1. NSGIC Conference
CONFERENCE : NSGIC
LOCATION: Minneapolis, Minnesota
9/15/10
DATE:
PARTICIPANTS: Steve Lewis, Patricia Solano, Richard Grady & Michael Terner
Approximately 36 people attended the TFTN Workshop on Wednesday evening, 9/15/10; this included four (4) TFTN
project team members. Six (6) members of the TFTN Steering Committee were present, including 3 from the Executive
Group (Randall Johnson/MetroGIS Council for Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dan Widner/Commonwealth of Virginia, and Tom
Roff/USDOT-FHWA-HPMS) and 3 from the At-Large Group (Randy Fusaro/US Census Bureau, Ed Arabas/State of
Oregon, Jeff Smith/State of Ohio). The input was lively and diverse.
The top takeaways and action items are as follows:
Key Takeaways and Action Items
1. Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches – “what are the shared needs and
commonalities?”
2. Develop an inventory of what each state has for statewide street centerlines
3. Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of success; consider
incentives for states to tell their stories, such as complimentary registrations at next year’s GIS-T to make
presentations
4. The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer per se; boundaries are the
“real issue” for Census Bureau, not roads; DOTs might need greater detail
5. Next Generation 911 is and will be a big driver for GIS-based initiatives to build statewide street centerline
data sets; it will fund many GIS-related things pertinent to NG 911, such as authoritative data for parcels,
addresses, and roads; there may be an explicit requirement to support automated routing (this needs to be
verified)
6. Provide Danielle Ayan of Georgia Tech relevant “indicators” for TFTN (i.e. related to status of statewide street
centerline) for inclusion in the FGDC-funded Geospatial Maturity Assessment (GMA) model; these could be
answered by the fifty states as part of the state-based GMA assessments for next year
7. Prepare a 2-pager with a summary of lessons learned including things that worked well including partnership
(pro’s and cons of the different models), sources of funding, etc
The following is a running list of input, organized into the following groupings:
• Questions Raised
• Beliefs, Declarations, and/or Observations & Opinions
• Challenges and/or Provocations
• Volunteer Support Offered
• Findings and/or Revelations
• Recommendations and/or Suggestions
Questions
a) What is the role of State GIS Coordinators relative to State DOT GIS Managers vis-à-vis statewide street
centerlines?
b) How far “down” should TFTN go – should it include private roads, too? And what about double-track dirt
roads, and forest roads?
c) What is the diversity of business needs and applications that TFTN should support?
d) What’s the “hammer” to make TFTN happen?
PRINTED: 10/20/2010 PAGE 1 OF 3

2. NSGIC Conference
e) Where will the funding come from?
f) How are local data sets being imported in states that are including local roads into their statewide road
network?
g) How does the State GIS Coordinator or GIO “breakthrough” to an unreceptive State DOT?
h) How do we play it right?
Beliefs , Declarations, and/or Observations & Opinions
a) From US DOT perspective, the State DOTs are the authoritative source of street centerlines; they each
provide their own flavor of LRS-based road networks to FHWA as part of HPMS reporting
b) HPMS as a driver for TFTN is “not terribly exciting” or highly motivational for non-DOT stakeholders
c) If HPMS is the chosen path to TFTN, then “State DOTs will have to make it happen” from at least one state’s
perspective
d) We “might not need LRS on all roads(e.g. cul-de-sacs),” but rather, just where it is needed; “but, addresses
are needed on all roads”
e) The timing of TFTN as a planning initiative coincides with efforts in a number of states to consolidate IT and
GIS programs – this could be an opportunity to address “who does what” on statewide street centerlines, vis-
à-vis State DOTs and State GIS Coordinators
f) Statewide street centerlines are “not just a State DOT problem”
g) Additional transportation data can be added to TIGER – “it is already one of the biggest data sets in the world”
with a large and diverse user community, according to Tim Trainor of Census Bureau Geography Division;
and “Transportation is a niche area with specialized needs,” in Tim’s opinion
h) The Census Bureau considers itself to be a “Data Integrator,” not a Data Producer per se; boundaries are the
“real issue” for Census Bureau, not roads; DOTs might need greater detail. Data could be modernized as
needed.
i) One geometry data set for streets should be enough for multiple applications; “collect once, use many times”
j) If street centerlines data is “not current, it’s not relevant”
Challenges and/or Provocations
a) Why public domain? Why not Creative Commons license?
b) Where should we be in 5 years, or 10 years from now (or, in hockey parlance, “where is the puck going to
be”)? For example, “what about 3D point clouds around street centerlines,” which is the focus of much
commercial data gathering activity
c) What is TFTN vision? What is the business plan?
d) What are the business functions
e) What makes this attempt at the notion of TFTN different than other attempts?
f) Why is it that HPMS is (or is not) the leading approach to achieve TFTN?
g) Why don’t we know the “state-of-the-states” on statewide street centerline data set content and availability?
h) What are key success factors in the lessons learned
 Addressable geocoded street center line?
 Sustainable effort?
 Routable?
 Usability for 911 efforts?
 Economic growth associated to a mile-marker?
 Everybody might agree on a complete geometry with uniquely identified segment IDs
Volunteer Support Offered
a) Eric Abrams of Iowa DOT offered support in assessing the “state-of-the-states” vis-à-vis road network
inventory status, to answer the question, “Who has their ducks in a row?”
b) When asked “who has success stories” related to street centerlines, about a dozen hands shot up! The
stories are there, and the willingness to contribute –we just need to do the outreach and documentation
c) If US DOT decides to go the HPMS route to build TFTN, Tim Trainor of the Census Bureau Geography
Division said, “Come see us to talk about it – it’s hard, and you’ll need lots of experienced people”
(paraphrasing)
PRINTED: 10/20/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3

3. NSGIC Conference
d) Danielle Ayan of Georgia Tech offered to include “indicators” for TFTN (i.e. related to status of statewide
street centerline) in the FGDC-funded Geospatial Maturity Assessment (GMA) model; these could be
answered by the fifty states as part of the state-based GMA assessments for next year
Findings
a) Commercial data producers such as NAVTEQ may not be ready to instantly accommodate transactional
updates from the public at this time, but they are heading in this direction
b) According to Tom Roff of FHWA/HPMS, federal legislation is pending that may further drive the need for all
roads, to support asset management and safety (Question: What is the official title of this legislation – is it the
Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act?)
c) In Michigan, the State GIS Office is doing the work to maintain the statewide street centerline network, funded
by the State DOT; the DOT “owns” the LRS, but the GIS Office implements it on behalf of the DOT; the GIS
Office is expecting additional funding support for NG 911, as are other states
d) Safety money is available to local governments to improve the safety of roads for high hazard locations; this
requires the accurate mapping of crashes on all roads; Ohio is tapping into this
e) New York State has a single statewide centerline data set with addresses for emergency management use
and also includes an LRS for DOT use. They might also be a good example for a successful private /public
partnership.
f) Next Generation 911 is and will be a big driver for GIS-based initiatives to build statewide street centerline
data sets; it will fund many GIS-related things pertinent to NG 911, such as authoritative data for parcels,
addresses, and roads; there may be an explicit requirement to support automated routing (this needs to be
verified)
g) Street centerlines built with HPMS funding be used for non-transportation applications
Recommendations and/or Suggestions
a) Characterize the relationship and respective roles of State GIS Coordinators relative to State DOT GIS
Managers
b) Develop several success stories as 1-2 page fact sheets, perhaps as “tiered” levels of success; consider
incentives for states to tell their stories, such as complimentary registrations at next year’s GIS-T to make
presentations
c) Develop an inventory of what each state has for statewide street centerlines
d) Document pitfalls; and, “what is the downside” of not doing anything?
e) Develop a matrix of common requirements and approaches – “what are the shared needs and
commonalities?”
f) Analyze the WATRANS pooled fund approach, which involves multiple states and levels of government
g) Consider a prototyping stage as part of the TFTN implementation strategy
PRINTED: 10/20/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3