using gis to improve project delivery outcomes · agencies are using geospatial tools to improve...
TRANSCRIPT
Using GIS to Improve Project Delivery Outcomes
Brian Gardner Systems & Analysis Team
FHWA Office of Planning
GIS & NEPA
Both evolving for decades Concerted effort to reduce project
delivery times Intersection of process and technology ◦ Process streamlining ◦ Collaborative GIS
Benefits and lessons of recent applications
Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects
3
The Eco-Logical Approach A multi-step process that: ◦ Increases Predictability ◦ Promotes Connectivity ◦ Improves Conservation ◦ Provides Transparency
Collaboration and Integration Collaboration: Agencies agree to work together
Identify data that group will use
Agree how to handle other data needs
Integration: Resource data groups are combined
Transportation data overlain
Assess effects: Identify areas of concern/opportunity
AASHTO Innovation Initiative State DOTs Participating in UPlan
Image courtesy AASHTO
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts
Geospatial Data Collaboration
Bridging between organizations to improve working relationships
Facilitating data sharing among process participants
Improving communications and information flow within the environmental process
Collaborative GIS
DOT
Resource Agencies
Other Stakeholders
FHWA
Map image courtesy UT DOT
Benefits Organizational efficiency ◦ Improve focus of IT and planning staff resources ◦ Additional IT options for implementation ◦ Help manage engagement of all parties in the
environmental process Process efficiency ◦ Reduce time required for data assembly and
management ◦ Automate repetitive analyses and transactions ◦ Improve relevance, quality, and timeliness of
decision-support documents
Florida’s EST
Map image courtesy FDOT
Utah’s UPlan
Map image courtesy UT DOT
Synthesis of State Efforts
Screening Tools Data Libraries Multi-Agency
Decision Support Systems
Graphics courtesy SCDOT
Synthesis of State Practices How State DOTs and other transportation
agencies are using geospatial tools to improve project delivery ◦ collecting geospatial data, ◦ integrating or consolidating geospatial data into a
common framework, ◦ developing standards and common formats for
these data, accessing them, and ◦ using these data to communicate better with
stakeholders.
Geospatial Tools Case Studies
Agreements Some formal arrangements ◦ MOA, PA, OA ◦ Data flows and access ◦ Operational responsibilities
Mostly informal arrangements ◦ How and when to share data ◦ How a given tool will be used in the process
Frequent common broker ◦ Designated state agency responsible for
maintaining all authoritative data
Types of Tools
Static Data Repositories Interactive Gateways ◦ Viewers ◦ Screening Tools ◦ Web Portals
Common Gateway Features
Federated web services Mapping functionality Contribute and modify information Layered access control
Benefits of Repositories and Gateways Improved communications Increased efficiencies Improved data quality Streamlined project screening and
development Improved strategic decision-making
Challenges of Repositories and Gateways
Standardizing data Sharing sensitive data Maintaining data Adapting to change Identifying opportunities
SHRP2: Eco-Plan
Starts with SHRP2 C40
2011 TRB workshop sought recommendations SHRP2 could take to ◦ overcome barriers to implementing Eco-Logical and ◦ “reduce the transaction costs. ◦ Addressing the data and analysis issues was the number
one recommendation. Result was a project to integrate national-level environmental
resources with locally–available data, with three proof of concept pilots:
SHRP2 C40A Scope ◦ Build a national-level GIS tool to provide the data and analysis ◦ Support Eco-Logical and Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) ◦ Focus on novice users with little in-house GIS resources ◦ Leverage Federal web services to provide up-to-date data ◦ Pre-NEPA ecological screening
Process ◦ Form several groups to provide design input and testing feedback C40Bs, User Group, Technical Expert Task Group, Beta Testers
◦ Gathered and documented needs ◦ Developed a vision ◦ Designed the architecture ◦ Tested and updated based on feedback
Eco-Plan Vision
Primary users are state and MPO planners
Provide Federal data sets
Allow upload of local data
Not a replacement of existing tools
Support the IEF
Only for pre-NEPA screening
Architecture - Data
Maps
Gallery of themes maps and data services
Add Other Data From Web
Search for authoritative data sets identified by Eco-Plan
Add data sets from ArcGIS Online or the Web
Customize Maps
Find and copy existing theme maps for customization
Show/hide data layers
Ecological Screening Provide a simple
ecological screening tool based on the user’s shape
Prototype functionality limited to – Several states – Only critical
habitat, wetlands, and protected areas data
Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Wetlands
Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Critical Habitat and Species
EDC II – Geospatial Data Collaboration Brian Gardner FHWA Office of
Planning [email protected] 202-366-4061
Mark Sarmiento FHWA Office of Planning [email protected] 202-366-4828
Ben Williams FHWA Resource Center [email protected] 404-562-3671
Who can you contact?
SHRP II – Eco-Logical Shari Schaflein FHWA Office of Human
Environment [email protected] 202-366-5570
Marlys Osterhues FHWA Office of Project Delivery & Environmental Review [email protected], 202-366-2052
Brian Yanchik FHWA Resource Center 443-522-9446
Who can you contact?