IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT Summary Presentation June, 2010 Consultant PM :

1. IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT Summary Presentation June, 2010 Consultant PM: Peter Croswell, PresidentCroswell-Schulte IT ConsultantsFrankfort, KY(502) 848-8827pcroswell@croswell-schulte.com

2. Meeting Agenda • Discuss project background • Review project activities and recommendations • Discuss ideas for implementation and roads Framework stewardship

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. Participating Organizations (respondents to needs survey and/or review and comment on draft versions of recommendations report) • 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. • 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. Road Centerline Data Programs in other States • 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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 island to 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.

16. 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.

17. 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)

18. 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.

19. Recommendations-Attributes

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. Stewardship Discussion • Options for Framework Steward and Source Stewards • Approach for establishing Framework stewardship for Road Centerlines