LOCAL STREETS AND THE ARNOLD INITIATIVE

Transcription

1 LOCAL STREETS AND THE ARNOLD INITIATIVE Jenn Sylvester, Mapping Branch Team Lead Transportation Planning & Programming Division (TPP) GIS-T Symposium Des Moines, IA

2 Key Terms ARNOLD FC Streets Local Streets 4 GRID 5 Local Partners 6 Data Dictionary 7 Attributes 2

3 ARNOLD: Building Better Data 1 Local Streets Project Planning and Overview 2 ARNOLD: Current and Future Dual Carriageway Addressing, Topology & Edge Matching 3 Partnering and Data Sharing Who Benefits? Digital Ownership 4 Building and Maintaining Local Partnerships Departmental Uses: Trickle Down Effect Functional Classification and Urban Boundary Updates Statewide Planning Map GRID New Spatial Asset Management System 3

4 Local Streets.Preliminary Decision Making Cost Effectiveness Collecting? Creating? Purchasing? Determine Who Benefits and Why Value of Partnerships Data Sharing Initiatives Research and Communication What s available? How is the data designed? How do we make it fit? Establish a Timeline and Goals Testing Making a decisions and sticking with it 4

5 Data Sources COG (Councils of Government) MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) County City E-911 (Emergency Management Districts) Data Partnerships These organizations provided TxDOT with spatial data for 99% of Counties in the state of Texas 5

6 Group Project & Python Analysis ARNOLD: The Missing Piece was Local Streets. Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase VII Phase VIII Contact Data Providers and Collect Any Available Data* Processing with Data Translator (TxDOT Data Model) Route Class Assignments* Data Processing and QA/QC Classification of Error Types* Linework Corrections* End of Year QA/QC Local Street Maintenance * Group Project 6

7 Data Structure: 2 Data Models Statewide Addressing Layer (Intermediate Repository) All Inclusive All data received from each source included d16 Addressing Route Classes TxDOT Data Model Base Data for Future Updates Statewide LRS Layer (Final Goal) Local City Streets Only Contiguous measured linear features Integrated into existing roadway data at TxDOT Reported to FHWA More advanced data processing Minimal Data Processing 7

8 Slide 7 d16 Need to add slide for demo maps similar to slide 7. Top and bottom that would show the difference between the two data sets by showing RTE_CLASS in production data vs in local data. deleteme, 6/23/2014

9 Statewide Addressing Model Source Data Intermediate Repository TxDOT Data Model Addresses preserved if included in source Documented Base Data for Updates Symmetrical Difference Updates from Source Addressed Conflated Issues with centerline conflation Source data had to be edited Data quality poor Planned Lessons/Reality Need more localized participation 8

10 Scripting and Data Processing Data Dictionary Source Data TxDOT Data Model XLRD Python Module COG MPO CITY Data Model Requirements Full Street Name, City, Unique Route ID Route ID Full Street Name + City Number = Unique FLAG The street name was essential in building and identifying individual roadway features within each city TxDOT Data Model Scripting is ESSENTIAL in large data projects Initial data processing Creating Routes QA/QC Makes HUGE tasks faster and cleaner 9

11 Phase I, II, III: Collect, Process and Classify Collected Source Data with Route Classes Assigned 10

12 Phases IV & V: Routes, Errors & Multipart Classification Big Bump in the Road Longest part of the project Main issue when collecting data from other sources is topology and margin of error standards 80,000 records had errors (27%) Error Classification Project Topology, Divided Linework, Name Errors Gaps = Correct (multi segment routes) Ongoing QA/QC Lollipop and Circle Drive Issues Dedicated team of 13 analysts working half to full time 11

13 Phases IV & V: Routes, Errors & Multipart Classification 8 Separate Small Segments Results of Phase IV Street Boulevards Topology Name Gaps Errors Multiple Gaps in Roadways a route are had given the same continuous 211 Routes name segments measures shown with that bad did not dissolve topologydue to boulevard Unknown Did segmentation not pass roads the QC check for Did single not part pass lines the QC check Does Did for not single not have pass part gaps the lines QC check Marked for single as Gaps part lines and Flagged treated Does by as not Analyst correct have gaps as Street Name Does Error not have gaps Most Flagged issues by were Analyst gaps as Third without Flagged Topology Largest errors by Error Number Analyst of as Errors Boulevard fell into this and category documented ~10% Some for Largest future routes Number dual has both carriageway of Errors gaps fell and representations into errors this (flagged category with ~60% Gap as secondary issue Second Largest Number of Errors fell into this category ~25% 12

14 Phase VI: Linework Corrections Lollipops Error: Do not dissolve into a single line Correction: merge into a single line with end point at inner point of the loop Maintenance : Lines have to be re-measured in a separate group (Open edit environment) Issue: Create routes does not work due to the intersect Future: Addressing issues Remaining issue in HPMS submission (Self intersect and zero ring warnings) Circles Error: May dissolve to single line, but measures incorrect Correction: merge into a single line with end point at inner point of the loop Maintenance : Lines have to be re-measured in a separate group (Open edit environment) Issue: Create routes does not work due to the intersect Future: Addressing will have to be addressed Remaining issue in HPMS submission (Self intersect and zero ring warnings) 13

15 Phase VI: Linework Corrections The TxDOT Data Model Data had to be edited to fit the data model Needed single part lines or multi-segment routes with gaps Editing Required Digital Ownership is assumed QA/QC Ongoing throughout phase Scripts Multipart Checks Attribute Validation 14

16 Results 69,000 Miles.. Reported to FHWA Distributed & Available Comprehensive Basemaps Topology Challenges Long Term Maintenance 15

17 Data Collection Considerations Varied Uses Extra Linework Private Roads (Documented) Mobile Home Parks Apartment Complexes Boulevard Representations (Documented) Water Routes Airport Boundaries & Runways 16

18 ARNOLD Dual Carriageway On System and Functionally Classified Roadways On going analysis and updates of state maintained highways 10 years of reconciliation Dual carriageway complete for on system Change in Off-System Data Model: RTE_ID + Roadbed Type Suffix Example: KG, LG, RG Future phase: City, County and Federal Roads Phase I Phase II Phase III Analysis of attributes Survey Cities and Counties Visual Checks 17

19 ARNOLD: The Road Ahead Future Projects FC Streets and FC County Roads Attribute based analysis for dual carriageway New Data Model Edge Matching Snap Point Agreements with Adjacent States Informed Real World Decisions Addressing HUGE challenge Third party vendor project or massive data translation 2 types of data models in one place Topology Ongoing Project Goal is a routable network with no overlaps or gaps 18

20 d17 Data Maintenance Long Term Data Sources Primary and Maintenance COGs and MPOs were the Preferred Data Collection Source Largest aggregators of local data in their region County, E District, and City Broad swath collection Cities or E Districts as the Long d18term Data Maintenance Data Source But Why.? More local knowledge Data partnerships Greater Benefit of Partnership Digital Ownership Collected linework is now maintained in TxDOT Data Model Partnerships allow for updates and new inventory Cohesive part of all data reported and maintained Digital markups 19

21 Slide 19 d17 d18 This should be the start of the "Processing Slides" "The Process" deleteme, 6/23/2014 Include the number of organizations contacted # of data sets processed # of records (Total) # of records (Processed) deleteme, 6/23/2014

22 Long Term Data Maintenance and Partnering Web Portal Web application for markup Optionally can submit data via FTP Planning and Design Permissions and Roles IT Issues Server Space and Rights ArcGIS Online vs. ArcServer Digital Ownership Explaining and Providing Proof of Benefit Data Partnerships Ongoing process of reaching out and engaging with local GIS communities 20

23 Partnering & Data Sharing Who Benefits? Determining the Value of Data Exchange TxDOT GIS City GIS Roadway linework exchanged for TxDOT Data City Limit Boundary updates Improved data quality statewide Building and Maintaining Local Partnerships Hands on Communication is key Yearly calls for data submissions Option to update at any time 21

24 Timelines & Management Local Streets (September 2012 March 2013) 18 months, Finished May 2014 Dual Carriageway (Ongoing) Post GRID Launch (September 2015) 6+ Month Group Project Edge Matching (Future) Snap Points at State Boundaries Agreements with Adjacent state DOT s Topology (Future) Current: In-House Checks Future: Database submission checks and validation rules Addressing (Future) Cities, Counties, E-911 Districts Local Partnerships & Vendors Key Recommendations (FHWA) Shared Enterprise-Wide LRS Foundation Customer/Business Requirements Change Implement Change Management Design Flexibility and Scalability Implement Education and Training Management Goals with Strict Deadlines Strong Team of Analysts Automation and Scripting 22

25 Trickle Down Effects Statewide Planning Map Improvements Basemap Enhancements Local Streets Added a greater level of detail and value to the SWPM Updated names, geometries and coverage statewide Informed Planning and Locating for TxDOT employees as well as the general public 23

26 Trickle Down Effects GRID 24

27 Trickle Down Effects Functional Class Updates FC Updates Local Streets made the process of adding FC roadway updates much more streamlines Correct names and geometry No manual digitization 25

28 Questions? Questions? 26

29 THANK YOU! Jennifer Sylvester Texas Department of Transportation (512)