Practices and Challenges in Adopting Esri Roads and Highways in the U.S.

Transcription

1 Practices and Challenges in Adopting Esri Roads and Highways in the U.S. Xiao Qin, Zhaoxiang He, Zengwang Xu University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Bo Guo Gistic Research Inc. Kelly Schieldt Wisconsin Department of Transportation GIS-T Phoenix, Arizona April 12,

2 Technology Evolvement Deprecation 2

3 Problem Statement Built 20+ years ago on then state-of-the-art technologies, WisDOT LCM still operates on the same technologies in STN Transaction Manager and LCM GeoTools. The deprecated technologies put the WisDOT business continuation in jeopardy. The explosive growth of GIS over the past four decades has brought forth more technological diversity, but it has also created inconsistencies and redundancies that challenges a unified digital infrastructure. 3

4 Integrate Enterprise Data Maintain Your LRS Analyze and Report 4

5 R&H Features Integrate Data: the measurements associated with data in external systems can be kept current and synchronized with the edits made to the LRS. Edit across the Web: create and edit event data from a map-centric experience. Simplify LRS Updates: Rule-based location management allows you to define how event measures and route associations should react to changes in the LRS. Analyze and Report Data When You Need It: Generate reports and produce data products and maps that support a variety of key functions. Coordinate and Track Work Throughout Your Organization: workflow management tools that provide visibility into day-to-day job progress. Automate Quality Control: Benefit from a complete QA/QC system with tools for automated and visual review processes. run automatically. Source: 5

6 Selected Use Cases Keep assets, pavement, traffic, and safety systems aligned with roadway changes Centralize roadway LRS management so business systems don't duplicate effort by managing multiple copies of an LRS. Publish web services that can be integrated with other business systems to keep measures in alignment with roadway edits. Produce information needed for federal aid funding Use configurable geoprocessing models to create the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data products needed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for state federal aid funding. Run checks against your data finding errors. Use the Roadway Characteristic Editor to view and correct errors in your data. Source: 6

7 Objective Is R&H a good fit for Wisconsin DOT? 7

8 8

9 9

10 Q1: At what stage, have you implemented the ESRI R&H? Wait and See (5) Under Implementation (11) Implemented (6) No Plan (3) Under Evaluation (3) Number of DOTs Esri R&H is the first choice among the state DOTs who replied, including 11 under implementation, 6 implemented, and 3 under evaluation. 10

11 Q2: How were your roadway linework data stored and maintained before adopting Esri R&H? Most DOTs (19/28, or 68%) use ArcGIS software to store and maintain roadway linework data; Others use software packages such as Intergraph Geomedia, Bentley AssetWise (Exor) SDO, Oracle Spatial. 11

12 Q6: What Linear Referencing Methods (LRMs) do you maintain? Most state DOTs (25/28, or 89%) use Route milepoint as their Linear Referencing Method (LRM); Others use such LRMs as Route milepost offset, Route reference point offset, Project stationing, Route X/Y. 12

13 Q7: Did you consider alternative software systems other than R&H and Why? About half of the state DOTs didn t consider alternative software systems other than Esri R&H. Among those who consider other options (e.g., Bentley, Intergraph solutions, Exor's products, MANDLI/ PMG, DTS/Transend), R&H is more appealing because of its promise of being able to integrate different linear referencing systems. Those who haven t decided believe R&H isn t ready yet. 13

14 Q8: What were your major motivating factors for adopting ESRI R&H Already familiar with Esri software, 14 Data model was ready for Esri R&H, 4 Easier to support multiple LRSs in the LRS 3 Organizational support, 5 Esri R&H facilitated DOT Business procedures, 7 Existing solution was too costly to maintain/enhance to meet the growing business needs, 10 Esri R&H provided necessary functions, 9 The promises of Esri R&H, 13 TOP THREE REASONS 1. Familiarity of Esri software; 2. Promises of R&H; and 3. Existing solutions are becoming costly to maintain. Other,

15 Q9: What are the major challenges in implementing R&H? Integrating business data, 12 Managing business and spatial data temporality, 11 Customizing R&H to support additional/specific needs, 6 Potential interruption or change to business procedure, 9 Converting roadway network, 10 Other,

16 Q10: What were the major challenges in migrating your existing data (roadway network/geometry, business data) to Esri R&H? 1. fixing data quality problem (e.g.: data cleaning up, editing the network within the confines of R&H), 2. change management (e.g.: from centerline to dual carriageway, converting existing data model, expanding road network from state roads to an all public road network), 3. retooling of the downstream applications that rely on the road centerline data, etc. 16

17 Q11: Did you migrate any historical data to Esri R&H? If you did, what were the major challenges? Most state DOTs didn t migrate their historical data to Esri R&H. North Carolina DOT tried but found R&H still does not support history so they had to move forward without it. Minnesota DOT, did but we decided early on to have a start date of all the events after the historical data. We also found early on that back dating centerline data didn't work. Iowa DOT only migrate the historical pavement information such as construction years without editing the network. 17

18 Q12: Did you rewrite existing software tools in order to use them with R&H? Can existing tools be easily integrated? Some state DOTs rewrote existing software tools in order to use them within Esri R&H. Kansas DOT states there are multiple options for asset management software that interfaces with ArcGIS server and Roads and Highways. For the easiness of the integration with R&H, Arizona DOT thinks It's easy if you have programming staff, harder and something I wouldn't recommend if you don't. While other state DOTs didn t do any customization. As Michigan DOT says have learned from other DOT agencies and Esri that the product works best without customization. 18

19 Q13: How did you manage the potential disruptions to DOT businesses during the implementation of Esri R&H? Most state DOTs run their existing system and R&H concurrently to avoid disruptions to business during the implementation of Esri R&H. Some froze their centerline and attribute data when implementing R&H. 19

20 Q14: Did you purchase premium Esri technical support during and/or after the R&H implementation? Most state DOTs didn t purchase the premium Esri technical support during and/or after the R&H Implementation. North Dakota thinks Esri support is not set up to handle RH support calls. Lack of consistent and strong technical support was also mentioned in the Letter of Concern by RHUG. 20

21 Q15: What is the current stage of your Esri R&H implementation? How long did each stage take? Pilot/Evaluation stage usually takes 1-24 months, Design/Implementation stage usually takes 1-36 months, Production/Maintenance stage usually takes 3-28 months. 21

22 Q16: If R&H is in production, what improvements have you seen? Improved data quality, 7 Better support to business systems, including HPMS and Safety, 5 Better support to asset management, 4 Enhanced overall system efficiency, 4 Other,

23 Q17: What future improvements would you like to see in R&H? Event synchronization, 9 Temporality management, 8 Event edit, 8 Reporting, 9 Route edit, 4 Other,

24 Q18: What functions do you use additional software to supplement R&H? Quality assurance and quality control, 7 Analysis and visualization, 8 Reporting, 7 Other, Consultants are often hired for many of these functions such as data mitigation, customization of R&H desktop and server, turn-key solution, and others because Esri R&H s current performance is inadequate. 24

25 DOT Time (Months) Pilot Imp Prod Iowa Notable Quotes No major challenges. Previous experience made it much easier. "Network was already in good shape. We did our own migration for the most part. Arizona 28 I would recommend you get someone at the top to say this is how it's going to all lay down and then just focus on the technical aspects of it. Minnesota 14 It seemed like we were testing their product for them and continually running into bugs that delayed our progress and pushed out our timelines. Alabama 23 Massachusetts West Virginia 12 25

26 DOT Time (Months) Pilot Imp. Prod Notable Quotes Louisiana 9 6 Kansas Alaska 6 12 Workflow Manager is a critical component of R&H but it is often overlooked during the planning process. Vermont 18 New Mexico 1 North Dakota 16 North Carolina RH is like any Esri software over-sold and under-deliver... but you will have to go through the growing pains of the software. Esri woefully underestimated the effort to migrate and then tired chasing a continuous changing data model due to workarounds and bug fixes in R&H itself. Michigan 18 Idaho

27 Notable Notes No DOTs converted historical data in their implementation. QA/QC and reporting capabilities can be enhanced. 27

28 Conclusions 1. WisDOT is facing several critical issues due to key deprecated technologies and a data model which may not be suitable for new requirements. 2. The survey of Esri R&H to 49 state DOTs and Washington DC show mixed results. 3. Esri R&H is the first choice among the agencies who responded because of their familiarity of Esri software and the promises of R&H. 4. The top three challenges of implementing R&H are integrating business data, temporality management, and converting roadway network. 5. The major challenge of migrating data to R&H is to fix the data quality problem but Esri may not fully recognize the significance of business applications associated with the network editing and business data integrated. 28

29 Thank you! Contact Information: Xiao (Shaw) Qin, PhD, P.E. Associate Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee