Idaho Roads Framework Project IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT Summary Presentation June, 2010 Consultant PM: Peter Croswell, President Croswell-Schulte IT

Idaho Roads Framework Project

IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT

Summary PresentationJune, 2010

Consultant PM:

Peter Croswell, PresidentCroswell-Schulte IT Consultants

Frankfort, KY(502) 848-8827

[email protected]


Meeting Agenda

• Discuss project background

• Review project activities and recommendations

• Discuss ideas for implementation and roads Framework stewardship


Project Objectives• Prepare a road transportation data model and data dictionary

• Provide recommendations on the development of the statewide road centerline database

• Define and work to achieve consensus on data stewardship roles and data maintenance procedures

• Provide recommendations on the implementation and use of a Linear Reference Model (LRM)


Key Project Staff

• Bruce Godfrey, Principal Investigator, Univ. of Idaho Library

• Gail Ewart, GIO, Idaho Geospatial Office

• Frank Roberts, GIS Manager, Coeur D’Alene Tribe

• Dave Christianson, Transportation Technical Working Group Chair, Kootenai County GIS

• Scott Van Hoff, USGS Geospatial Liaison

• Peter Croswell, Consultant Project Manager, Croswell-Schulte IT Consultants


Main Steps in the Project

• Situation Assessment

• Needs Survey

• Evaluation of statewide road data management programs in other states

• Preparation of draft recommendations report in January

• Review meetings in February

• Three additional draft report preparation and comment stages

• Completion of final report__________________________________________________

See results of Situation Assessment and Needs Survey at:

http://insideidaho.org/geodata/FrameworkPilot/transportation/2009_FGDC_CAP_grant/ situationAssessment.xls

http://insideidaho.org/geodata/FrameworkPilot/transportation/2009_FGDC_CAP_grant/needsSurvey.pdf


Participating Organizations (respondents to needs survey and/or review and comment on draft versions of

recommendations report)

Idaho Geospatial Office Idaho Transportation Department Local Highway Technical Highway

Assistance Council (LHTAC) Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security Integrated Road Centerline Project Idaho Department of Lands Idaho E911 ECC Idaho Dept. Parks and Recreation Idaho Comm. Planning Assoc. Ada County Bannock Trans Planning Org. Bonner County Bonneville County

Kootenai County Fremont County Nez Perce County Madison County - City of Rexburg Owyhee County City of Nampa Coeur D’Alene Tribe Nez Perce Tribe U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ESRI GIS Quality Des. and Consulting, Inc.


Current Road Centerline Database Development and Maintenance Programs in Idaho

• Idaho Transportation Department GIS program

• Local Highway Technical Assistance Council

• Idaho Department of Lands

• Integrated state road centerline project (INSIDE Idaho)

• Federal agencies (USFS, BLM) road centerline data capture and maintenance on Federal lands

• GIS programs in County and City governments

• US Census Bureau-TIGER data updates

• Commercial data suppliers (Navteq, Teleatlas)


Road Data Needs Survey

1. Road Type priority

2. Positional Accuracy

3. Road centerline depiction and segmentation

4. Handling of “special road configurations (highway ramps, cul-de-sacs, traffic circles, “free ride” lanes, boat docks)

5. Road-related features

6. Road centerline attributes

Road Data Needs Survey


• Evaluated programs in 7 states (AR, OH, MT, ND, TN, WA, WV)

Key “Best Practices”:

• Define business need and intended applications

• Identify clear state agency lead

• Active involvement of the state’s transportation agency

• Document data format and content standards

• Involve state and local agencies with missions in: a) transportation asset management, b) transportation planning, c) public safety

• Clarify procedures, “rules”, and timing for data update

• Maintain sound metadata

Road Centerline Data Programs in other States


Components of Road Centerline Data Model

Types of roads for inclusion

Geometry rules: breakpoints, special road configurations, cardinality

Sources, accuracy requirements, and capture/maintenance guidelines

Attribute data content

Data dictionary

Metadata


Recommendations-Types of Roads

• Public roads maintained by government entities (Federal, State, Local)

- Public highways (all FHWA functional classes: Interstates, US and State routes, county highways)

- Local roads and streets

- Roads on state and federal land (may have restricted access)

• Private roads that include:

- Roads maintained by gov’t entities but not open for public access

- Roads not open for public access maintained by private companies or land owners on private land or on public land with private easement granted

- Roads inside private developments (e.g., private roads inside apartment complexities, industrial parks, trailer courts, camp grounds, office parks, etc.)

- long driveways


Review Recommendations-Road Segment Break Points

• At-grade road intersections (bridge or overpass points not included).

• County boundaries (Source Stewards may apply segment breaks at additional boundaries: Zip code zones, ESZ boundaries).

• Point where primary road name or route number changes.

• Points at which there is a change between a divided road (two centerlines) and an undivided road (one centerline).

• Well-defined points between intersections on long road sections between intersections (optional breaking which Source Stewards may apply).


Review Recommendations-Divided Roads

Depict roads with 2 separate centerlines when:

Lanes are divided with a median, barrier, or marked gore area in the center, dividing the lanes of opposite traffic flow and restricting turns between the divided lanes.


Review Recommendations-Digitizing Direction and Cardinality

Centerlines should be digitized in the direction of established cardinality for roads in which cardinality applies (Interstates, US routes, state, and county highways). W to E, S to N

Note: Some roads might have a cardinality that does not adhere to this standard. For roads with no formal cardinality assigned (e.g., municipal streets, rural roads), the digitizing direction should correspond to the low to high address progression


Recommendations-Special Road Configurations

Ramps: General rule is to plot a tangent of the ramp’s centerline from the point at which the edge of the ramp first joins the connecting road to the connecting road centerline.

Cul-de-sacs: no physical island--terminate the centerline at the center of the cul-de-sac. For cul-de-sacs with a physical island, draw the centerline around the islandto a point in front of the last lot on the cul-de-sac.

Traffic Circles: Includes circles and other geometric shapes (e.g., square, rectangle, ellipse). The centerline of that shape should have a unique name and ID. If it has a formal name, this should be assigned. If there is no formal name, the authority for update should assign a name (e.g., name of major street or highway entering the circle or shape with designation of “circle” or “square”). Centerline segments should terminate on the circle’s centerline and define individual centerline segments of the circle.


Recommendations-Special Road Configurations

“Free ride” lanes: One-way lanes branching from a main road before the next intersection which enables smooth flow of traffic for vehicles taking a right hand turn onto the next intersecting road. Centerline depiction of the free-ride lane will follow the general rule described for ramps.

U-Turn lanes: Road segments on divided, limited access highways that connect the two divided lanes of traffic and which are reserved for emergency use. This special road type is optional for inclusion in the Road Centerline Framework dataset. If they are included, they will be depicted as one centerline segment intersecting at the centerlines of each of the main lanes of traffic.

Marinas/Boat Docks: No requirement to include centerlines for these cases—the decision is left to the government jurisdiction with authority over these areas. In cases where they are included, centerlines should be captured along the longitudinal center of fixed or floating documents. Centerline segments should be named and address ranges may be assigned.


Recommendations-Accuracy and Sources

• Use methodologies and sources that achieve the highest possible horizontal positional accuracy. Metadata should accompany all data to identify sources and accuracy levels.

• Goal for minimum accuracy level of 10-feet* but higher accuracy levels are desired.

• Sources for road centerline may include: a) medium or high-resolution (1-meter pixel or better) orthoimagery with centerlines captured through a heads-up digitizing, b) large-scale georeferenced subdivision maps or construction drawings, or c) field-based capture using GPS technology

*National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (FGDC standard)


Recommendations-Attributes• Minimum Attribute Set (M): A “bare bones” set of attributes that

is considered essential for compilation and ongoing update of the Roads Framework.

• Core Attributes (C): Important for many GIS applications. Data stewards are strongly encouraged to capture these attributes in addition to the minimum (M) attribute set.

• Extended Attributes (E): Provide a richer data content than the core (C) attributes of use to a wide range of user groups. These attributes are needed to support a more extensive set of GIS applications.

• Attributes Not Included (N): Not formally a part of the Road Centerline Framework. It is recognized that these attributes (and others not identified in this project) do have importance for specific users and applications.

Recommendations-Attributes

Centerline Attribute Nu

mb

er o

f S

tate

s

Cen

terl

ine

Dat

abas

es

Usi

ng

Att

rib

ute

Ave

rag

e Id

aho

Pri

ori

ty

Sco

re (

from

nee

ds

Ass

essm

ent)

Co

mb

ined

Sco

re

Fra

mew

ork

Att

rib

ute

?*

Comment 1 0 1 E

Measure Method 1 0 1 N

Use Status 1 0 1 N

Road Label 2 0 2 N

Road Width 2 0 2 N

Cardinal (Y/N) 1 2.3 3.3 E

Left Side Odd (Y/N) 1 2.3 3.3 N

3D Length 1 3.1 4.1 N

Flip Geometry Flag 1 3.1 4.1 N

Reverse Direction (Y/N) 1 3.1 4.1 N

Left Postal ID 1 3.2 4.2 N

Right Postal ID 1 3.2 4.2 N

Left Community 2 2.3 4.3 N

Right Community 2 2.3 4.3 N

Divided Road (Y or N) 2 2.4 4.4 C

Alternate Segment ID 4 1.6 5.6 C

LRM ID 3 2.8 5.8 N

Speed Limit 5 0.6 5.6 E

Left Emer. Service Zone 4 3 7 E

Right Emer. Service Zone 4 3 7 E

Direction Traveled 4 3.2 7.2 C

Post Direction 1 4.3 5.3 N

Number of Lanes 3 3.8 6.8 E

Maintenance Status 2 6.1 8.1 N

Left County 6 2 8 C

Right County 6 2 8 C

Jurisdiction of Road

Use Restriction

Alternate Route #s

Map Length

Beginning Log Point

Ending Log Point

Alternate Street Names

Left City

Right City

Primary Street Type

Surface Type Code

Road Classification

Edit or Update Date

Source Information

Left From Address

Left To Address

Primary Street Prefix

Primary Street Suffix

Right From Address

Right To Address

GIS Data Steward

Route or Local Road #

Segment ID (primary key)

Primary Street Name

Comment

Measure Method

Use Status

Road Label

Road Width

Cardinal (Y/N)

Left Side Odd (Y/N)

3D Length

Flip Geometry Flag

Reverse Direction (Y/N)

Left Postal ID

Right Postal ID

Left Community

Right Community

Divided Road (Y or N)

Alternate Segment ID

LRM ID

Speed Limit

Left Emer. Service Zone

Right Emer. Service Zone

Direction Traveled

Post Direction

Number of Lanes

Maintenance Status

Left County

Right County

Jurisdiction of Road 2 6.6 8.6 M

Use Restriction 3 5.6 8.6 E

Alternate Route #s 7 2.8 9.8 C

Map Length 4 3.9 7.9 E

Beginning Log Point 5 4.7 9.7 E

Ending Log Point 5 4.7 9.7 E

Alternate Street Names 6 3.8 9.8 C

Left City 6 3 9 C

Right City 6 3 9 C

Primary Street Type 6 5.2 11.2 C

Surface Type Code 4 6.6 10.6 C

Road Classification 4 7 11 C

Edit or Update Date 6 5.9 11.9 C

Left State 6 6 12 C

Right State 6 6 12 C

Source Information 7 6 13 C

Left From Address 7 5.2 12.2 C

Left To Address 7 5.2 12.2 C

Primary Street Prefix 7 5.2 12.2 C

Primary Street Suffix 7 5.2 12.2 C

Right From Address 7 5.2 12.2 C

Right To Address 7 5.2 12.2 C

GIS Data Steward 5 7.4 12.4 C

Route or Local Road # 8 5.8 13.8 M

Segment ID (primary key) 8 6.2 14.2 M

Primary Street Name 7 7.3 14.3 M

Left Zip Code 8 8 16 E

Right Zip Code 8 8 16 E

Centerline Attribute Nu

mb

er

of

Sta

tes

Cen

terl

ine D

ata

bases

Usin

g A

ttri

bu

te

Avera

ge Id

ah

o P

rio

rity

Sco

re (f

rom

needs

Assessm

ent)

Co

mb

ined

Sco

re

Fra

mew

ork

Att

rib

ute

?*


Road Centerline Data Stewardship

• For best success and sustainability, a State agency should assume the Framework stewardship role

• Effective stewardship will require participation and data contributions from multiple organizations—state, federal, local

• Compilation process should draw on ongoing work carried out as part of the Integrated Road Centerline project and data being collected and maintained by the ITD and LHTAC

• Need to provide for local government update in places with inadequate resources or expertise, including a formal approach, resources, and roles.

• For optimal integration and best usability, data contributions should eventually conform to the Framework standard (to be established per P5030).

• Metadata should be updated in tandem with updates to the centerline database

• A stewardship implementation is required and includes a charter, a plan, business rules and standard operating procedures developed collaboratively by the stewards.


ISDI Stewardship Program Description

• Framework Stewardship: a sustainable approach, with clear roles and responsibilities for individuals or groups (data stewards), supporting the regular update of and access to the Framework element compliant with clear standards for data content, format, and quality.

• Key Stewardship Roles (see Stewardship practices document): IGO and Framework Coordinator: Stewardship coordination, standards development,

general support and coordination

IGC Executive Committee: Approval of Framework stewardship standards, policies, and plans

Transportation Technical Working Group (TTWG): Development of pilot projects and other technical explorations, an action plan for all Transportation elements, and anticipating and addressing vertical issues among Transportation elements.

Framework Steward: Facilitation, coordination, and support (central point of contact) for a specific Framework element. Organizes procedures/tools for data submittal (from Source Stewards) and processing; leads stewards in managing the data life cycle

Source Steward(s): Primary role for Framework data creation, update and integration into Framework


Stewardship Documentation

• ISDI Framework Stewardship model and procedures (version 2 draft)

• Stewardship Charter: formal identification and documentation of stewardship accountability (see Stewardship charter template):

• Stewardship Plan: lays out the overall approach and more detail about who does what and when (see Stewardship Plan Outline)

• Business Rules

• Standard Operating Procedures—developed gradually

• Options for Framework Steward and Source Stewards

• Approach for establishing road framework data stewardship program


Stewardship Discussion

• Options for Framework Steward and Source Stewards

• Approach for establishing Framework stewardship for Road Centerlines

Documents

Idaho Roads Framework Project IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT Summary Presentation June, 2010 Consultant PM: Peter Croswell, President Croswell-Schulte IT