Improving Management of Transportation Information (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 754 Improving Management of Transportation Information Cambridge SyStematiCS, inC. Tallahassee, FL Subscriber Categories Administration and Management • Data and Information Technology • Policy TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2013 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 754 Project 20-90 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-28339-7 Library of Congress Control Number 2013943545 © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 754 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Andrew C. Lemer, Senior Program Officer Sheila A. Moore, Program Associate Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Hilary Freer, Senior Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-90 PANEL Field of Special Projects John H. Thomas, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT (Chair) Ellen M. “Leni” Oman, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA Imad S. Aleithawe, Mississippi DOT, Jackson, MS Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Mary “Rita” Evans, University of California at Berkeley - Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley, CA William G. Johnson, Colorado DOT, Denver, CO Jane West Minotti, New York State DOT, Albany, NY Karen Nicole Perrin, Illinois DOT, Springfield, IL Dawn Vanlandingham, FHWA Liaison Robert Cullen, AASHTO Liaison Amanda J. Wilson, Research and Innovative Technology Administration Liaison Lisa Loyo, TRB Liaison Jennifer L. Weeks, TRB Liaison

NCHRP Report 754: Improving Management of Transportation Information presents (1) a selective review of current practices of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and other agencies that collect, store, and use transportation data and information and (2) guidance on strategies and actions a DOT can implement to improve information capture, preservation, search, retrieval, and governance. The guidance is intended to be sensitive to the diversity of state DOTs; the range of transportation information that DOTs use (related, for example, to project delivery, environmental review, network configuration and design detail, and operations performance); and the variety of formats for transportation information (such as text reports, photographs, plans and drawings, geo-coded databases, and financial analyses). DOT officials and other transportation professionals use information to make decisions influencing the performance of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. DOTs and other agencies expend substantial amounts of time and money to ensure that their information is current, relevant, accurate, reliable, and available to users when it is needed, in forms that facilitate effective decision making. The term “transportation information” has many embodiments: reports, manuals, maps, plans, and photographs printed on paper; electronic files and databases stored on computer networks or in machine-readable media; DOT business practices; and records and obser- vations of transportation system configuration, operations, facilities design, materials, and construction. Such information is captured, stored, and made available by functional units at DOTs, libraries, organized bibliographic databases (such as the Transport Research Inter- national Documentation or TRID service), catalogs, and increasingly the open Internet. Transportation information may be available in forms suited to immediate or on-demand use by the public—for example, current traffic conditions or motor-vehicle registrations— or stored inaccessibly in agency archives. Effective management of transportation information entails capturing the information from its various sources; organizing it in ways that facilitate its use by analysts, decisionmak- ers, and researchers; preserving it; setting policies regarding data security and who may have access; and making information findable and accessible by users. The explosive growth in capabilities to capture, store, and work with information has given rise to diverse terminol- ogies and technical approaches to information management and challenged DOTs’ capacity for change. There are no commonly accepted strategies or guidelines for a DOT’s infor- mation governance and management or the capabilities required for agencies and staff to effectively manage the agency’s transportation information across all information sources. Common problems within DOTs include uneven information access among operating F O R E W O R D By Andrew C. Lemer Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

units, incomplete and inconsistent archiving of system information collected by multiple departments and private contractors during project development, and inadvertently lost ability to find information (for example, when text files such as construction specifications are stored only as images, rather than searchable files). The objective of this research was to prepare guidance describing (1) practices DOTs can use for capture, preservation, search, retrieval, and governance of transportation data and information; and (2) strategies and actions a DOT can follow to implement current best practices for information management. A research team led by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, conducted the research. The research team reviewed current DOT policies and practices and documented the practices of several agencies that have made particular efforts to improve their management of transportation information. A set of case studies and examples was developed to present principal findings from this review. The team also investigated current thinking in informa- tion management, enterprise content management, and related fields to identify issues of particular importance for transportation information management and technology trends likely to influence future DOT information management activities. The team gave par- ticular attention to the current state of practice regarding standardization of terminology, categorization schemes for transportation information and enhancements in detail or scope of information that should be included in such schemes, and opportunities for developing a common terminology and categorization scheme that could be made available for use by all state DOTs. Drawing on this research, the team assembled a set of suggested policies, tools, and practices DOTs can use to improve their effectiveness in managing transporta- tion information. This document is written as a guide that DOT staff can use to supplement their under- standing of information management principles and to consider practices they might adapt to improve their own agency’s management of transportation information.

1 Introduction 2 Objectives 2 Use 3 Organization 4 Part 1 Terminology and Categorization Standardization 4 Types of Transportation Information That Need to be Managed 4 Maximize Information Use and Value 5 The Relationship Between Data and Content Management 6 Content 6 Structure 6 Processing 7 Linking Source Data to Published Analysis in Documents 7 Lifecycle, Workflow, Archiving 7 Metadata Standards 7 ISO 15836 (Dublin Core) 8 ISO 19115 and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) 9 Open Data and Digital Government Initiatives 9 Digital Government Strategy 10 Open Data 10 Transparency, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Third-Party Applications 11 The Semantic Web 11 RDF Schema (RDFS) Vocabulary Description Language 11 Namespaces for XML Schema Elements and Attributes 12 Namespaces for Category Values for Named Entities 13 Review of Terminology and Categorization Schemes 13 Ways to Categorize Content Collections 14 File Directory Methods 14 Metadata Description Methods 15 Relevant Transportation and Related Terminology Resources 15 Transportation-Related Glossaries 15 Transportation-Related Thesauri 17 Library of Congress Subject Headings 17 FGDC Topic Categories 18 Developing a Common Categorization Scheme for Transportation 18 Requirements 21 Reengineering the TRT 26 Community-Based Vocabulary Management Model C O N T E N T S

28 Practices from Other Fields 28 Enterprise Content Management (ECM) 29 Records Management 31 Document Management 32 Information Science 36 Taxonomy Management Tools 38 Conclusions 39 Part 2 Studies of Leading Practices 39 Survey 40 Follow-Up Interviews with Survey Participants 40 Assessment of DOT Practices 44 Case Studies and Other Examples 48 Case Study: California DOT (Caltrans) 57 Case Study: Illinois DOT (IDOT) 61 Case Study: Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) 67 Case Study: Mississippi DOT (MDOT) 74 Case Study: Virginia DOT (VDOT) 81 Case Study: Washington State DOT (WSDOT) 92 Example: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 95 Example: Arizona DOT (AZDOT) 97 Example: Colorado DOT (CDOT) 98 Example: Georgia DOT (GDOT) 99 Example: Iowa DOT 100 Example: Kansas DOT (KDOT) 101 Example: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) 102 Example: Maine DOT 103 Example: Nevada DOT (NDOT) 103 Example: New York State DOT (NYSDOT) 105 Example: North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) 106 Example: Ohio DOT (ODOT) 107 Example: Utah DOT (UDOT) 110 Example: Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) 111 Example: FHWA 112 Example: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 112 Example: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 113 Use of the Cloud 116 Example: Delaware 116 Example: Michigan 117 Example: Utah 118 Conclusions 119 Part 3 Making Improvements in DOT Transportation- Information Management Practices 119 Improving Information Management in a Transportation Agency 120 Types of Information 121 Information Management Processes at DOTs 123 Stakeholder Roles in the Information Management Process

123 General Approaches to Improving Information Management 125 Approaches Tied to Functions of the Information Management Process 125 Capture 127 Administer 131 Retrieve 132 Glossary, Terms, Abbreviations Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.