Sharing Data: Issues and Opportunities Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting January 22, 2006 Leni Oman Director of Transportation Research Washington State Department of Transportation

Lessons from the Environmental Spatial Information for Transportation: A Peer Exchange on Partnerships  Hosted by Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board  Held June 23 and 24, 2003  Washington, Florida, Texas, and Virginia participated  FHWA and TRB recognized the move towards enterprise data ware house architectures and geographic information systems solutions to meet transportation decision making needs.  Peer Exchange focused on understanding the organizational, technical and resources issues in environmental data stewardship.  Report available on TRB’s web site by the title above.

Challenges Identified  Institutional barriers exist within and between organizations  Data is not funded for maintenance and so is not current  Data issues are not recognized as a standard task and so get addressed sporadically  Organizations need to focus on information needed across organizations not inventories of data  Data need to be tied more directly to business needs  Organizations need to get better at communicating the successes and benefits of data coordination in terms that users and budget managers understand  It is challenging to find content providers, data users and information technology specialists that share enough common understanding to develop systems and applications  Organizations need metrics to measure improvements  Federal standards only address a limited amount of business needs  Partnerships are taking place at the staff level rather than institutional level  Funding is unpredictable and limited

The Participating States  Large number of environmental spatial data providers in each state.  Data providers and others use the data  There are varied environmental data needs and applications vary bases on this need.  A limited amount of data is shared over the Internet.  Collection, management and distribution of environmental data are disseminated throughout agencies.  Each state has some form of a coordinating body but the focus varies.  Projections and datum vary within a state and across the nation.  Data confidentiality and security are issues: species subject to collection, landowner request for confidentiality, data providers request for confidentiality. Data is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.  There are no specific ways to avoid rogue data collection. Education and awareness were proposed as the best tools. Texas does require state review for projects over $100,000.  Funding for data collection, management and dissemination is dispersed throughout agencies. Some states noted the lack of funding, particularly in agencies managing natural resource information.

Keys to success  Three of the four states that managed cooperative projects were successful, in part, because of significant investment by the state  Three of the four states felt their success was linked to an interagency network  Where there has been rapid success, there has been a vocal champion  The key is to have enough data and the right data to make decisions.

Actions that promote successful data coordination  Clear goals  Awareness and support by senior management  Adequate, predictable funding  A champion or project advocate  Early and continual involvement by involved agencies  Use of existing systems, models, tools, as much as possible  Mid-term results that can be shared  Project benefits stated in user terms  Planned dissemination of the product  Data confidentiality needs addressed early  Frequent communication  Work conducted in the spirit of cooperation  Dissemination is considered at the beginning

VIRGINIA Improving availability of data over the internet Time savings from GIS in many areas

WASHINGTON The Natural Resources Information Portal is up and running The Environmental GIS workbench continues to be used and augmented The Framework project continues

I-69 TEXAS IH-69 data has been improved and servers upgraded The concept has been extended to planning for I-35

FLORIDA FDOT has implemented an Internet- accessible interactive database tool called the Environmental Screening Tool

Next steps identified  Information on various models for collaboration.  Better understanding what the right data to collect is.  Early involvement in defining data needs  Better understanding each others’ business and needs for data.  Incentives in legislation to promote coordination but not to legislate the use of GIS  Coordination amongst federal agencies on data in order to better support federal level environmental regulations and to identify national data sets that aren’t available but are critical to decisions. Develop a common vision of how we’re going to build on existing data and applications.  Champions that will market the needs and the successes and people in leadership positions that advocate for good data and good data coordination.

What do we want? A more collaborative approach to environmental data issues that support transportation decisions Mutual benefits Sharing of information and resources Alignment of priorities Information available that supports the task at hand At scales relevant to environmental protection and regulatory decisions At the location needed At the time of need Through easy access

Environmental Geospatial Information for Transportation First planning meeting November 2005 Will build on the work of the 2003 peer exchange Will include a second peer exchange focused in a region of the country Will document examples of Environmental GIS use in transportation applications and promote broad distribution of the information Work will be completed by September 30, 2006.

Transportation Knowledge Networks A Management Strategy for the 21 st Century Scope of study considered all forms of information: narrative, tabular and spatial Customers are expecting information at the time needed, at the specific point of reference, in the format needed Release of Study Report: TRB Annual Meeting 2:30 pm, January 25 th, Hilton Cabinet Room

There have been no dragons in my life, only small spiders and stepping in gum. I could have coped with the dragons. Anonymous Contractual relationshipsSecurity Common standardsEvolving technology Priorities amongst partnersTechnical specialties Funding Timing of fund availability Common understandingCommon vision

Why partner anyway?  Data is costly. Sharing helps avoid duplication and improves consistency in decision making  Benefits of sharing data include: cost savings, time savings, improved communication and common understanding, reducing the need to collect the same data twice and improved data quality. Transportation does have something to offer  Available transportation data is useful but not well known.  Transportation project data is a source of new data but is only routinely captured in a limited number of cases. There is more data available through this source.