A Federal Highway Vision

1
A Federal Highway Vision NSGIC Mid-Year Annapolis,
Maryland Tom Roff February 23, 2009
2
HPMS Background

• Highway Performance Monitoring System
• Database and application that manages Highway
  data
• Annual submittal of 98 attributes regarding the
  extent, condition, and performance of the
  nations roads
• This data is submitted to the FHWA by State DOTs
• Used primarily to establish apportionment of
  Highway Funds back to the States

3
The Database Itself

• Has a core set of section data that is broken
  into road segments defined by start and end mile
  points
• Each attribute is broken by the segment
• In other words, Each segment is its own feature
  and contains all 98 attributes

4
In the Transportation world

• This is terribly in efficient

5
HPMS Reassessment

• In 2005, FHWA began a Reassessment of HPMS
• We looked at whether the data collected still met
  the needs of the customers
• We looked at the structure of the data itself
• Ill focus on the latter

6
Some Philosophy

• HPMS does not drive requirements.
• Customers do.

7

• There is no such thing as HPMS Data
• There is data that is used in the HPMS program

8

• HPMS should not ask for information that we
  already know

9

• HPMS should not ask for data where features do
  not exist

10

• The Structure of the HPMS Database and
  Application are not set in stone

11

• Modification to one data element should not
  affect other elements.

12
Some Truths

• The man with one watch always knows what time it
  is, the man with two is never sure.
• George Carlin

13

• There are two kinds of people, those who own data
  and those who want to standardize it.

14
HPMS Reassessment

• With Guidelines in hand, we set out to redefine
  HPMS and the data model that would store it
• A spatial solution was evident

15
The New Model

• The core of the Section data will be stored in 11
  fields in and event driven system
• Year
• State
• Route_ID
• Begin Point
• End Point
• Data Item
• Value_Numeric
• Value_Text
• Value_Date
• Section_Length

16
Data Model

• The Data Item field while establish the record
  type (AADT, IRI, Functional Classification)
• The Value fields contain the actual data

17
What We Gain

• This approach achieves total independence of each
  data item. Completely Normalized
• Only requires data where those features exist
• Creates a system that is flexible. If another
  element is require in the future, just add
  another Data Item

18
Relies on a robust Spatial Component

• The attributes will be related to each other
  through a Linear Reference System
• Since the attributes come from State DOTs, The
  spatial networks should come from them as well.

19
The Spatial Component

• We are building a Network as the authority for
  Federal Highway Data reporting.
• This Network is based on linework and the LRS
  that is native to the State DOT

20
Format for the Routes

• One File for each State
• Format
• Shapefile
• Well Known Text (WKT), Well Known Binary(WBT)
• GML
• Other formats
• 2D Geometry (X,Y,M) - Measured Route

21
Routes Format

• Every package can produce a shapefile.
• Requires some sort of field mapping routine.
• Open Source Compliance
• GML, WKT, WKB
• It is something that will require further
  discussion

22
Extent

• All Federal Aid
• Our Definition of this is
• Principal Arterial
• Minor Arterial
• Urban Collector
• Rural Major Collector
• Plus anything else that is on the National
  Highway System
• Ramps associated with Grade Separated Interchanges

23
Resolution

• No required scale. All states have at least a
  resolution better than 1100,000

24
Datum, Projection, and Units

• Datum NAD83
• Projection None (Lat/Long)
• Units Decimal Degrees
• Measures (Ms) Miles

25
Carriageway

• Either Centerline or Dual
• HPMS Data should be referenced to a Unique
  Route_ID on the Route_Shapes
• There may be other Routes that do not carry HPMS
  records

26
Fields

• Year_Record
• State_Code
• Route_ID
• Shape

27
Route_ID

• Up to 32 variable characters
• There is no need to zero pad the Route_ID
• Unique within the State

28
As of Yet

• All Attempts at naming this animal have failed
  miserably.

29
Something think about

• Transportation customers (Emergency Response,
  Commuters, Census) care about what is at each end
  of a Highway. The linkage is secondary to their
  mission.
• The stewards of the Transportation System (DOTs)
  thinking is reversed.

30
Transportation Data

• Although the goal is to flow people and goods in
  the most efficient manner, we concern ourselves
  more with experience while on the facility.
• Ride Quality
• Congestion
• Safety
• While reducing costs and ill effects on the
  environment

31
The Question for TFTN?

• Which group is The Transportation For the Nation
  effort for and can the two coexist on one
  National Network?

32
Contact

• Tom Roff
• HPMS Database Applications
• Federal Highway Administration
• 202-366-5035
• Thomas.roff_at_dot.gov