Use of Advanced Geospatial Data, Tools, Technologies, and Information in Department of Transportation Projects (2013)

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.

9 This chapter provides an overview of the key topics and results addressed with the distribution of a DOT questionnaire. The questionnaire results show trends of states having expertise in certain technologies, along with an analysis of where the cur- rent state of the practice is heading. This information provides the foundation for concepts and terminology in subsequent chapters. The objectives of this questionnaire were to: 1. Determine the current usage of advanced geospatial technologies within the DOTs. 2. Identify which DOTs have expertise and experience with key geospatial technologies and determine how best to systematically make this knowledge available to the entire transportation community. 3. Determine where DOTs publish research reports related to geospatial technologies and what topics require additional research. 4. Determine whether geospatial standards and speci- fications are available, particularly as they relate to performance-based accuracy requirements. 5. Gain a sense of the potential impact of national stan- dards on the growth in acceptance of these technologies. 6. Identify key geospatial personnel within the DOTs. QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION A DOT questionnaire was developed by the study team with a target completion time of 30 minutes. The project panel reviewed the questionnaire and subsequent revisions. TRB representatives and the panel also tested the questionnaire once it was uploaded. The questionnaire was distributed in March 2012 to AASHTO standing committee members (through mailing lists provided by NCHRP), including GIS-T, Research (many of whom were serving as state TRB represen- tatives), Planning, Design, and Asset Management. Addition- ally, the questionnaire was sent to DOT geospatial and other relevant contacts assembled by the study team. These contacts were identified as the primary geospatial contact by DOT respondents through a relevant questionnaire distributed for the NCHRP 15-44 Mobile LIDAR Guidelines project, which is currently under way. Because the questionnaire was sent to a large group (e.g., several AASHTO Committee mailing lists) in comparison to typical synthesis projects, a target response rate of 80% of only the GIS-T members was requested and achieved. A total of 42 GIS-T representatives (40 of 50 state DOTs plus Wash- ington, DC, and Puerto Rico) completed the questionnaire. A total of 97 individuals responded from 48 of the 50 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and Alberta, Canada. To track response rates, each group was given a unique link to the questionnaire. However, many DOTs combined answers into a single response. Thus, many GIS-T candidates actually responded through a different link than the GIS-T link. We confirmed these responses through follow-up phone calls. In addition to state responses, we received one response from the transportation department for Alberta, Canada; how- ever, we did not use this response in the analysis because there were no other non-U.S. sources. Figure 4 shows the division indicated by each of the respondents. Other categories indi- cated by the respondents included photogrammetry, informa- tion technology, and GIS/cartography. It can be noted that problems were experienced during the distribution of this questionnaire. In addition, many respon- dents from the GIS-T list indicated that they had received several questionnaires recently and felt overwhelmed with trying to respond to the frequent requests. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Data were exported from the survey into a Microsoft Excel file. Because a separate link was given to each key mailing list, the results from all questionnaires were compiled and integrated. Depending on the question, results were analyzed either by respondent or DOT. For example, questions related to usage of geospatial technology within a DOT were analyzed as a single, maximum-level-of-interest response for each DOT rather than by individual, because some individuals may not be aware of usage by other divisions. Table A1 in Appendix A explains the analysis method for each question and how conflicts were handled. For example, regarding the technology usages, if one person in a DOT indi- cated that it was the standard operating procedure (SOP) and another indicated that the DOT was researching the technology, the ranking for the DOT was recorded as SOP because it was assumed that the person who gave the lower ranking might not be aware of how often another division was using the technology. chapter two DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

10 Note that owing to rounding error, some results may not add to exactly 100% but will be within ±1%. GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY USAGE The vast majority (84%) of respondents regularly use geo- spatial technologies (Figure 5). This was expected because most people who do not use the technology would be less motivated to respond to the invitation or complete the ques- tionnaire. It is also important to keep this in mind because the respondents are the most actively involved with geospatial technology compared with average personnel in the DOT, who probably would not be as well versed in geospatial tech- nology use. Those who responded “Rarely” or “Never” did not complete the rest of the questionnaire. In terms of technology adoption (Figure 6), almost 90% are involved proactively with the introduction of new technology to modify their SOP. The top three factors holding back adoption of new tech- nologies for DOTs (Figure 7) are cost, inertia, and technical expertise. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPERTISE Table 1 ranks the level of familiarity with each advanced geospatial technology. Given the relative maturity of photo- grammetry, video logging, and GPS and GIS technologies, they top the list. Cloud computing, 3D-model-based design, Mobile LIDAR, and machine control are standard operating procedure in approximately 25% of the DOTs. In Table 2, the applications in which the technology is most likely being used are identified. The more familiar the DOT is with the technology, the more widespread it is used, in general. Table 3 contains a set of questions whose results indi- cate that essentially all of the DOTs are collecting geospatial data internally and using external sources. Only one-third of the states are involved with the 50 States spatial data initia- tive plans. Approximately two-thirds of the DOTs are tracking local government data initiatives. Similarly, approximately two-thirds are also tracking the cost-effectiveness of imple- menting advanced geospatial data tools, technologies, and information. When asked how new geospatial technologies were being investigated (Figure 8), respondents split evenly among the four choices—by department, centrally, individually, and by multiple groups. This split in responses probably is the result of difficulties in data management and integration into work- flows because each data source has its own unique challenges. 16% 1% 15% 21% 4% 5% 16% 7% 7% 2% 44% 5 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Pe rc en t R es po nd en ts (% ) As set M an ag em en t Co ns tru cti on En gin ee rin g D esi gn Ge om ati cs /S ur ve yin g Ma int en an ce Op er ati on s Pro jec t P lan nin g Pr oje ct De ve lop m en t Re sea rch Sa fe ty Ot he r FIGURE 4 Division of DOT respondents. (Note that some respondents selected multiple options.) FIGURE 5 Geospatial technology use by respon- dent for the respondent’s division. Regularly 85% Often 8% Sometimes 4% Rarely 3% Q 2 - Does your division use geospatial technologies?

11 For example, GIS data are easy to store centrally and share through a network among a variety of departments. However, LIDAR data sets are large and difficult for information tech- nology staff to maintain in an efficient manner to store, back up, and share across a network. In terms of their overall level of expertise with advanced geospatial technologies (Figure 9), most of the DOTs indi- cated they were experienced, but not quite expert. This correlates with the results shown in Figure 6, which shows most DOTs are active in adopting new technologies. How- ever, given the diversity and evolving nature of these tech- nologies, few people in industry would consider themselves experts. Given this level of expertise, almost two-thirds of the DOTs stated that most divisions had integrated advanced geospatial technologies into their daily workflows (Figure 10). Q 24 - What are the top 3 factors holding back the use of new geospatial data tools and technologies in your organization? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Va lue pr op os itio n Co st Ine rti a Te ch nic al ex pe rti se La ck of do cu m en te d a cc ur ac y Lac k o f a pp rov ed SO P La ck of tr ain ing Se nio r m an ag em en t Ris k o f fa ilu re Ot he r FIGURE 7 Top factors holding back the use of geospatial data tools and technologies. Proactive in researching new technology to develop initial SOP 35% Proactive in researching new technology to help modify existing SOP 52% Proactive in researching new technology after SOP has been developed and proven 13% Q 3 -Which of the following best describes your organization when it comes to adopting advanced geospatial data tools, technologies and information? FIGURE 6 Geospatial technology adoption approach indicated by respondent for the respondent’s organization. SOP, standard operating procedure.

Technology Standard Operating Procedure Implementing Investigating Researching Not Using No Interest Not Sure Photogrammetry 90% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% Video %0%0%4%0%0%6%09gniggol %0%0%0%2%0%01%88SPG GIS 88% 8% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% Statewide CORS network 67% 8% 2% 4% 12% 0% 6% Online Mapping Services 65% 16% 2% 4% 12% 0% 0% Statewide GNSS real time networks 56% 13% 8% 2% 13% 2% 6% Oblique Photography 47% 8% 16% 2% 18% 2% 6% OPUS (Online Positioning User Service) 45% 8% 6% 2% 20% 2% 16% Software as a Service 43% 14% 10% 8% 16% 2% 6% Tablet computers/smartphones 39% 31% 16% 4% 8% 0% 2% Static 3D laser scanning 38% 10% 8% 13% 25% 0% 6% Airborne LIDAR 35% 33% 14% 4% 10% 0% 4% Open Source Software 34% 14% 16% 8% 22% 4% 2% Ground Penetrating Radar 33% 8% 10% 14% 22% 0% 12% 3D model-based design 29% 23% 19% 10% 15% 2% 2% Low distortion coordinate systems 28% 14% 8% 4% 26% 2% 18% Mobile LIDAR 22% 20% 22% 18% 14% 0% 2% Cloud Computing 22% 20% 24% 14% 18% 0% 2% Machine Control 20% 24% 6% 18% 14% 0% 16% Electromagnetic imaging 6% 4% 8% 8% 45% 0% 29% Unmanned Airborne Vehicle (UAV) 2% 4% 6% 18% 63% 2% 4% InSAR/IFSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar) 2% 2% 6% 10% 51% 2% 27% TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE OF DOTs USING TECHNOLOGIES, SORTED FROM MOST COMMON TO LEAST COMMON thgiRgninnalPygolonhceT of Way Design Construction Operations Other Not Using Not Sure Photogrammetry 82% 64% 86% 62% 58% 42% 4% 2% Video %2%4%64%86%45%66%65%88gniggol GIS 88% 74% 74% 50% 84% 52% 2% 2% %2%0%05%87%28%48%86%08SPG Statewide CORS network 40% 48% 60% 60% 38% 24% 16% 14% Online Mapping Services 74% 52% 54% 40% 54% 42% 14% 8% Statewide GNSS real time networks 28% 34% 54% 50% 28% 20% 20% 10% Oblique Photography 42% 20% 38% 18% 22% 18% 32% 16% OPUS (Online Positioning User Servic 16% 22% 38% 18% 8% 10% 16% 22% Software as a Service 44% 26% 36% 30% 34% 38% 24% 14% Tablet computers/smartphones 46% 30% 34% 40% 54% 34% 20% 6% Static 3D laser scanning 14% 10% 44% 18% 18% 12% 28% 16% Airborne LIDAR 54% 14% 64% 18% 24% 22% 18% 12% Open Source Software 42% 16% 28% 22% 32% 34% 28% 8% Ground Penetrating Radar 8% 4% 38% 24% 16% 20% 24% 22% 3D model-based design 28% 14% 72% 38% 14% 12% 16% 8% Low distortion coordinate systems 18% 14% 32% 30% 10% 10% 24% 30% Mobile LIDAR 32% 12% 48% 16% 22% 12% 32% 8% Cloud Computing 22% 14% 26% 12% 20% 24% 42% 10% Machine Control 6% 2% 20% 56% 4% 6% 18% 20% Electromagnetic imaging 6% 0% 6% 2% 4% 0% 58% 24% InSAR/IFSAR (Interferometric Synthet 6% 0% 4% 2% 4% 0% 58% 28% Unmanned Airborne Vehicle (UAV) 4% 0% 4% 2% 2% 6% 76% 8% TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF DOTs IDENTIFYING APPLICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGIES

13 Implementation Managing the introduction of advanced geospatial technolo- gies was evenly divided among the choices of centrally, by department, and multiple groups (Figure 11). Note that “mul- tiple” indicates that each of the respondents within a single DOT indicated a different response. Thus, there probably is some flexibility in how the introduction is performed, depend- ing on the technology and staff needs. Training Ninety-eight percent of DOTs responded that their organi- zation provides training in the use of advanced geospatial data tools and technologies (Figure 12); 2% were unsure. A number of training options were used, with hands-on and peer-to-peer training being the most common. In terms of the effectiveness of the training offered, most DOTs reported it was reasonably effective (Figure 13) but there was room for improvement. Data Management and Workflows On the critical issue of geospatial data management (Fig- ure 14), 50% indicated data were managed centrally, 29% said by department, and 19% by multiple methods and groups. Comments by respondents indicated that there is significant variability within a DOT on how data are man- aged. This often varies by project and the data type. INFORMATION RESOURCES Several questions were asked to determine the extent to which the DOTs have been willing to share the results of their research into advanced geospatial technologies. When asked where the results of their research are pub- lished (Figure 15), the DOTs indicated that most often the results are available only internally, followed by almost 50% indicating that results are made available on a public website; 40% publish certain results behind a DOT firewall; and 30% also use print. Eighty-five percent of the DOTs conduct pilot projects to investigate new geospatial technologies (Table 4), but the results are not typically made public. Rarely does an agency document failures or make such results public. Most DOTs favored the use of a public website to dissemi- nate research and lessons learned about advanced geospatial technologies, followed by more federal support and then more visibility at the annual TRB meeting (Figure 16). Question Yes No Not Sure Is your organization collecting geospatial data internally? 96% 0% 4% Is your organization interfacing with external geospatial data sources? 92% 2% 6% Is your organization involved with the 50 States initiative to develop Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) plans? 33% 35% 31% Are you tracking local government’s geospatial data initiatives? 69% 27% 4% Are you tracking the cost-effectiveness of implementing advanced geospatial data tools, technologies, and information? 63% 31% 6% TABLE 3 DOT GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGY USAGE AND INTEREST Individually 23% By Geographic Region 0% By Department 27% Centrally 21% Multiple 27% Not sure 2% Q 14 - How are new geospatial data tools and technologies investigated/researched in your organization? FIGURE 8 Investigation strategies for new geospatial data technologies.

14 Q 7 - What is your organization’s overall level of expertise with advanced geospatial data tools, technologies, and information? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Max Average No Experience Expert FIGURE 9 DOT experience levels with advanced geospatial technologies based on average and maximum responses within a DOT. Used by most divisions in our DOT, 63% Used by a few divisions in our DOT, 29% Used only by our surveying division, 2% Used only by a few individuals, 4% Currently at the research \ investigation level only, 0% Not sure, 2% Q 8 - What is the current level of integration of geospatial data tools, technologies and information into your organization’s daily workflows? FIGURE 10 Integration of geospatial data tools, technologies, and information within DOTs. To reduce the risk associated with the adoption of advanced geospatial technologies, the DOTs identified the ability to obtain the results of pilot projects from other DOTs as their top response, followed closely by the desire to cost share the research with other groups, including service providers. In the next group was the need for additional research funding and the use of public/private partnerships (Figure 17). The top two research needs (Figure 18) were both data related—better data management and integration. In third place was the transition from 2D to 3D. The DOTs were somewhat interested in the idea of sup- porting the concept of an online central clearinghouse to dis- seminate research information and even more interested in contributing information (Figure 19).

By Individual, 8% By Geographic Region, 0% By Department, 29% Centrally, 33% Multiple, 25% Not sure, 4% Q 19 - How does your organization manage the introduction of advanced geospatial data tools, technologies and information? FIGURE 11 Management of geospatial data tools, technologies, and information introduction. Q 22 - How is this training offered? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Hands on Workshop Vendor demonstration Peer to peer Not offered Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) FIGURE 12 Methods of geospatial training indicated by DOTs. Q 23 - Please rate the effectiveness of your geospatial training programs. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Max AveragePoor Excellent FIGURE 13 Evaluation of effectiveness of geospatial training.

16 Most DOTs look to a wide variety of sources for informa- tion on advanced geospatial technologies, including internal champions, consultants, other DOTs, and service providers (Figure 20). STANDARDS Most DOTs reported it is important for them to be investigat- ing new geospatial technologies as well as the use of related standards (Figure 21) for some of those technologies. Con- cerning the development of standards, the DOTs were evenly split as to whether to adopt national standards or develop them in-house (Figure 22), with one-third not sure which is better. (Note that because this question was analyzed by DOTs, rather than respondents, when there were conflicting answers within a DOT, the DOT response was “not sure.”) Similar trends are observed when analyzed by respondent rather than DOT. More than 75% of the DOTs reported having developed their own standards, specifications, best practices, and/or qual- ity management procedures (Figure 23). Concerning validat- ing the geometric accuracy of data (Figure 24), 50% of the DOTs reported having a quality management program in place and the other 50% do not for at least one of these technologies for certain applications. KEY GEOSPATIAL PERSONNEL Key geospatial personnel were identified for each DOT. A compilation of their names and contact information is included in Appendix D, a web-only appendix of this report. CONCLUSIONS In summary, analysis from the DOT questionnaire found the following information related to geospatial technology usage within the DOTs: • Most DOTs show significant interest in geospatial tech- nology, and many show that they are proactively involved with introducing new technologies into their organiza- tion and developing standard operating procedures. • DOTs indicated relatively high levels of experience with advanced geospatial technologies. By Geographic Region, 0% By Department, 29% Centrally, 50% Multiple, 19% Not sure, 2% Q 20 - How is geospatial data managed in your organization? FIGURE 14 Management of geospatial data within DOTs. 60% 40% 47% 30% 19% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Internally only Internally behind DOT firewall Public Website Print Not Sure Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Q 15 - Where are your agencies’ research results typically published? Multiple selections OK. FIGURE 15 Publication locations for agency research results.

17 Question Yes Sometimes* No Not Sure Does your organization conduct pilot projects to investigate new geospatial data tools and technologies? 85% — 10% 4% Are these results made publicly available on the web? 21% — 67% 13% Does your organization document failures and decisions not to use a new technology? 17% 54% 8% 21% If yes, are these reports made public? 15% — 37% 49% “Sometimes” was only an option for the third question in this table. TABLE 4 RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION FOR DOTs 0 20 40 60 80 100 Federal Centralized website TRB geospatial conference University collaborations Other Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Q 32 - How can transportation agencies more effectively research new geospatial technologies and systematically disseminate their findings? (multiple options OK) Q 33 - How can transportation agencies more effectively share and transfer the lessons learned from hands on experience with advanced geospatial data tools, … FIGURE 16 Mechanism to share and transfer knowledge among DOTs. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Additional research funding to identify best practices Ability to obtain results of pilot studies from other DOTs Cost share demonstration projects with other organizations and/or vendors Public/private partnerships Other Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Q 34 - How can transportation agencies more effectively reduce the risk associated with the adoption of advanced geospatial data tools, technologies and information? (multiple options OK) FIGURE 17 Methods to reduce risk in adopting advanced geospatial technologies.

18 Q 31 - What are the top 3 geospatial technology research needs in your organization? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pe rc en ta ge o f R es po nd en ts (% ) Tr an siti on fr om 2D to 3D w or kfl ow s Da ta A cq uis iti on Te ch no log ies Da ta A cc ur ac y Da ta Pr oc es sin g Da ta M an ag em en t Da ta St or ag e Da ta Se cu rit y Da ta In te gr ati on Da ta A cc es s Qu ali ty m an ag em en t p ro ce du re s Te ch no log ica l e va lua tio n Co st/ Be ne fit an aly sis Ot he r FIGURE 18 Top research needs related to geospatial technologies, by respondent. Respondents could select their top three choices. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) None/Not Likely Extremely Interested/ Very Likely Q 36 - What level of interest would your organization have in supporting an online central clearinghouse where information could be published and discovered relating to geospatial data tools, technologies and information as it applies to highway projects? Q 37 - How likely would your division be to contribute to this site? FIGURE 19 Level of interest in an online central clearinghouse.

19 Q 25 - Who does your organization look to for advice on advanced geospatial data tools, technologies and information? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Int ern al ch am pio ns Co ns ult an ts Ot he r D OT s FH WA HE EP NG S AA SH TO TR B Un ive rsi tie s Ve nd ors Pu bli ca tio ns Ot he r FIGURE 20 Common sources of information and advice for DOTs. Q 26 - How important is it for your organization to be investigating Q 27 - How important are standards, specifications and best practice guides to the adoption of new geospatial data tools and technologies? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pe rc en ta ge o f D O Ts (% ) Critical to Future/Essential Not Important new geospatial data tools and technologies? FIGURE 21 Importance of geospatial technology and development of standards, specifications, and best practice guides for adoption.

20 National 32% Own 34% Not sure 34% Q 28 - Would your organization prefer to implement its own standards or adopt a nationally approved version if it was available? FIGURE 22 Interest in state versus national DOT geospatial standards, by DOT. Yes 77% No 17% Not Sure 6% Q 29 - Has your organization implemented any standards, specifications, quality management procedures, and/or best practice guidelines regarding geospatial technologies? FIGURE 23 DOTs with standards, specifications, quality management procedures, and/or best practice guidelines regarding geospatial technologies. Yes 49% No 45% Not Sure 6% Q 30 - Does your organization have a quality management program in place to ensure that the geometric accuracy of geospatial data acquired using multiple technologies is being properly specified? FIGURE 24 Organizations with a quality management program. • The top three barriers to technology adoption are cost, inertia, and technical expertise. • DOTs are comfortable with technologies such as photo- grammetry, video logging, GPS, GIS, and statewide CORS networks and have integrated those into their operations. These technologies are relatively mature and have a wide support base. These common technologies also appear to be widely used across several applications [planning, right of way (ROW), design, construction, operations, and other]. However, newer technologies such as cloud computing, machine control, electromag- netic imaging, unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs), and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (inSAR/ifSAR) are not yet well integrated. Many states are transition- ing to using LIDAR technology; however, any form of LIDAR is not a standard operating procedure for the majority of the states. • Technology investigation is conducted at the individual level, by department, centrally, and by multiple groups. • Several methods of training are being implemented by the DOTs, and they were deemed to be somewhat effective. • Most research reports are published internally only. Reports for pilot projects generally are not made avail- able on the web. Failures and decisions not to use a technology are rarely documented and even more rarely made publicly available. • Most DOTs favored the use of a publicly accessible web- site to disseminate research and lessons learned about advanced geospatial technologies, followed by more fed- eral support and then more visibility at the annual TRB meeting. • The top three geospatial technology research needs identified were data management, data integration, and transition from 2D to 3D. • Most DOTs indicated that they would contribute infor- mation to an integrated, online site, and many indicated that they would support it. • DOTs are split regarding development of national stan- dards or guidelines compared with state versions. How- ever, many believed that national guidelines that can be adapted by states would be helpful.