BACKGROUND 

Transportation agencies and third-party data users and mapping organizations exchange information that can enhance the agencies' management of transportation networks and the travel experience for the traveling public. The information is made available by use of “data specifications” that exist for several use cases. Examples include the General Transit Feed Specification for transit, Mobility Data Specification for micromobility, Curb Data Specification for municipalities and private companies, or the Work Zone Data Exchange for connected work zones. However, these relationships may be uneven and partial use of the public data is problematic. For example, detour information is available from transportation agencies, but many mapping applications choose not to share this with the traveling public or freight carriers.  

Transportation agencies are forced to manage multiple specifications to enable data-sharing opportunities. This siloed approach means data specifications may use different inputs and schema (e.g., the use of state department of transportation (DOT) road inventory files versus OpenStreetMap), and therefore do not allow for comprehensive and uniform approaches. This can burden agency resources and limit the utility of the data across jurisdictions, at different levels of government, or among public sector agencies. For example, the non-routable state DOT road inventory cannot be used by public safety agencies in the development of Next Generation 911 because the new system requires routable road inventories. Research is needed to expand the relationships between transportation agencies and their public and private sector partners.   

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a framework for a comprehensive data specification that allows for a two-way exchange of information between transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations so each can ingest data with uniform attributes and metadata. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks. 

TASKS 

The sequencing of tasks to achieve the research objective and associated deliverables such as technical memoranda or summary reports shall be structured in the same cadence as quarterly progress report (QPR) submissions so that technical content can be reviewed at the same time as a QPR. The overall research plan must be organized into three phases. The research team shall deliver an interim report and updated research plan at the end of Phases I and II. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval for each interim report. NCHRP approval is required to advance to the next phase. An in-person interim meeting shall follow Phase I, and a virtual interim meeting shall follow Phase II. 

For proposal consideration, a clear and concise engagement strategy to achieve the research objective shall be developed and presented in the proposal under the header “Engagement Strategy.” The proposer should identify engagement methods and stakeholders, both public and private, to (1) gain further insights for Phase I and II activities, and (2) facilitate conversations between transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations to discuss strategies and build support for the implementation of the framework. 

PHASE I 

The research team should begin with a scan of practice and a literature review of existing data specifications, attributes, and metadata currently used by transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations. This could include non-transportation public agencies with experience in standardization of information that could provide examples for the framework (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service or Federal Geographic Data Committee). Additionally, the research team should demonstrate how some data specifications have been widely adopted and what lessons can be applied to the framework developed for this project. Further, examples of when data is or is not utilized and how that has led to bad outcomes should be identified to understand how the framework could address these problems. Finally, the research team is encouraged to identify international data specification examples that may be transferable to U.S. transportation agencies.  

Before Phase I concludes, the research team should conduct a domestic and international policy review to identify existing policies, regulations, or laws that enforce data sharing or formalize partnerships between third-party mapping companies and transportation agencies. Of interest are roles, responsibilities, and ways to address data sharing issues or incompatible standards. 

PHASE II 

The research team shall utilize Phase I findings to identify the critical linkages and gaps among the existing data specifications that need to be addressed to develop the framework. The research team is expected to conduct an investigation into those linkages and gaps to further identify the (1) standardization requirements for inputs and outputs of a potential data specification, and (2) coordination requirements among private stakeholders, transportation modes, transportation agencies and other partner public agencies, jurisdictions, and different levels of government. Further, the research team will recommend strategies for addressing significant issues identified with mapping applications by transportation agencies, such as mapping applications not using official detour routes or including new alignments as documented by transportation agencies. Finally, the strategies should set the stage for transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations to adopt uniform attributes to exchange data.  

PHASE III 

Phase III shall be reserved for the preparation of the final deliverables. For the proposal, the research team should consider at least the following as final deliverables: 

• A final report that includes (1) the framework for a potential comprehensive data specification, including a listing of potential standards, data attributes, etc., and (2) realistic scenarios that illustrate the uses and benefits of framework implementation;
  
  
• An executive brief of no more than 10 pages to enable a high-level communication piece that generates interest and knowledge about the framework;
  
  
• A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes that summarizes the project and distinctly illustrates (for a broader audience) how the research can be applied; and
  
  
• An Implementation Plan.
  

The final deliverables shall be reconsidered in the updated Phase III Research Plan. 

STATUS: Proposals have been received in response to the RFP. The project panel will meet to select a contractor to perform the work.