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.
Research Results Digest 310 December 2006 INTRODUCTION Right-of-way (ROW) issues commonly cause project delay and increased costs. While many state transportation agencies use technology such as computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) to draft ROW plans, the approved final plans are often manually recorded and filed on paper or mylar. Posting and storing such data by hand is obsolete, inefficient, and unresponsive to the demands of modern project manage- ment, encumbering multiple users from conveniently accessing real-time ROW in- formation and resulting in undue delay and cost overruns. Moreover, paper and mylar records are more vulnerable to damage or destruction in the event of fire, flooding, or other catastrophic events. Manually recorded ROW information includes agency ownership, appraisal in- formation, acquisition status, and property management functions that are important for addressing real estate issues, utilities, environmental permitting and mitigation, access management, maintenance, and pro- gramming. Electronic management of this information improves the coordination and consistency of data, leading to reduced proj- ect delivery delays caused by ROW acquisi- tion. In addition, the ability to retrieve these data electronically provides fast, convenient, and consistent access to all users, reducing the time and expense needed to ship docu- ments, eliminating repetitive entries, min- imizing data entry errors caused by multi- ple formats, and ultimately saving money for transportation agencies. Electronic manage- ment of real estate information could im- prove coordination with local jurisdictions and provide appropriate data to the public on agency ownership of property. The automation of ROW functions and development of data-integration models using existing technology, including geo- spatial applications (generally referred to as geographic information systems or GIS), are needed to enable multiple users to access the ROW information quickly and easily. Identifying the data elements needed to support the automation of ROW func- tions is the first step in the development of fully operational systems that integrate geo- spatial technologies into the ROW process. The objectives of the research carried out in NCHRP Project 8-55 were to (1) identify the data elements that need to be included in a data model for a ROW information system that includes a geospatial component and (2) provide examples, if possible, of return on investment when geospatial capabilities are added to such systems. INTEGRATING GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGIES INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DATA-MANAGEMENT PROCESS This digest presents the key findings from NCHRP Project 8-55, âIntegrating Geospatial Technologies into the Right-of-Way Data-Management Process,â conducted by Kathleen L. Hancock, Center for Geospatial Information Tech- nology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alexandria, Virginia. Subject Area: IA Planning and Administration Responsible Senior Program Officer: Edward T. Harrigan NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
This digest describes first steps in automating the information technology process required for ROW acquisition and management. It will be of particular interest to those persons in state departments of trans- portation responsible for highway project planning and ROW management. Contents of the Report This digest is organized into three sections. The first section describes the research findings. The sec- ond section discusses the complexities involved in ROW activities that affect implementation of infor- mation management systems, how geospatial tech- nologies are currently being used within state ROW agencies, and some considerations for incorporating geospatial technologies and information manage- ment systems within an agency. The third and final section presents the conclusions of the research. The complete final report includes six appendixes. Appendix A provides the results of the literature re- view through an annotated bibliography. Six case studies demonstrating return on investment are pre- sented in Appendix B. The data elements that are needed for a ROW information system are given in Appendix C. Appendix D provides the surveys used to collect information for this project, and Appendix E gives the results of these surveys. A summary of ser- vices related to information systems by vendors that attended the 2005 AASHTO/FHWA Right-of-Way and Utilities Subcommittee Conference is given in Appendix F. These appendixes are available in their entirety as NCHRP Web-Only Document 95. FINDINGS Literature Review An initial literature review was performed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of past and ongoing efforts involving the application of GIS in ROW-related projects (Saka, 2004). The literature review for this project built on that work, incorporating additional information and providing an annotated component to produce a comprehen- sive bibliography. Annotated information includes the citation to the document, web page, or other re- source followed by a brief descriptive and evalua- tive paragraph. In addition, key factors were noted about each source as listed in Table 1. The purpose of this annotation is to quickly inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the source and to identify specific information, as shown in Table 1, that is included in that document. In addition to GIS applications for highway ROW activities and land management systems, representa- tive documents and related sources that present use of other technologies for ROW activities such as web- based services and enterprise database systems, ROW systems for utilities and communications infrastruc- ture, and innovative uses of GIS in other transporta- tion activities such as environmental streamlining and transportation planning were included as they were identified. To improve the readerâs ability to locate docu- ments related to specific interests or needs, âcross- walksâ* were established for each of the factors listed in Table 1. In the crosswalks under each factor, all documents that included that factor are listed alpha- betically by title. The list of references, the annotated bibliography, and the crosswalks are provided in Appendix A. Case Studies The purpose of the case studies was to provide tan- gible and easily understandable information for trans- 2 Table 1 Key factors used to annotate the literature review Annotation Factors Category of ROW functions addressed by document -Planning & Management -Engineering & Mapping -Property Acquisition -Property Appraisal -Relocation Assistance -Property/Asset Management -Utility Relocation Management -Outdoor Advertising Type of article/study Type of innovative system Survey results included or not Benefit/cost information included or not Lessons learned included or not Data elements included or not Contact information included or not *Crosswalks are cross references between the items used for annotation and the list of references. For example, a reader look- ing just for survey results could look for that in the crosswalk, and under it would be listed all the documents that include sur- vey results. The reader would then look in the list of references to get the full citation.
portation professionals in public agencies at the state or local level to use in support of implementing vari- ous levels and types of geospatial information tech- nologies and/or innovative information management systems for ROW and related activities. Identifying Systems to Be Included A short screening survey, provided in Appendix D, was distributed to the attendees of the Right-of- Way Directorsâ meeting at the AASHTO/FHWA Right-of-Way and Utilities Subcommittee Confer- ence in Austin, Texas, on May 16, 2005, to identify potential states that were currently using some type of GIS system. Thirty-five states and Puerto Rico re- sponded. A summary of the responses is provided in Table E-1 in Appendix E. From the screening survey, states that indicated the use of geospatial technologies were sent a more detailed survey, also provided in Appendix D. In ad- dition, other states that were identified in the litera- ture, suggested by panel members, or referenced by already-participating states as using geospatial tech- nologies were also sent the detailed survey. The goal of this survey was to obtain more detailed informa- tion on each of the possible systems to determine the following: 1. Whether the system is actually being used in practice, 2. The extent of the activity and whether geo- spatial technologies or innovative informa- tion management and data integration are ac- tually part of an operable system, 3. Whether information is readily available for determining some measure of return on investment, 4. Whether the systems selected represent a va- riety of applications related to ROW func- tions, and 5. Whether the systems represent the breadth and complexity of technical tools currently in use. Twenty-six surveys were distributed, with 24 states ultimately responding. Table 2 provides a summary 3 Table 2 Summary of states receiving detailed survey GIS in Innovative Data Case Study State Agency ROW Integration Candidate AZ Arizona Department of Transportation YES NO Low CA California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) YES YES Possible DE Delaware Department of Transportation YES YES Strong FL Florida Department of Transportation YES YES Strong GA Georgia Department of Transportation YES YES Low HI Hawaii Department of Transportation NO NO Low IA Iowa Department of Transportation YES NO Possible KS Kansas Department of Transportation YES NO Low LA Louisiana Department of Transportation NO YES Low MA Massachusetts Highways Department YES NO Possible MD Maryland State Highway Administration YES n/a Strong MI Michigan Department of Transportation Real Estate Office YES n/a Low MN Minnesota Department of Transportation YES YES Strong MO Missouri Department of Transportation n/a n/a No response MS Mississippi Department of Transportation YES YES Possible NC North Carolina Department of Transportation n/a YES Low NJ New Jersey Department of Transportation NO NO Possible NM New Mexico Department of Transportation YES n/a Strong NV Nevada Department of Transportation n/a n/a No response NY New York State Department of Transportation YES NO Possible OH Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Real Estate YES n/a Strong OK Oklahoma Department of Transportation YES n/a Strong SC South Carolina Department of Transportation YES NO Low TX Texas Department of Transportation YES YES Strong VA Virginia Department of Transportation NO YES Strong WI Wisconsin Department of Transportation NO YES Low
4of each stateâs indication of use of GIS or innovative data integration. Of the 24 responses, 18 indicated use of GIS. Detailed summary tables of the addi- tional information from the survey are provided in Appendix E. When selecting systems for the case studies, the decision was made to exclude systems focusing on planning activities because several case studies al- ready exist for this activity (see annotated bibliog- raphy). Florida was also excluded because the GIS in ROW Scan (performed by FHWA in 2004) pro- vides detailed descriptions and presentations of the systems it uses (FHWA, 2004). Based on survey results and follow-up discussions with states, only a very few have an operational ROW information management system that incorporates geospatial technology for one or more business activ- ities. Although many states have strategic plans that include incorporating GIS capabilities into an enter- prise ROW system, none currently have one in opera- tion. Therefore, the case study selection was expanded to include consideration of innovative enterprise in- formation management systems. Ultimately, six sys- tems were selected for case study development. Summary of Case Studies The final case studies include two enterprise infor- mation management systems not geospatially enabled, two geospatial applications, one use of GIS to gener- ate routine information, and one project-based use of a geospatially enabled information management sys- tem. One of the enterprise information management systems was modified by another state, and a sup- plemental section to that case study was developed to present their experience with the process. Case study information is summarized in Table 3. Case Study Format The purpose of the case studies was to provide in- formation to ROW professionals about current infor- mation systems that either provide them with a sys- tem they could use or with information they can offer to decision makers in support of the implementation of a system. Therefore, the format was developed to inform readers about the activity/activities that are supported by the system and about the environment that the system is used in, specifically the general structure of the transportation agency, how the ROW agency fits into that structure, and what role an in- formation technology office played in the imple- mentation of the system. Then the technical specifics of the system are provided. Table 4 gives the general format. However, this was adjusted as necessary depending on the system and how it is used. Issues Associated with Return on Investment As anticipated, obtaining quantitative measures of return on investment for incorporating GIS and in- formation management systems into ROW processes is difficult, if not impossible, particularly after the systems have been implemented. Generally, the cost of hardware and software is readily available. Also, the cost of developing software applications is usu- ally obtainable. However, costs associated with gen- erating and/or converting data to the new system and maintaining that information are not readily avail- able. Neither are specific values in dollars or labor associated with the savings that these systems gen- erate. Qualitatively, most states have been able to describe what use of the system has achieved in gen- eral terms, but only Pennsylvania provided specific overall savings related to their performance mea- sure. In part, this is a function of the fact that imple- mentation of information management systems does not have an end date while the systems are being used. Another factor is that many of the savings are mea- sured in reduced redundancy and errors that tradi- tionally are not tracked in normal business practices. Return on investment, for these case studies, was de- fined in the terms provided by the managers and users of the systems, not in a benefit-cost type of analysis. Benefits Although specific return on investment was dif- ficult to quantify, a number of benefits were identi- fied and are summarized in this section. In general, benefits included the following: ⢠Reduced staffing and/or improved staff effi- ciency; ⢠Improved scheduling; ⢠Improved access to information both internally and by the public; ⢠Improved customer service/relations; ⢠Improved documentation and reporting uni- formity; ⢠Reduced time to perform specific tasks; ⢠Increased management flexibility; ⢠Reduced redundancy, primarily in data/ information entry; and ⢠Improved oversight capabilities.
In Illinois, a single person is able to oversee the ROW activities associated with a multimillion dol- lar airport project. Without the use of the informa- tion management system, this would be impossible. Because the system is web based, this person has desktop access to near real-time information about the project and can quickly generate the summary re- ports necessary for effective project management. The public has access to a limited amount of infor- mation related to the project, which improves rela- tions and reduces the number of interactions required between citizens and transportation staff. The use of a single application within Mary- landâs Office of Real Estate has allowed them to cut their research staff in half because researchers have desktop access to parcel information without having to physically go to the courthouse, locate the appropriate parcels, and manually extract the necessary information. Use of this system has improved employee efficiency, reduced the time needed to perform this function, and provided bet- ter quality data. New Mexico uses a GIS-based template to gen- erate a summary document of excess property for sale to the public. They have realized a substantial reduction in the amount of time required to provide this information to the public via the web. What once took several hours to prepare is now generated in several minutes and almost immediately posted to the web. Because the document includes a map with an image background in addition to standard sale in- formation, questions from the public have been dra- matically reduced. Pennsylvania established performance measures when they began implementation of their information management system. Based on the internal tracking of the costs associated with ROW activities, they have reduced annual operating costs by $679,000 resulting in a return on investment of 21%. They have also re- alized improved product delivery, reduced payment Table 3 Summary of case studies State System Type Description Illinois Aeronautical Land Acquisition Project using geospatially Geospatially enabled System (ALAS) enabled information information management management system system used for a state airport project. Maryland MdProperty View Geospatially enabled system Geospatially enabled tool to view and access parcel information. New Mexico Non-Right-of-Way (NRW) Use of GIS to perform Use of standard GIS and GIS Parcel & Improvement routine business activity templates to generate Inventory information page of excess parcels for public sale Pennsylvania PennDOT ROW Application Enterprise Information Vendor-based enterprise Management System information management system (no GIS) Texas San Antonio ROW Application Geospatially enabled system Web-based geospatially enabled tool to access and view final ROW maps using point and click location Virginia ROW and Utilities Manage- Enterprise Information Internally developed enterprise ment System (RUMS) Management System information management system (no GIS) Minnesota ROW Electronic Acquisition Purchased RUMS from Modified information (supplement) Land Management System Virginia and modified management system (GIS to (REALMS) be incorporated in Phase 2) 5
processing time, reduced data entry, reduced secu- rity access management, and improved uniformity in reporting and documentation. Electronic access to project drawings in Texas has increased employee efficiency by eliminating the manual locating and reviewing of large drawing sets. The geospatial interface allows staff to obtain infor- mation by clicking on the desired section of road on a street network as opposed to looking up the project number and then extracting the appropriate drawings. Virginia measures the benefits that it has realized from its information management system through improved schedule commitments, reduced staffing costs, and increased productivity. Electronic access to information has improved public relations because any staff member can respond to a query through the ability to access the complete customer file. DATA REQUIREMENTS Several hundredâpotentially several thousandâ data elements are part of an enterprise ROW informa- tion management system depending on how the enter- prise is defined. Agencies need an understanding of these data requirements and potential sources for obtaining, collecting, or accessing these data. To en- sure that the results of this research present a clear and comprehensive understanding of data requirements 6 Table 4 General case study format Heading Purpose Cover Page One-page âbrochureâ of summary and benefits with a statement about return on investment Case Study Objective Description of why this system is unique and was included as a case study System Overview Brief description of the system to let readers know whether they should continue to read this case study Agency Overview Provides the organizational context in which this system was developed and is Organization used including a brief description of the transportation agency, how the ROW Information Technology agency fits into the organization, and what role, if any, an information Support technology office played in the system development/management. System Description More detailed description of the system including any formal development/ Background acquisition procedures that were followed. Screen captures of the system Development are provided here if available. System Goals System Requirements Activities Managed User Interface Technologies Used Geospatial Data Extensions and Future Plans Estimated Cost of System Any cost information that the agency could and was willing to provide is included. System Benefits Qualitative information about benefits that the agency has recognized with the implementation of this system is provided. None of the agencies were able to provide quantitative benefits in terms of dollars. Lessons Learned Lessons that the agency learned during the process of developing the system or in current use are included. Any comments that the representative wanted to pass on to others are also provided. References Any documents or web pages that were used to develop the case study are listed. Consultants and software vendors involved in the system are also included. Contacts The agency contact for the system, case study sponsoring agency (NCHRP), and consultant developing the case studies are provided.
and to provide the foundation for the next step of building an interoperable enterprise system, the extent of the enterprise was established, process activities were identified within ROW process flows, and data elements were associated with those activities. For this phase, no work was performed to iden- tify elements and flows across the enterprise bound- ary or to identify elements that are common to dif- ferent activities or that cross activity boundaries, with the exception of unique parcel and project identifiers. Also, when viewing process flows, the order of ac- tivities should not be implied by the order in which activities are placed in the flow. The arrows and con- necting lines are only used to show a connection be- tween these activities. Different agencies perform these activities in different ways and with different priorities based on their own business needs. Defining the ROW Enterprise Ultimately, the definition of the enterprise for an information system is determined by the needs of the specific agency that is implementing the system. Because every state defines their ROW office and its activities differently, a single uniform system is im- possible to establish. However, a core of ROW func- tions is common to almost all ROW agencies. These functions include appraisal, acquisition, relocation, and property/asset management. For the purposes of this study, the activities associated with these func- tions were considered to be within the enterprise. Although often part of ROW activities, the follow- ing functions were not included: comprehensive and project planning, construction, ROW engineering and mapping, utility relocation and management, corridor management, and outdoor advertising. Developing Process Flows and Identifying Process Activities To provide a more useable format than having a single comprehensive (and continuous) table of data elements, a decision was made to create a series of tables of elements associated with tightly coupled activities in the ROW process. To understand and locate these tables, a series of process flow diagrams were developed showing activities within each ROW function area in the enterprise. Appendix C provides both the process flow diagrams and the correspond- ing tables. The geospatial data elements were placed in a separate table and are linked to processes and their corresponding attribute data through the project ID or parcel ID. Identifying Data Elements Specific data elements were identified and ex- tracted from the literature review, case studies, and discussions with representatives of several state agen- cies. For geospatial data elements, information pro- vided in the tables includes the following: ⢠Category: federally recognized geospatial layer category; ⢠Feature class: federally defined class of infor- mation associated with the geospatial category; ⢠C/C+: core or core-plus element within the class of information; ⢠Data type: metadata, geospatial, attribute, primary key (link between data tables), or transactional; ⢠Data element description: generic name or de- scription of what the data element represents; ⢠Data source: creator/manager/owner/provider of the data element; and ⢠Source of data element: document or resource that identified this data element as important during the course of this research. For business process attribute data elements, information provided in the tables includes the fol- lowing: ⢠Function: the ROW functional area included in the enterpriseâappraisal, acquisition, re- location, or property management; ⢠Activity: closely coupled tasks within a function area; ⢠Data type: geospatial (link to geospatial data elements), attribute, primary key (link be- tween data tables), transactional; ⢠Data element description: generic name or de- scription of the data element; ⢠Data format: number, string, date, BLOB (bi- nary large object) for scanned images and photographs; ⢠Application using this data element: case study system(s) that include this data element; ⢠Element source: creator/manager/owner/ provider of the data element; and ⢠Source of data element: document or resource that identified this data element as important during the course of this research. 7
The geospatial data element and attribute data element tables are presented in Appendix C. Data el- ements associated with legal activities, particularly condemnation, were not included because each state is unique in this respect. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION During this research, some resources were iden- tified that could benefit ROW agencies. One of these resources is the Bureau of Land Managementâs National Integrated Land System (NILS). Bureau of Land Managementâs National Integrated Land System (NILS) A federal geospatially enabled web-based in- formation management system was identified that could provide state ROW agencies with informa- tion about federally owned land and serve as an ex- ample of an interoperable information management system for parcels owned by several federal agen- cies. NILS is a joint project between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest Service, and state, county, and private organiza- tions (BLM, 2004). The goal of NILS is to provide land managers with a tool to access land records for performing increasingly complex transactions. NILS consists of two environments: trans- actional where cadastral data and land records data are captured, analyzed, edited, and committed to per- manent record; and publication where the public can view and access information in a web-based system. GeoCommunicator (www.geocommunicator.gov/ GeoComm/index.shtm) is the web-based geospatial publication tool that allows users to search, locate, and map federally owned parcels of land. It also pro- vides access to land and mineral use records, as well as Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and other survey-based data. Locating federal lands of interest is accomplished by zooming into the online map or searching by name. GeoCommunicator includes an ESRI-based map service that allows users to view or âstreamâ live data as a base map link directly to their own GIS appli- cations. Data include federal management agency boundaries and information layers. The map server is located at www.geocommunicator.gov with the Map Service Name âBLM_Surface_MGT_AGY.â Figure 1 shows the initial screen when GeoCom- municator is launched for Federal Land Steward- ship. The Map Service Name for PLSS and survey based data is âBLM_LSIS_wms.â Data download capabilities are also available from this application. Figure 2 shows the initial screen when GeoCommu- nicator is launched for the Land Survey Information System. Vendor Information AASHTO/FHWA hosted their annual Right of Way and Utilities Subcommittee Conference con- current with the initiation of this research. As part of the information gathering phase, literature was obtained from the exhibitors that paid for space in the exhibit hall. A summary of this information, categorized by type of technology provided by the exhibitor, is provided in Appendix E. COMPLEXITIES AFFECTING ROW ACTIVITIES From the literature review, case studies, and dis- cussions with members of several state ROW agen- cies, some key dimensions of complexities have emerged that affect the level and way that an agency approaches incorporating technology, particularly at the enterprise level, into their business practices. A fundamental consideration is the laws and poli- cies at the state level. From the legal side, this mostly affects condemnation and associated activities. How- ever, a few other factors, such as the legal definitions associated with mobile homes and the authorities granted to state agencies, also affect activities per- formed by ROW agencies. Other factors include whether the taxing authority is the state, county, or local government. This affects who has responsibility for parcel information and whether it is available through single or multiple sources. Maryland has a centralized taxing authority and information for the entire state is available from a single source. Tax au- thority for Massachusetts is local, meaning that ob- taining parcel information for the state would require establishing agreements with over 350 entities. Another dimension of complexity exists with the state transportation agency. The structure and polices of the state agency directly affect how ROW offices do business. Issues that impact business activities include whether the state transportation agency is strongly centralized or delegates activities to the regions, how much work is performed by employees and how much is contracted, how aggressively the agency embraces new technologies, and whether or to what extent an 8
agency has adopted other information management systems. Physical characteristics of a state also impact ac- tivities performed by ROW agencies. Whether a state is mostly urban or rural, coastal or inland, relatively young or old, includes a large proportion of federal lands, or needs to consider mineral or water rights, all affect how business is done. Performing a title search in Texas can include as many as six different coun- tries of origin, the United States, the Confederate States of America, the Republic of Texas, Mexico, France, and Spain. DISCUSSION OF GIS IN ROW ACTIVITIES Geospatial technologies are primarily used for three types of activities: managing information, dis- playing information, and analyzing/modeling with that information. For ROW agencies, the first two functions are most commonly used or anticipated to be used. GIS can be used for analysis and modeling activities like predicting archeologically sensitive sites, mitigating hazardous materials sites, and evalu- ating social justice related to property acquisition and management. However, for day-to-day activities, managing and tracking information is of primary im- portance. The unique capability that GIS brings is the use of location as a method of finding, combining, and viewing information. Selecting a location on a map is more intuitive and faster than looking up an ID or name. Seeing the status of parcels shown as a theme on a map is easier to assimilate and more informative than looking at a table of textual facts. Geospatial Transportation Layers Because transportation, by its very definition, is geospatial, almost all activities within a transporta- 9 Figure 1 GeoCommunicator showing federal land stewardship.
tion agency can be referenced back to physical loca- tion. The primary locational âlayersâ that transpor- tation information is associated with are roads, usu- ally provided as centerlines, and projects, which provide the location of proposed new or modified fa- cilities. Almost every state agency now maintains a GIS-based centerline road layer. Although all states prepare project drawings within computer aided de- sign and drafting (CADD) software, not all states geospatially reference these CADD files so that the digital information can be integrated with GIS. Many states have decided to incorporate this capa- bility in their strategic planning. Others, like Texas, are scanning plans and geospatially referencing the scanned images. How a state addresses this issue will affect how a state incorporates functionality into an enterprise system. Cadastral or Parcel Layer A third key layer of interest to ROW agencies is the cadastral or parcel layer, which is used primar- ily for project delivery and excess property manage- ment. As a geospatial layer, this is more problematic for transportation agencies because typically this layer results from work by surveyors, abstractors, title attorneys, zoning organizations, and courts out- side of transportation agencies and is typically man- aged by the state-defined taxing authority, which is most commonly at the local county level. The need 10 Figure 2 GeoCommunicator showing land survey information system.
for an improved land information system is well es- tablished, primarily because of its role as a title and assessment records system (National Research Council, 1980; Cowen and Craig, 2003; Minnesota, 1997; and FGDC, current). There is an increasing need for information in a standardized format for re- source management, environmental and transporta- tion planning, emergency management, municipal functions, and citizen access. With the exception of property owned by the state transportation agency, maintenance and possible cre- ation of parcel records within a comprehensive par- cel layer will exist with other entitiesâeither local, state, or federalâand will usually exist across mul- tiple jurisdictional entities at each level. How a com- prehensive layer is developed for a state will directly impact the ability and method that a ROW office uses to implement an enterprise system that includes geospatially represented parcels (i.e., each individ- ual community may maintain their own parcels). Al- though transportation agencies are not the entry point for this information, they are definitely a user or potential user and should work with any groups developing cadastral data standards. For states currently using GIS, some transporta- tion agencies establish agreements with the agency/ agencies responsible for parcel information while others generate their own layer of pertinent parcels from project drawings. Ideally, the latter activity will be eliminated over time as states establish base lay- ers. However, until that happens, this activity results in a layer that is only used within the agency and, thus, has a lesser degree of standardization than one used by other entities. BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING GEOSPATIALLY ENABLED INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Several factors affected the ability of states to implement or attempt to implement systems in their ROW offices. These factors are detailed in Table E-21 and the case studies in Appendix B under âLessons Learnedâ and are summarized below. ⢠Resources: The most commonly mentioned factor was cost and lack of available resources. Unlike roads and other transportation facilities, information is typically not recognized as a tangible resource in its own right. Related to this, states mentioned a lack of awareness and understanding of how information manage- ment systems could benefit their activities. ⢠Champion: When considering any type of new technological change, a highly positioned advocate or âchampionâ is important to aid its smooth and successful implementation. For many states, this champion has been difficult to identify. ⢠Data: Securing accurate and up-to-date data and maintaining those data have proved diffi- cult for many states, particularly if they do not have a strong centralized IT capability. In ad- dition, the ability to effectively integrate data requires an understanding that is often not avail- able from existing staff. ⢠Coordination: Transitioning to an enterprise approach to data management requires coordi- nation among multiple offices and, possibly, agencies. Because resources are already scarce, many states have found that coordination is dif- ficult to establish and maintain. ⢠Connectivity: Accessing information and using information management systems requires networking capabilities that are fast, reliable, redundant, and secure. Providing this capa- bility is resource-intensive and outside the scope of ROW offices. ⢠Inertia: Moving to a new way of doing busi- ness is often difficult because of the built-in inertia of being comfortable with how things have always been done. Bureaucracy reinforces this inertia by establishing procedures that are difficult to change. Resources to effectively educate employees in new methods are often not included in cost estimations and are thus not allocated, again reinforcing the lack of will- ingness to change. SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCORPORATING INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHIN STATE ROW AGENCIES Defining the enterprise is probably the first con- sideration that needs to be addressed. Enterprise boundaries are defined by control over resources for activities within an organization and successful ne- gotiations with cooperating organizations for activ- ities outside the organization (Fletcher, 1999). For public agencies, and transportation in particular, what is considered inside and outside an organizational entity can be quite fuzzy and is often dynamic de- pending on the activity. Some activities, such as ac- 11
quiring title to a piece of property, are clearly within a single organizational structure. On the other hand, estimating the cost of a parcel could be performed in a planning department for the early stages of project planning and appraising a parcel could be done in the ROW appraisal section for project delivery. Are both of these activities part of the enterprise or are they separate? A benefit to enterprise systems is that they are scalable and the boundaries can be defined to meet the needs of the agency. The challenge of an enterprise system is to effectively define the bound- aries so that the necessary information crosses the appropriate organizational boundaries. The International Standards Organization defines interoperability as âthe ability of systems to provide and accept services from other systems and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate ef- fectively togetherâ (Fletcher, 1999). Because of the federated nature of transportation agencies, inter- operable systems are the only effective mechanism for obtaining data integration across activities. To be successful, interoperability depends on all stake- holders agreeing on the desirability, validity, and por- tability of information across organizational bound- aries. Fletcher establishes three design aspects for interoperability to occur as summarized in Table 5 (Fletcher, 1999). To design an effective system, each aspect must be addressed and coordinated. CONCLUSIONS This project accomplished three tasks. The first task was to develop a comprehensive annotated bib- liography of literature about the use of geospatial and innovative information systems primarily for transportation agency ROW activities. The second task developed six case studies of systems used by state agencies, spanning the current state-of-the- practice in information systems with and without geospatial technologies, ranging from a simple auto- mated process to an enterprise information manage- ment system. The final task was to compile a list of data elements required for a geospatially enabled enterprise-wide information management system. ROW activities are extremely information in- tensive. Almost every activity requires document- ing what was done, collecting parcel or owner or lease information, or tracking the large volume of required paperwork. Even a simple information system can provide substantial benefits to those re- sponsible for that information. A comprehensive enterprise-wide system, once in place, could easily result in more efficient project delivery, substantial savings in resources, and improved interactions with the public. Although the tasks and resulting products from this project are straightforward, the underlying com- 12 Table 5 Interoperability design aspects Type Description Global level Ability to consistently function or operate across national, state, or county boundaries Regional level Ability to consistently access systems within a predefined region or between multiple cooperating agencies Enterprise level Ability to deploy efficient services and systems within and across a single enterprise Product level Ability of products from different vendors to communicate Institutional Formal agreements between institutions Procedural Information exchange and operational procedures Technical Ability of heterogeneous software and hardware components to communicate meaningfully Horizontal Information exchange among similar components Vertical Information exchange from one component to complementary components Temporal Information exchange between successive generations of componentsD im en sio ns (T ec hn ica l) Sc op e C at eg or ie s
plexities involved in the business processes associ- ated with transportation ROW activities are substan- tial. Technology is no longer the stumbling block to implementing enterprise information systems. Orga- nizational structure, communication lines, and mov- ing the behemoth of the status quo are often the more difficult challenges to overcome. This project took the first steps to surmounting these factors. REFERENCES David Cowen and William Craig, âA Retrospective Look at the Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre,â Sur- veying and Land Information Science, Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 205, 2003, http://www.nationalcad.org/data/ documents/Cowen_Craig.pdf, accessed August 7, 2006. David Fletcher, âThe Interoperable Enterprise,â Enter- prise GIS, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), Park Ridge, Il, 1999, http:// www.urisa.org. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Sub- committee for Cadastral Data webpage, http://www. nationalcad.org/, accessed August 7, 2006. âGIS in ROW Scan 2004,â Office of Real Estate Ser- vices, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida, July 2004, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real estate/scans/talafreport.htm, accessed March 15, 2006. âIdentifying Land Parcels, Is a Statewide Standard Needed,â Governorâs Council on Geographic In- formation, State of Minnesota, 1997. http://www. nationalcad.org/data/documents/minnesota-gisparcel. pdf, accessed August 7, 2006. Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre, Panel on Multipur- pose Cadastre, Committee on Geodesy, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Wash- ington D.C., 1980, http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/ 10989.html, accessed July 10, 2006. National Integrated Land System, Bureau of Land Man- agement, Project WO-330D, Denver, Colorado, 2004, http://www.blm.gov/nils/index.htm, accessed October 31, 2005 through June 2, 2006. Anthony Saka, âGeographic Information System Imple- mentation of State Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Programs,â Federal Highway Admin- istration, DTFH61-03-H-00121, July 2004, http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/rowsurvjuly04.htm, ac- cessed October 12, 2004. 13
Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001. COPYRIGHT PERMISSION 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.
