|
Geographic Information System - Transportation ISTEA Management Systems Server net Prototype Pooled Fund Study: Phase A - System Architectures - Smmary Report
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS - TRANSPORTATION ISTEA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SERVER-NET PROTOTYPE POOLED FUND STUDY PHASE A - SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE SUMMARY REPORT July 12, 1994 BACKGROUND This Pooled Fund Study - sponsored by the US Federal Highway Administration, the US Federal Transit Administration, the Sandia National Laboratories, 40 State Departments of Transportation, the District of Columbia and several private sector companies - is developing a comprehensive information framework for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to use in multi- jurisdictional, multi-modal transportation planning. This framework consists of a set of non-proprietary information models, designs and demonstrations incorporating the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requirements for statewide and metropolitan planning activities plus the requirements for seven management and monitoring systems: highway pavement, bridges, highway safety, traffic congestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, intermodal transportation facilities and systems and traffic monitoring for highways. These models provide organizational and technology independent perspectives of these functional areas concentrating on providing a consensus based national framework suitable for individual agency adaptation and modification. The Study has three objectives: 1. To create a comprehensive information systems architecture for coordinating and integrating transportation planning activities at all levels of government. 2. To encourage the development of functional GIS-T server net prototypes. 3. To demonstrate the design, implementation and operation of multiple transportation planning systems in a GIS-T server net environment1. The Study began in November 1993 and will conclude in June 1995. This interim report presents the results of the first Phase of the Study and will focus on the integrated data, activity and business systems models produced and on the Information Engineering methods used to develop these models. SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH At the November 1993 Pooled Fund Study Kick-off Meeting the Study Steering Committee decided that the information systems framework should be determined by a team of representatives from the sponsoring agencies. As a result, a solicitation was prepared and distributed to the participating States in December 1993 (Attachment 1). Prospective team members were evaluated in early January 1994 and the selected team members were notified in mid January. The eleven members of Team A represented eight State Departments of Transportations, and one Metropolitan Planning Organization and collectively possessed eleven of the twelve knowledge and skill sets requested in the solicitation, lacking only direct experience in transit operations. (Attachment 2). ______________________________ 1 A GIS-T server net is a network computing environment consisting of a range of technologies that can collect, manage, combine, analyze and distribute transportation and other geographic information. This environment provides a way to integrate hardware, software, data, application systems and access methods. The conceptual framework for this approach was outlined by the recent NCHRP Report 359: "Adaptation of GIS for Transportation." The first Team A meeting was held in Washington, D.C. in late January 1994 so that representatives from FHWA, AASHTO, the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), and the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) could provide briefings and insight into the ISTEA and the Federal Rules for transportation planning, management systems and air quality. A Team Charter and detailed project plan was prepared in February 1994 and distributed to the Study Steering Committee. This Charter outlined a specific mission, objectives, scope and deliverables for Phase A of the Study (Attachment 3). The Mission of Team A was to build an Information Engineering framework for comprehensive transportation planning. This framework would integrate management systems components with planning activities to support effective decision making by focusing on the goals, strategies, information needs, activities and data incorporated in the Federal Rules for planning and management systems. This new mission reflected a change of emphasis from the original Study Proposal, where the focus was on management system components solely. The Team felt strongly that successful implementation of the new Rules depended on a top-down integration strategy encompassing all of the activities concerning transportation planning. In addition to the week dedicated to developing the Phase A Charter, four one week long sessions were devoted to the activity, data and business systems modeling tasks necessary to construct the framework outlined in the Charter. Team A met for a total of five working sessions achieving a notable 100% participation rate during the period January - May 1994. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The information framework developed in Phase A provides a high level view of the activities, data, and business systems necessary for multi-jurisdictional, multi-modal transportation planning consistent with the ISTEA and related Federal Rules. This policy driven framework provides a mechanism to coordinate all aspects of transportation planning. It creates the groundwork for more detailed analysis and information systems development to be conducted by individual agencies, the private sector and subsequent phases of the Study. The framework can also be used to develop management system work plans, coordinate business process reengineering and Total Quality Management activities, provide a strategic environment for information technology planning and foster the development of transportation planning data sharing standards. The framework is inherently flexible and can be adapted to a wide range of individual implementation and operational choices across all organizations involved in transportation planning activities. A conceptual flow chart relating the elements incorporated in this analysis has been developed (Figure 1). The underlying logic of this analysis is as follows: 1. Transportation policies are developed in response to economic, environmental, institutional, political and other factors influencing transportation. These policies, although not shown in the figure, provide the overall demands and constraints concerning transportation. 2. OBJECTIVES are defined, consistent with these policies, identifying FUNCTIONAL requirements for transportation facilities and services that can be satisfied with special purpose TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS comprised of TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS. 3. GOALS can be set for each OBJECTIVE, establishing where and when each FUNCTION needs to be available. 4. CRITERIA to assess the PERFORMANCE of each SYSTEM are identified where Each CRITERIA transforms the physical or operational STATE of a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMPONENT into PERFORMANCE. 6. NEED is defined as the difference between the PERFORMANCE of a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM and the GOAL established for that SYSTEM. 7. TREATMENTS are actions that will improve the PERFORMANCE of a SYSTEM. 8. PROJECTS are combinations of TREATMENTS that alter the state of TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS. The business systems model resulting from this logic contains six natural systems combined into a single integrated architecture. The Transportation Planning Business Systems defined in this framework do NOT replace the management systems. Instead, they provide a framework to develop efficient, integrated information systems that satisfy management systems and planning requirements. The following comments represent a summary of the Phase A findings: 1. The ISTEA management systems can be effectively integrated using this architecture. 2. The ISTEA management systems will be most useful if integrated with the entire planning process. 3. Operational data for planning is needed only for assessing performance or causes of performance deficiency. 4. Because location is fundamental to transportation and transportation planning, and integral in much of the data defined in this system architecture, Geographic Information System technology is appropriate in implementing this system architecture. 5. The integration of information systems for planning and management should be policy driven. 6. A functional view of transportation better fits the new national direction defined by the ISTEA than an assets view. The following deliverables, analysis and recommendations were developed during Phase A: Activity Model (Activity Hierarchy Diagram) The Activity model defines transportation planning functions decomposed into lower level processes. These activities include the determination of transportation policies and objectives, the identification of transportation needs, the identification of resources and funds, and the development of long range transportation plans and treatment strategies. Activities associated with financial management, including operational and transportation program budget development and monitoring functions were not included in the scope of this analysis. The activities in this model describe specific information transformations in a non-procedural, non-institutional way. That is, the emphasis is on WHAT the work is and not on who performs it or how it is done. Many of the activities included in the model are envisioned to be multi-participatory; many of the activities are also assumed to be manual (i.e., not able to be easily automated). However, the Team did not analyze institutional impacts due to the idiosyncratic nature of transportation planning organizations. The Team recognized that the transportation planning function is conducted by many different poeple, including elected officials, agency managers, transportation planners and engineers. The role of the policy makers is to set directions and allocate resources. The role of the transportation professional is to provide the best technical advice to the policy maker and to carry out the transportation plans adopted through the political process. The ISTEA plainly indicates that effective transportation planning depends on a more coordinated relationship between these two groups. This model provides formal documentation of a policy driven planning process consistent with the ISTEA intent. Data Model (Entity Relationship Diagram) The data model contains high level data entity types necessary to support multi-modal transportation planning and program development activities. The model does not contain specific inventory, condition or operational attributes, reflecting the latitude that local agencies have in this area. The specific entity types modeled in the TRN COMPONENTS subject area represent an aggregation of multi-modal information needs. The Team recognizes that not all jurisdictions will maintain information about all entity types represented. In addition, some entity types will need to be decomposed further (eg., HIGHWAY) to fit local requirements. Although many of the entity types in the model are geographic (i.e., have location as an attribute), they have not been decomposed into spatial entity types (e.g., points, lines, polygons or routes). Also, none of the various location reference methods have been explicitly modeled (e.g., geodetic, geographic or linear references). As a result, this model is applicable across agencies regardless of their GIS-T status. When the data model is expanded in Phase B, appropriate spatial detail will be included. Business Systems Model The Transportation Planning Business Systems represent the complete set of integrated activities and data required by the federal rules for Statewide and metropolitan planning and for the management and monitoring systems. These Business Systems do NOT replace the management systems. They provide a framework to develop integrated information systems in support of the existing management systems as well as additional ones which may be required in the future. The business systems model consists of an interaction analysis showing the effects of activities on data plus an affinity analysis used to determine the boundaries of an integrated set of natural business systems encompassing transportation planning . This framework contains six natural systems combined into a single integrated architecture. The following natural business systems descriptions refer to the business systems diagram (Figure 2). Policy Integration System (POINTS) The intention of the ISTEA is that transportation planning be a policy driven process reflecting local, regaional, statewide and national requirements and concerns. The Policy Integration System distills public values, visions and mandates concerning transportation into a set of specific, concrete policies, objectives and goals concerning the availability, quality and performance of transportation facilities and related services. The Policy system determines the performance indicators necessary to establish and monitor transportation and sets the performance criteria necessary to assess the quality of transportation from multiple perspectives. Specific activities included in this business system are intended to encompass those political and public involvement processes producing transportation policies, objectives and goals. Since policy formulation is, by definition, a nonprocedural political process conducted by elected officials, agency managers, special interest groups and the public, this business system may not be appropriate for subsequent information systems development. POINTS Inputs: Society's transportation demands POINTS Outputs: Transportation policy definitions, objectives, goals, performance criterion Functionally Integrated Transportation System (FITS) One of the fundamental features of this model is the recognition that the transportation infrastructure exists to provide one or more transportation services. This implies that for each functional objective determined in the Policy system, a distinct transportation system can be assembled from the individual components of the infrastructure to provide services satisfying that objective. Performance, or the relationship of the state of a system relative to its desired goal, is a functional description instead of a physical one. For example, an objective dealing with industrial commodities implies a transportation system composed of bridge and pavement structures providing load bearing services. The ability of the components to carry load determines the performance of each component in this system. There are many transportation systems assembled from the same set of transportation components. The FITS System maintains the basic inventory of components, and the functional transportation systems that have been defined by policy objectives. The FITS system also determines transportation demands (i.e., trips or commodity flows) for each system. FITS Inputs: Transportation objectives, transportation components FITS Outputs: Functionally integrated transportation systems, transportation system travel demand Transportation Monitoring and Modeling System (TRAMMS) The Transportation Monitoring and Modeling System determines the value of each performance indicator for each of the transportation component states, where states refer to a specific physical or operational condition of being. Values for states may be obtained by monitoring, modeling or simulation methods. Component state attributes must contribute directly to one or more functional assessments to be valid. Even though TRAMMS is modeled as one business system, each of the component monitoring processes may be designed as a separate system. TRAMMS Inputs: Transportation system, transportation system components TRAMMS Outputs: Transportation system state, transportation system component states Performance Assessment System (PASS) The Performance Assessment System determines the functional effectiveness, or performance, of each transportation component and each transportation system based on transportation demand, projected condition or operational state and associated performance criteria. The overall transportation system need is projected as the difference between system goals and current or projected performance. PASS Inputs: Transportation component states, transportation system travel demand, transportation system state, transportation system performance criteria, transportation component performance criteria, transportation system goals PASS Outputs: Transportation system need, transportation component needs Treatment Development System (TREADS) The Treatment Development System associates performance needs with underlying causes and thereby to appropriate system and component level treatments. Effective system strategies are then developed based on an evaluation of past treatments as well as expected life cycle costs and benefits. Treatment strategies are synthesized into project concepts, reconciling all treatment alternatives. TREADS Inputs: Transportation system needs, Transportation component needs TREADS Outputs: Improvement project concepts Program and Plan Development System (PPLADS) The Planning and Programming Development System evaluates the effectiveness of each project concept based on its performance balanced against its environmental, social and economic effects. Selected projects are financed and incorporated into regional and statewide transportation plans and programs. This business system includes approval activities which are inextricably linked to the political decision making process. These processes may not be suitable for further automation support due to their nature. PPLADS Inputs: Improvement project concepts, fiscal and other resources PPLADS Outputs: Statewide and MPO Transportation Plans and Improvement Programs (STIP and TIP) Implementation Systems (Out of Scope) Implementation systems encompass all business systems necessary to administer transportation programs and to develop and maintain transportation components - including engineering, construction and maintenance systems. The processes and data involved with these systems were not included in this analysis. The systems are shown in the architecture to illustrate the feedback mechanism necessary to administer work programs and to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing transportation plans and programs. Inputs: Transportation Plans, Transportation Improvement Programs Outputs: New or rehabilitated transportation components, resource levels, revised transportation demands. Adopting this system architecture has many benefits: 1. Supports all of the requirements of the ISTEA management systems. 2. Allows for incorporation of existing ISTEA management systems. 3. Establishes a basis for multi-jurisdictional cooperation and participation. 4. Reconciles national transportation, social, and environmental policies at the front end of the transportation planning process. 5. Focuses data collection and use on relevant data only. 6. Flexible enough to incorporate life cycle costing and other optimization strategies. 7. Is modally unbiased. 8. Allocates available resources efficiently and effectively to meet increasing transportation demands. 9. Is independent of any particular technology. 10. May be implemented manually as well as on-line, and serves as a guide for incremental automation. 11. Is capable of supporting multiple decision making applications. 12. Information from these activities are Statewide and MPO transportation plans, STIPs and TIPs. 13. Provides opportunities for public involvement at every level. 14. Offers a basis for national consensus on addressing the national transportation mandates. In conclusion, this Transportation Planning Business Systems Architecture represents the most integrated, non-redundant, comprehensive approach to transportation planning ever developed. Effective application of this framework will ensure compliance with the ISTEA, conserve public resources and ultimately improve the quality and availablity of transportation planning information in this country. Confirmation Analysis Click HERE for graphic. An analysis evaluating the activities and data incorporated in this model against the Federal Rules for transportation planning and management systems has been completed. This model of transportation planning is in total compliance with these Rules. In fact, the analysis has uncovered specific areas of functional overlaps among these regulations. The confirmation analysis suggests that information systems based on the business systems identified in this System Architecture are likely to be more integrated and can be constructed much more effeciently than information systems based directly on the management systems requirements. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the management systems functional requirements and the business systems included in this architecture. Recommendations 1. The Study should work closely with the Federal Highway Administration to utilize the results from Phase "A" in addressing the ISTEA requirements. 2. The focus of Phase "B" should be on designing and improving the more innovative aspects of the Phase "A" system architecture. Specifically, this should include the linkage among performance criteria, symptoms, causes, and treatments. 3. Study Steering Committee Members should take the deliverables of Phase "A" back to their management, planning, and information systems personnel for review and feedback to the Study Team. 4. Presentations and workshops explaining the Phase "A" system architecture should be created and made available to national and regional meetings. 5. Geographic Information System technology should be considered for implementation of the Phase "A" system architecture. Information Engineering Methodology Evaluation All models were developed using Texas Instrument's Information Engineering Facility (IEF) version 5.2 running under Windows 3.1. Digital copies of the models are available upon request. 1. Although the methodology is more suitable for large transactional businesses, it can be adapted to decision support functions. 2. The Texas Instruments Information Engineering Facility used in this Phase needs additional enhancement to more easily handle decision support applications. 3. The Texas Instruments Information Engineering Facility was found to be more effectively used in an off line documentation mode rather than interactively during the working sessions. 4. Ground rules for using the methodology are essential and must be adhered to. 5. Intensive use of the methodology in longer working sessions is probably more effective than prolonged, more intermittent use. DEFINITIONS Business System (Natural Business System) A logical grouping of business activities which forms the basis for subsequent information systems development. Source: "A Guide to Information Engineering Using the IEF;" Texas Instruments, 1988. Framework An enterprise wide information architecture consisting of formal models of data, activity and their interactions. Information Engineering The enterprise-wide application of a formal and structured methodology for defining and implementing information systems which derive directly from the enterprises's objectives. Source: James Martin. Information System The combination of Information Technology, data, business procedures and people applied to a business function, process or activity. Information Technology Computer hardware, software and technical staff necessary to develop, implement, maintain and operate information systems. Management System A systematic process, designed to assist decision makers in selecting cost-effective strategies/actions to improve the efficiency and safety of, and protect the investment in, the nation's infrastructure. A management system includes: Identification of performance measures; data collection and analysis; determination of needs, evaluation and selection of appropriate strategies/actions to address the needs, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented strategies/actions. Source: DOT 49 CFR Part 614 Management and Monitoring Systems; Interim Final Rule. PHASE A- SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE TEAM Tom Henderson, P.E., R.L.S. Co - Principal Investigator New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department David Fletcher Co - Principal Investigator Geographic Paradigm Computing, Inc. Richard Singleton, P.E. Florida Dept. of Transportation Craig Markley Iowa Dept. of Transportation James Carroll Michigan Dept. of Transportation Philip Wheeler Rochester/Olmsted Council of Govts. Kyle Kittrell, P.E. Missouri Highway and Transportation Department Richard Nelson, P.E. Nevada Dept. of Transportation Kenneth Kyte, P.E. New Jersey Dept. of Transportation Tony Pietropola Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation Hillary (Minich) Armstrong Sandia National Laboratories
