1. Feasibility Study of Integrating WVDOT LRS Centerline With Statewide Addressing And Mapping Data

2. Sang Yoo Nick J. Rahall Appalachian Transportation Institute, Marshall University Kevin Kuhn West Virginia GIS Technical Center, West Virginia University

3. Introduction Review technical issues regarding the feasibility of road network integration which incorporates linear referencing, addressing, and routing Objectives – Review and assess current DOT data – Review Statewide Addressing and Mapping Board Addressing and Centerline data – Identify and review existing transportation models – Identify DOT data needs – Identify requirements for data integration

4. Linear Referencing System Single Enterprise LRS Mainframe is used to manage LRS control files - Road Inventory Log (RIL) Principal LRM - Route/MilePoint

5. Linear Referencing System Extent of Roadways – Interstate, US Routes, State Routes, County routes Ramps not included Divided Highways – Single record Historical data – single snapshot at the end of year

6. RIL Data Process From WVDOT Strategic GIS Implementation Plan

7. RIL Improvement Project RDBMS (MSSQL) Replace old mainframe system Ramp, intersection, divided highway, etc LRS update/change tracking

9. GIS Implementation GIS software - ESRI GIS based map (90%) - Interstate, US, State, County routes, Federal Aid Non-State, State Park and Forest Roads, others Source - Roadware GPS points & lines, SAMB centerlines Scale – 1: 4800 RIL, SLD, Aerial Imagery

10. GIS Implementation Not segmented (no calibration yet) Interstate and US route have dual geometries M value Linear Referencing currently being used in the GIS – Data display/mapping – Database query – Determination of linear measures (only as reference)

11. Data Model NCHRP 20-27 GIS-T Enterprise NSDI Framework Transportation UNETRAN Revised/Improved UNETRAN

12. Revised UNETRAN From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

13. Highway Inventory Conceptual Data Model From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

14. Conceptual Model for Intersections From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

15. Transport Network Classes From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

17. Table From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

18. From J. Allison Butler, “Designing Geodatabase for Transportation”, ESRI 2008

19. Revised UNETRAN Restructure the class packages to four (Inventory, Network, Events, Mobile Objects) ESRI Network Dataset Edit & Publish Geodatabase Event for Everyone

20. SAMB Data Statewide Mapping Project – Photogrammetrically Collected 2003 – Scale 1:4,800 – Seamless statewide*, All roads/trails/driveways – Physical Intersection segmentation – Topologically enforced – Limited attributes

21. SAMB Data Source West Virginia Department of Homeland Security and Military Affairs Maintained in Oracle Database – Serves as County E911 and Addressing Data – Voluntary Cooperation Continuously Updated at County Level – Via Online Custom Oracle web interface (or) – Submitted in bulk

22. Integrated Road Network Pilot Develop sample road network: Results in an enhanced LRS data model that incorporates additional data and functionality. – Shares Geometry (WVDOH & SAM) – Linear Referencing – Addressing – Routing capabilities

23. Integrated Road Network Pilot - Approach Integration Process – Identify Technical Issues From SAM to DOH From DOH to SAM – Identify non-technical Issues High Level Cooperation of SAM and WV DOH Permit Long-term Data Sharing and Development Answer Question: “Which asphalt supplier is closer to the jobsite?”

24. Road Network Pilot- Why Kanawha County? Variety of Features – Interstates – US Routes – County Routes – Charleston (Local) roads Addressed SAM Data Well Known

25. WVDOH Interstate Routes

26. WVDOH US Routes

27. WVDOH All Routes

28. WVDOH All Routes and SAM Roads

29. Integrated Road Network Pilot Data Structure Analysis – SAM 911 Centerline Attributed with Route ID – Segmentation Physical Intersections Not political boundary – No segment at City/County ownership

30. Integrated Road Network Pilot Routing Capabilities – Destination / Origin – Addressing Data Source – Service Area District Maintenance Facilities Road Materials Supply Facilities Snow Maintenance

31. Integrated Road Network Pilot Linear Referencing – Simple select-assign Route ID – Rebuild single segment routes – Create a repeatable process Route Calibration Points

32. Conflation Issues (the good) – SAM Data enforced topology – Comprehensive Street Coverage – Street Name ID / Name – Address Range by segment Integrated Road Network Pilot

33. Conflation Issues (the bad) – Temporal Currency Inconsistent by County/Feature – Assign all DOH Street Segments Route ID Alt - Create Crosslink table (Street ID – Route ID) – Segment Political Boundaries Addressing Range Data Integrated Road Network Pilot

34. Conflation Issues (the ugly) – County Edge match Need for accurate county boundary Re-address at county split segments – Segment Political Boundaries Split at Addressing Range Data Integrated Road Network Pilot

35. WVDOH Routes, Putnam SAM, Kanawha SAM

36. Lessons Learned – SAM Data is feasible to use for WVDOH (With Work!) County Edge match – Street ID (SAM) to Roadway ID (LRMP) Provides DOH Table access to SAM geometry – Segment Political Boundaries Addressing Range Data Integrated Road Network Pilot

37. Integrated Road Network Preliminary Conclusions SAM data Feasible to Use – Data Structure Geometry: Needs Edits, edge matching, segmentation Attributes: Utilizes SAM Street ID – Routing (Pathfinding) Capabilities Address Geocoding Routing – Major edits needed for routing

38. Integrated Road Network Preliminary Conclusions Documentation is Critical Business Rules and Procedures Long-term Strategic Plan Needs Analysis GIS Integration Plan at Department Level Based on User Requirements and Additional GIS Capabilities

39. High Level Stakeholders Dialogue – WV DOH, WV DMAPS, WV GIS, Counties Cost-Benefit of Single Statewide Road Data Costs Savings ? Applications Access and Use Pilot Study of District-wide Integration – Feedback to SAM system? – Cross County Next Steps

40. Thank You! Questions or Suggestions?