingly reliant on air transportation. To meet it, the federal government increased funding for airport improvement projects, spurring much of the current construction at airports nationwide. Not surprisingly, however, these initiatives have brought their own challenges, including heightened public concern about aircraft noise and emissions, a need for improved coordination of the vast activities at airports, and a need for better planning with surface transportation modes. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), airports, and industry responded by working together to improve

the operating capacity of existing infrastructure while maintaining a high level of safety. Examples of initiatives include the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to help navigate aircraft and increased information about aircraft movements on the ground to reduce runway incursions. These initiatives are vital to FAA because, in addition to its safety, certification, and regulatory roles, FAA has operational responsibility for 30,000 commer- cial flights that move more than 2 million passengers each day through U.S. airspace. The events of September 11, 2001, heightened the focus on improving security at airports and presented many new challenges. Existing facilities need to be reconfigured to accommodate new equipment and secu- rity restrictions, which is a technical and logistical chal- lenge. Developing and implementing new processes and procedures, not to mention recruiting and training staff, are organizational challenges that have consumed the attention and budgets of decision makers. The economic downturn has also brought new chal- lenges to the aviation industry. With major air carriers in bankruptcy and airports struggling with constrained budgets, the industry faces significant financial chal- lenges. The result has been staff reductions and project delays at many airports. The challenge of increasing airport security—in addi- tion to increasing capacity, addressing environmental con- cerns, and maintaining safety in an environment of reduced financial resources—requires the aviation industry to make better decisions with fewer resources. 7C U R R E N T D E C I S I O N M A K I N G U S I N G G E O S PAT I A L I N F O R M AT I O N MODE LIFE CYCLE LEVEL OF DECISION FEDERAL STATE LOCAL AIR RAIL TRANSIT HIGHWAY PL AN N IN G PR IV AT E SE CT O R D ES IG N AN D CO NS TR UC TI O N O PE R AT IO NS A ND M AI N TE N AN CE MARITIME FIGURE 2-1 Transportation decision-making schematic.

Current Practice Information technologies, specifically geospatial data technologies, are helping aviation decision makers to do this by increasing their understanding and decision- making capabilities. Providing pilots with electronic air- port maps in the cockpit, giving airport managers a comprehensive view of the facilities they manage, high- lighting underground utilities to construction crews, and describing FAA height restrictions to local zoning boards are examples of how geospatial data and technologies have helped. Geospatial data and technologies are improving deci- sion making at two levels. First, geospatial data and analytic tools at the desks of airport and FAA decision makers have allowed them to do more. An example is the FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis program, which helps FAA staff members eval- uate potential airspace obstructions, such as a high- definition television tower in the vicinity of an airport, on the basis of electronic information submitted by developers in conjunction with a variety of FAA data sets. With the system, data collection work and response times are reduced, and existing staff can better keep up with increasing numbers of inquiries. Second, geospatial data and technologies have helped bridge the gap between departments and organizations that have data relevant to each other. A good example is the technical and organizational connection between the city of Chicago and O’Hare International Airport’s Geographic Information System (GIS) departments. Data concerning roads, transit, municipal jurisdictions, parcels, and so forth, which are needed for planning and development purposes, are seamlessly available to staff members at O’Hare. Conversely, the airport’s invest- ment in a differential GPS (DGPS) base station to sup- port aircraft navigation may become helpful to city snowplow and work crews, who rely on knowledge of the location of their vehicles and equipment. Challenges The most significant barrier to the deployment of geospatial data and technologies to help the aviation industry make better decisions with fewer resources is lack of awareness and understanding. Too few FAA and airport managers realize the value that geospatial data and technologies can bring to their organizations. This is not surprising, because the implementation of geospatial data and technologies within the aviation sector is still in its infancy. The current lack of forums to share successes, written case studies, cost–benefit analyses, and aviation participation on key geospatial committees contributes to this problem. Limited funding to develop and deploy geospatial data and technology is also a barrier. Substantial funds are spent on development and maintenance of aviation infrastructure, but little is spent on development or maintenance of the data that are an essential component of this infrastructure. The result is a reduced ability to maximize the level of service provided by that infra- structure over its life cycle. To make matters worse, data collection efforts are often duplicative due to lack of coordination, and the resulting data sets are often poorly maintained due to a lack of understanding of how and why maintenance should be done. Simply put, a disproportionately small amount of funding is avail- able for geospatial data, and the funds that are available are not spent effectively. Lack of federal coordination, leadership, and sup- port has also constrained the adoption of geospatial data and technology in the aviation sector. For example, many airports have moved forward with their own geospatial data standards. In each case, funds have been consumed, and a unique solution to a universal prob- lem has been developed. Until recently, little or no attempt has been made to coordinate these efforts. Fortunately, the GIS Working Group of FAA’s National Airspace System Information Architecture Committee, the Standards Working Group of the American Association of Airport Executives’ GIS Subcommittee, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ Air Model Advisory Team, and FAA’s Airport GIS Project have begun to address this problem. FAA is also embracing the e-government philosophy and is actively supporting better data management and sharing. Coordination among these groups is just beginning, however, and ongoing assistance is needed from above. Summary The use of geospatial data and technologies within the aviation sector is in its infancy, especially in comparison with other modes such as road transportation. However, aviation has reached a critical juncture as enough “grassroots” initiatives at FAA and airports have demonstrated the potential of the technology and FAA management, key associations, and an increasing num- ber of airports have taken notice. Meeting the challenge to coordinate and communicate horizontally among agencies and vertically among FAA, airports, and municipalities will help the sector “do more with less.” Geospatial data about airports are a national asset critical for operational, safety, and security purposes. The meticulous nature of the aviation industry has created a plethora of data sources. Lack of data on individual activities is not the problem. The problem lies in the col- lection, coordination, and dissemination of the data and 8 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS

the ability to integrate disparate data sets to form a resource that can be used by FAA, the Department of Homeland Security, airports, and other stakeholders. This presents an opportunity for airports and FAA to improve the way they work with geospatial data. A similar opportunity exists with regard to geospa- tial technology. Because aircraft and airport operations are carried out in a similar way throughout the country, and the world for that matter, tools and enabling pro- cedures with wide appeal can be developed. Standards, implementation guidelines, data creation procedures, common interface designs, and so forth are all areas where coordination of development will lead to economies of scale that will enable many aviation orga- nizations to more fully tap the potential of geospatial data and technology. STATE PERSPECTIVE FOR HIGHWAYS Several challenging issues face the managers of the nation’s highway networks. The economic health of a region is directly linked to mobility. The performance of the highway network is more critical now than it was even 5 years ago. Highway managers are faced with challenges to provide 24/7 services and informa- tion availability for road and lane closures, the need for increased coordination, limited resources, reduced enterprise focus, and the need to address multiple con- cerns with capital improvement projects. Gone are the days of solving congestion problems simply by building more lanes. Incidents must be cleared quickly, and many organi- zations participate in mobility concerns. The next few paragraphs describe examples of how geospatial analy- sis and GIS are providing a decision-support environ- ment that is working well to help meet the needs of highway agencies. The examples are taken from current work flows in planning and design. Finally, the section “Challenges” illustrates a few areas of untapped potential. Current Practice Two areas that have relatively mature geospatial tech- nologies are planning and design. Planning Decision making using geospatial technologies and data plays a big role in allowing highway organizations to meet changing demands. In the past, one group would process traffic crash data and propose priority safety improvements. Another group would examine pave- ment or bridge data, still another would focus on mobility and congestion data, and so forth. Each group would advance capital improvement plans. Now these competing opportunities can be overlaid and analyzed in GIS. That is being done in many organizations. The result is better, more efficient highway improvement plans that address multiple opportunities and optimize investments. Another key improvement has been the ability to more carefully target road and lane closures to perform multiple activities while traffic is diverted. The overlay of geospatial and temporal highway improve- ment plans makes this possible. This functionality can be delivered not just to technicians but also throughout the organization, including top decision makers. Geospatial analysis and GIS help to integrate the parts of the investment process, not just data. Design: The Data-Hungry Highway and Bridge Design Process In the past, a disconnect existed between geospatial analysis and highway design. This was due largely to the high precision requirements of the design process. The relationship between mapping scale and cost is not linear. The cost of collection and storage of data often increases geometrically as the accuracy of the data increases. Mapping the entire road network at a scale suitable for highway and bridge design has not been practical. Now, designers are finding the GIS environment useful, not for a geographic base on which to start a design, but rather for its power in data retrieval and information integration. Designers still need to build plans on the basis of photogram- metric or surveyed base maps. The supporting infor- mation needed for proper design work is then drawn from GIS. The combination of statewide (relatively) high-resolution orthophotographs and georeferenced photolog images has provided new ways of observing the highway system. Some of the data needed for design that required trips to the field in the past can now be observed from the desktop. All of the metrics used to advance a highway project to the design stage are important to ensure that the results of the design address the concerns that made the project important in the first place. These include environmentally sen- sitive areas, accident rates, traffic volumes, bridge and highway inspection results, population trends, and more. In the past, gathering, compiling, and ana- lyzing this information were resource intensive. Today, this information is easily consolidated in a GIS environment, once an organization has made the sig- nificant investment to develop the technology and data infrastructure to generate compatible data. 9C U R R E N T D E C I S I O N M A K I N G U S I N G G E O S PAT I A L I N F O R M AT I O N

Challenges Data Life Cycle The data life cycle of the highway network needs to reflect more closely the life cycle of the highway itself. For example, when a new highway is planned, location data are defined. Then when the project is designed, detailed computer-aided design (CAD) data are created. Once the project is completed and maintenance activi- ties are ongoing, better mechanisms are needed for using the best geospatial representation without over- whelming users or computer systems. Existing CAD data are so detailed and voluminous that trying to use them in a standard GIS environment has been a bit like taking a drink from a fire hose. Partnerships and Expanded Enterprise Transportation agencies operate much less indepen- dently than they did in the past. To meet performance and reliability goals, transportation agencies must part- ner with local governments, police agencies, private companies, and others. Better mechanisms are needed to efficiently share all data, including real-time data, outside the agency computer networks. Web-based GIS environments hold promise as transportation agencies expand what is considered the enterprise. Summary As demands increase and resources do not, transporta- tion agencies can no longer afford to produce single- purpose data sets. Agencies must build critical mass in data maintenance among multiple participants. This increases the start-up time of data development pro- jects, because the needs of the various participants must be considered. Partnering that includes the private sec- tor is necessary for the long-term sustainability of the data needed to support decision making. DATA PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE FOR MARITIME TRANSPORTATION The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to describe and predict changes in Earth’s environment and conserve and wisely manage the nation’s coastal and marine resources. This task consists of seven strategic goals; the primary one relating to transportation is to promote safe navigation. About 3,500 ships annually are involved in accidents on the nation’s waterways, and the stress on the nation’s ports continues to increase substantially. During the last 50 years ships have doubled in size, and oceangoing commerce has tripled. By weight, more than 76 percent of U.S. international merchandise trade, or more than $500 billion annually, is waterborne.1 Much of this cargo consists of hazardous materials. As the capacity of cargo ships continues to rise from earlier ships that held about 1,700 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) to ves- sels of today that hold more than 7,500 TEU, stress on U.S. waterways, ports, and landside rail and highway facilities continues to rise. The capacity of passenger ves- sels has grown as well. The increases lead to more urgent requirements for accurate and intelligent data. Current Practice The primary product of the National Ocean Service (NOS) is the nautical chart. Bowditch defines a nautical chart as a conventional representation of a navigable portion of the surface of the Earth on a plane surface. It shows the depth of water, aids to navigation, dangers, and the outline of adjacent land and land features that are useful to the navigator and is intended primarily for marine navigation. Basically, the nautical chart is a repository of several data types collected by using a vari- ety of different techniques of differing levels of quality. Charting material consists principally of dredged chan- nel data supplied by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, aids to navigation from the U.S. Coast Guard, topo- graphic and hydrographic surveys made by NOS, and miscellaneous surveys and textual information provided by other government and private organizations. All material must be critically examined, with particular attention directed to the actual date of the survey, geo- graphic datum, depth unit, plane of reference, purpose, and quality of the survey. Electronic chart display and information systems can use georeferenced databases (electronic navigational chartes) of attributed objects capable of performing programmed behaviors, with DGPS to provide a navi- gational tool that can plot a vessel’s course and provide information to mariners as they navigate through a given area. These smart data are used to alert mariners to potential problems. Challenges In February 2001, fog closed the Houston Ship Channel to inbound traffic, leading to a backlog of almost 80 ships at one point. Fog delayed the unloading of crude 1 0 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS 1 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transportation, 2004, p. 37.

oil tankers in the Gulf Coast region, leading to a drop in U.S. just-in-time crude oil inventories of 12 million barrels and a significant increase in gas prices. Such events highlight the need for sightless navigation sys- tems based on accurate current information. Geospatial data products must continue to evolve to meet these requirements. Charting the more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coast- line and 3.5 million square miles of open water is a sub- stantial task. Challenges include accurate horizontal and vertical datum transformations as well as data for- mat conversions. The nautical chart consists of infor- mation that was collected over years with a variety of resolutions. Many of the data date back to the 1940s. With DGPS, today’s mariner is often capable of deter- mining position with a greater degree of accuracy than was the case when the data were collected. Improving positional accuracy is a major challenge. Because paper and raster nautical charts consist of data from a variety of sources, the need for data transfer and accuracy stan- dards is critical in a government that is being asked to do more and more with fewer resources. Summary Currently, no commercial off-the-shelf product com- pletely addresses the needs of both vector and raster chart production. By allowing appropriate access to and completely defining all aspects of planned and existing systems, strategic goals, and development efforts, the development process can be expedited. Management at all levels must understand and agree with the need to implement new geospatial data tools and technologies. This understanding positively affects budget requests and staffing needs for implementation of solutions. As NOAA’s nautical decision making and charting production transition to the use of geospatial analysis and GIS technologies, six critical items need to be addressed to ensure success. Strategic partnerships with data providers should be further developed to increase efficient data transfer, acceptance, and application. Computational middleware for extracting information needed for NOAA geospatial data products will demand organized development and documentation. Data serv- ing, storage, and archival will require significant infor- mation technology development, planning, organization, and investment. Emerging technologies and market advances must be continually evaluated, documented, and openly published for review. Internal and external development of systems, programs, and personnel should be encouraged through increased education, exposure, and access. Finally, success stories must be validated, benchmarked, and presented to decision makers. FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE FOR RAILWAYS Geospatial information and technology are essential to the public side of the railroad industry in four major areas: mobility, safety and security, policy analysis, and capacity. These key issues not only affect the rail mode but are critical to the interface with the highway, mar- itime, and aviation modes. The United States railroad system includes freight and passenger transportation and is both competitive and cooperative with other modes. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) measures freight mobility by tracking shipments from origin to destination on the basis of the waybill sample and its geographically coded railroad system for the United States to simulate movements throughout the country. A critical issue with respect to safety and security is the movement of hazardous materials. By simulating these movements, rail inspectors can be directed to the high-volume rail lines to optimize their inspection activ- ities. Geospatial data technology also provides the capability to relate rail traffic to the demographic char- acteristics of adjacent communities to assess the poten- tial impact of derailments and other incidents. FRA works with the Department of Defense and the Military Traffic Management Command to designate certain rail lines as essential to defense, a procedure similar to that used for the Strategic Defense Highway Network. The physical condition of these lines, which also connect military installations, is paramount in the event of a national emergency. Current Practice General Issues FRA requires geospatial data for policy analysis at the national, regional, and local levels. An example is analyz- ing railroad grade crossings. Many states have inventoried their grade crossings by using GPS, which provides a link- age to the national rail system and its database. The deci- sion to add protective hardware, close the crossing, or physically separate the rail line and the highway can have major impacts on the railroad company, the highway system, and the surrounding community. Another policy issue for which geospatial analysis is used extensively is the evaluation of potential rail merg- ers. These mergers are international in scope yet local in impact. FRA’s database includes both Mexico and Canada for analysis of cross-border impacts. Use of geospatial information technology to illustrate the impacts for policy makers is invaluable. Rail capacity has become a major issue because the funds available to railroads to invest in capacity improve- 1 1C U R R E N T D E C I S I O N M A K I N G U S I N G G E O S PAT I A L I N F O R M AT I O N

ments are limited. This presents a competitive disadvan- tage with respect to other modes with more stable or plen- tiful funding sources. Rail line capacities and demands can be evaluated more readily and presented to funding agencies by using geospatial information technology. Note on Private Rail Companies Private rail companies such as CSX and Norfolk Southern make extensive use of geospatial data and electronic technologies in day-to-day operations. One focus is in the area of facilities management to control maintenance of track, structures, bridges, yards, and other infrastructure features. Geospatial technology, in particular GPS, is used to track individual rail cars for inventory control. Freight shipments are tagged elec- tronically and tracked from origin to destination. However, this information is not readily available to transportation analysts for use in intermodal applica- tions. It is used internally to help reduce costs and improve competitive advantage vis-à-vis other modes of transport. This report, which examines the use of geospatial data and technologies in multimodal appli- cations, did not address private rail systems. FRA has a major regulatory role with private railroads, which results in an environment that is not conducive to the sharing of geospatial information. Representatives of the American Association of Railroads and their new GIS groups were invited to participate in the October workshop but did not do so. Challenges One of the significant weaknesses limiting the use of geospatial technology is the lack of application pro- grams. The industry needs programs that are easily accessible, have real-time capability, and are customized to specific problems. Often the data are available, but the ability to organize and visualize them for problem solving is extremely limited. Summary The use of geospatial data technology to improve mode integration is particularly important with respect to the movement of freight on railways throughout the United States and North America. The physical infrastructure is ubiquitous. However, without the ability to pass infor- mation electronically between modes and nodes in the system, efficiencies are lost. The pressures of “just-in- time” delivery where multiple modes are involved have focused attention on the need for an information infra- structure that can provide fast, reliable tracking of freight shipments across all transport modes. Having core geospatial standards that cut across modes and expedite the interchange of information and addressing the prob- lems that result from a mix of private- and public-sector responsibilities are important to the rail mode. LOCAL PERSPECTIVE FOR TRANSIT Demand for transit services is always greater than the resources available. Transit agencies must continually look for the most efficient and effective deployment of service. They must also be aware of federal, state, and local requirements to distribute service equitably—in a manner serving all economic, racial, and cultural groups. Current Practice Geospatial data provide a foundation for most of the activities performed by transit organizations. Geospatial technologies are used to collect, analyze, and display planning data such as census information, rider surveys, travel patterns, ridership counts, on-time performance, jurisdictional boundaries, sensitive envi- ronmental zones, and so forth for service planning, which determines the general location of bus routes and facilities. The data are typically combined with transit service routes and facilities. Developing vehicle sched- ules and paths requires geospatial data to locate vehicle layovers, turnarounds, transfer points, and in-field restroom locations. Facilities staff use geospatial data together with property data, including zoning and permitting infor- mation, to manage bus stops, park-and-ride lots, tran- sit centers, trolley/rail power infrastructure, bases and garages, and other service-related facilities. Operations staff are responsible for the operation of vehicles on the street or other rights-of-way. Geospatial technology applications provide real-time tracking of bus, para- transit, and rail vehicles. Tracking of transit vehicles is critical for operating efficiencies (e.g., maintaining headways, rerouting vehicles, performance tracking, signal priority). Geospatial technologies and data are especially important in managing snow situations requiring emergency route and schedule changes. Transit agencies must provide more and better means to communicate with the public. The growth of the Internet has raised expectations for customer informa- tion and service availability. Geospatial technology is at the core of many customer service applications. Besides simple, static map products, such as timetable route maps, many transit agencies are using complex GIS- 1 2 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS

based ride-matching and itinerary-planning applications. Smart fare card systems are capable of calculating loca- tion/distance–based fares. Automatic stop annunciation and destination signage are also beginning to appear in transit vehicles. Some agencies are able to transmit real- time vehicle location information directly to the public via the web and wireless devices. Multimedia systems provide an effective means to communicate with both internal staff and the public concerning service changes and capital facilities programs. As a public service, transit systems have always been keenly aware of traditional security issues such as van- dalism or assaults. Since September 11, 2001, transit agencies have become more alert to the possibility that transportation systems could be terrorist targets. Vehicle operators can trigger silent alarms to call security per- sonnel to vehicles whose locations are monitored in real time. Security staff members gather and analyze location- based incident data to determine trends and optimum deployment of personnel. Similarly, safety staff members analyze crash data to improve training and plan infra- structure changes. Planning for future security scenarios will require much greater levels of data coordination with other agencies. All publicly funded agencies have an obligation to report on their services to the public, local government officials, and state and federal agencies. Ridership counting and reporting are essential for transit agencies. Onboard auto- matic passenger counting systems require a geospatial ref- erence to assign passenger activity to locations. Transit agencies use geospatial technology to comply with National Transit Database reporting requirements, including passen- ger miles and vehicle miles. Geospatial data technology is a key tool in analyzing and reporting on the distribution of services to ensure that all racial, cultural, and economic groups are equitably served. Challenges Geospatial data technologies have become key tools for supporting transit business, but even greater use of these technologies will be required if transit is to meet the challenges of the future. The primary challenge is in enhancing the ability to share information and work collaboratively to improve decision making. Three examples of areas that would benefit from such enhancement are safety and security, mobility and capacity, and environmental decision making. The increased threat of terrorism requires a much closer working relationship between all transportation and homeland security agencies. Implicit in this working relationship is the sharing of data. Such sharing must be rapid and exact—data that are delayed, misinterpreted, or missing could have catastrophic consequences. With increasing congestion and decreasing resources for road infrastructure, a critical need exists for trans- portation providers, public and private, to work collab- oratively. The sharing of geospatial data is an important step in any coordinated mobility efforts, whether mov- ing goods or people. Mobility concerns are not subject to public agency boundaries, and the sharing of data, both intermodally and interjurisdictionally, must be improved. Compliance with environmental requirements could be made more efficient with greater data sharing, and the cost and time required to produce environmental impact statements might be reduced. Summary Transit agencies must manage assets, provide service to customers, and plan for future requirements with lim- ited resources under multiple levels of regulation and reporting requirements. Geospatial information pro- vides the framework to perform the necessary activities within the necessary time frames. LOCAL PERSPECTIVE FROM A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) often rep- resent and make decisions involving multiple modes that affect their jurisdiction. In many cases, they provide some of the best insight into multimodal interactions and data needs. The issues for MPOs illustrate, on a smaller geographic scale, the challenges facing the trans- portation industry as a whole. Decisions associated with activities of MPOs and local planning agencies such as cities, counties, and special districts start and end with geospatial data. From the analysis (where is it? how big is it? what is it like?) to the adopted plan (where will it be? how big will it be? what will it be like?), nearly all decisions and associated data used in the planning process are organized by geographic location. This applies to both qualitative and quantitative information about the human, natural, and built environments. Current Practice Local planning agencies, by necessity, have been cre- ative in compiling, integrating, and using geospatial data. Appendix A provides a summary of data typically used as part of the multimodal planning process. The source, associated applications and users, and related problems and issues for commonly used data sets are provided. Unfortunately, budgetary and institutional 1 3C U R R E N T D E C I S I O N M A K I N G U S I N G G E O S PAT I A L I N F O R M AT I O N

constraints limit the widespread use of geospatial data to the most readily available and least expensive data sources. Many of the richest and most robust data sets that would be useful for planning are unaffordable, inaccessible, or out of date, or they provide only partial coverage of the geographic planning area. Challenges Most MPOs and large planning agencies use the basics: geographic base files, census files, and transportation model input data. Most are users of basic GIS tools available from leading private vendors. Widespread use of other data sets is limited by several factors, including the following: • Budget limitations and policies: Data acquisition projects must compete with many other needs that show a more immediate and tangible payoff. Data pur- chases often do not clearly fall into either operating or capital budget categories. • Lack of institutional coordination: For various reasons—lack of metadata and data catalogs, failure to archive, agency rivalries, legacy (and often “home- grown”) file layouts and software—local governments find it difficult to share data among themselves and with other levels of government. • Costs of data maintenance and update: In addi- tion to the initial acquisition cost, many large data sets require frequent and sometimes labor-intensive updates to maintain their usefulness. Many agencies cannot, or do not, allocate sufficient resources for this purpose. Summary The most difficult issues facing local planning agencies relating to the efficient use of geospatial data are not technical in the sense of software or hardware. They concern how government agencies operate on a day-to- day basis and how the agencies relate to each other in data acquisition, management, and dissemination. Now that technical tools, data storage capacity, and com- puter power are sufficiently developed and deployed in the private sector, expectations have risen significantly among planning agencies and their constituencies. Institutions and procedures have not kept pace. 1 4 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS