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 1 APPENDIX A Example of Geospatial Digital Information Table A-1 provides an example summary ofgeospatial data used by a metropolitan planningorganization (MPO). The table gives the types of data along with typical contents and possible sources for the data. In most cases, MPOs do not have the resources to collect comprehensive databases and must rely on participating stakeholders and state and federal agencies for their data. Users of the data are given with example applications. Some key issues and problems associated with the various databases are also provided. TABLE A-1 Digital Geospatial Data Used by MPOs and Local Agencies Data Type Typical Contents Source Applications Users Issues/Problems Geographic Streets and roads Census Bureau Planning Virtually all Keeping information base files Landmarks Commercial vendors Map production MPOs current Political Locally created Routing (transit, Larger local Consistent registration boundaries public safety) agencies Use restrictions Address ranges Traveler information (commercial products) Some natural Limited natural feature features information Limited landmark information Census Census data Census Bureau Local and regional Virtually all No point data geography Population Locally generated planning MPOs Aggregation for Housing Social service Local agencies nondisclosure Economic delivery planning Infrequent update information Analysis Noncensus Transportation socioeconomic modeling Forecast data Political districting Environmental justice/equity measurement (continued)
TABLE A-1 (continued) Digital Geospatial Data Used by MPOs and Local Agencies Data Type Typical Contents Source Applications Users Issues/Problems Planning Land use data Cities and counties State, regional, Most larger Difficult to acquire and data sets General Regional agencies local planning MPOs maintain planning/zoning Transit operators Some larger Expensive Transportation Transportation local agencies model inputs agencies Housing condition Private vendors data Transit and highway networks Natural Vegetation Federal agencies Facility/corridor Some MPOs Lack of uniformity features Natural relief State agencies planning use one or Limited coverage Fault lines General planning more data sets Infrequently updated Floodplain and zoning Limited use by Highly variable data boundaries Environmental large local structures Soil types analysis agencies Watersheds Habitat analysis Runoff/permeability analysis Event-based Assessorsâ files Operating agencies Social service planning Very limited use Confidentiality operating Building permits Housing planning requirements data Inspection Traveler information (statutory and policy) information systems Lack of interagency Incident type Public safety planning coordination and locations and analysis Multiplicity of file Transit route/ structures schedule data Lack of uniform Residential/service coverage locations Lack of common data contents Definitional inconsistencies Lack of metadata Continuous/ Performance/ Operating agencies Planning Extremely limited Unorganized real-time condition data ITS vendors Performance use by Not time/date stamped operating measurement nonoperating Not archived data and analysis agencies Large data set size Unmapped data files Lack of metadata Aerial Registered, U.S. government Planning Moderate use High cost imagery orthorectified Private vendors Environmental by MPOs Relatively infrequent remote imagery analysis Larger local coverage sensing Digital elevation Preliminary agencies Large data file size models engineering Corridor analysis Change monitoring 3 2 GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS
