1

Alaska Transportation Working Group 

Interviewed Organization(s): Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Department of Transportation 

& Public Facilities, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service)

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

The Alaska Transportation Working Group (TWG) formed 

in 2008 and consists of the following members:

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Western

Federal Lands (WFL) Division and Alaska Division

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• National Park Service (NPS)

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

• U.S. Forest Service (FS)

• Alaska Department of Transportation & Public

Facilities (DOT&PF)

• Alaska Municipal League (AML)

• Denali Commission

• Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST)

MPO (joined in 2022)

• Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation

Solutions (AMATS) MPO (joined in 2022)

The TWG initially formed to develop a Collaborative LongRange Transportation Plan (LRTP) for federal lands in 

Alaska. At that time, the national surface transportation 

authorization required that federal land management

agencies develop LRTPs, and the partners in Alaska chose 

to work together to develop their first LRTPs in the state 

together. Through this process, they developed a forum for

sharing data, collecting new data to support research, and 

planning efforts, and coordinating project programming and 

delivery. Since formation, the TWG completed its initial 

LRTP in 2012 and an update in 2020, conducted joint

research on a range of transportation management topics,

and has been a forum for members to identify and 

complete projects of mutual interest. The TWG continues to 

meet monthly via teleconference and holds annual project

coordination meetings.

Data Fields & Tools 

Because the TWG was originally formed to develop the first 

Collaborative LRTP in the state, it was not initially obvious 

what data the group needed. The group worked together to 

identify the data needed to establish baselines, analyze 

trends, and develop performance measures for the LRTP’s 

six goal areas: system management, user experience, 

safety and mobility, environment, climate change, and 

partnerships. Through this process, the TWG members 

shared existing data on their respective transportation 

systems. The TWG also identified data gaps and 

developed joint research projects to fill those gaps. These 

projects included the Collaborative Visitor Transportation 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – The project champion

One lesson of the Alaska TWG is the importance of a 

champion who can convene, organize, and support the 

group’s activities. This champion is responsible for 

keeping the group moving forward and providing vision 

and institutional memory. WFL has assumed the 

facilitation lead for the Alaska TWG, and individual 

agency staff play the champion role for different TWG 

focus areas.

Lesson #2 – Set common goals

It is important to have established, common goals and 

objectives to drive a collaborative planning effort’s 

success. This can take the form of a Collaborative 

LRTP like the Alaska TWG, or it could be another type 

of organizing vision and purpose.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

Survey (CVTS), which conducted a survey of visitors to 

federal lands across Alaska; a safety performance baseline 

analysis that combined a wide range of multimodal 

transportation incident data; and case studies of climate 

change impacts on transportation infrastructure such as 

permafrost melting and coastal erosion.

Implementation Challenges

The TWG’s first challenges were organizational in nature. It 

took substantial work to identify the correct contacts at 

each agency and to establish the working group. The initial 

TWG members also had to communicate the value of the 

group to their agencies’ leadership to justify the time and 

resources required for participation. Maintaining agencies’ 

management support for the TWG has been an ongoing 

challenge, yet critical to the group’s success. To justify the 

TWG’s effort, the TWG communicates its achievements in 

planning, programming, and project coordination. The TWG 

has particularly benefitted from the Federal Lands Access 

Program (FLAP) because they have demonstrated how the 

TWG’s project coordination has led to projects of mutual 

benefit. As the TWG continues to collaborate, limited staff 

resources in member agencies presents an additional 

challenge to implementation, particularly for smaller 

agencies.

The TWG has also encountered data-related challenges in 

terms of both data sharing and compatibility. In terms of 

data sharing, TWG has struggled to overcome agency 

firewalls and access to data sharing platforms. Different 

agencies’ IT departments support or block different data 

sharing platforms, which makes it difficult to transfer files 

between agencies. In terms of data compatibility, different 

agencies often collect or maintain data in different formats 

or with different attributes, which can make it difficult to 

conduct analyses across agencies. For example, the TWG 

has put substantial effort into developing a common 

understanding of transportation asset condition, which has 

required cross-walking between different agencies’ asset 

management datasets.

Results/Main Takeaways

The Alaska TWG has achieved success in a wide range of 

joint projects, including the development of two 

Collaborative LRTPs, joint research projects, and ongoing 

project coordination. The TWG has provided a forum for 

identifying and developing FLAP projects and other 

projects of mutual benefit. Coordination on projects across 

jurisdictions has helped the TWG members achieve more 

efficient projects; for example, combining nearby projects 

can reduce contractor mobilization costs. TWG members 

also stress the value of relationship-building. 

Understanding the transportation system outside of agency 

borders and knowing the right staff at the TWG partner 

agencies to work with has been valuable for a range of 

planning and project needs. The TWG membership 

continues to grow as new agencies see the benefit of 

coordinating with the TWG.

Looking Forward

The Alaska TWG continues to work together after over 14 

years of collaboration. The TWG currently focuses on 

implementation of its 2020 Collaborative LRTP update. The 

TWG also continues to work on improving data collection 

and standardizing as much data as possible to encourage 

better coordination across jurisdictions. The Alaska TWG’s 

model of collaboration has been duplicated through a TWG 

in Oregon and Washington, and integrated planning efforts 

in Colorado and Nevada have also drawn on lessons from 

the Alaska TWG.

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning, Project Selection and Programming,

Project Design and Environmental Review

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land

Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest

Service, Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Alaska Municipal

League, Denali Commission, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fairbanks Area Surface

Transportation MPO, Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions MPO

• Location: Alaska (statewide)

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Transportation systems geospatial data, asset condition,

safety, visitation, environment, climate, and resilience

• Method of Data Sharing: Working group charter, collaborative planning efforts,

annual project coordination meetings

Special Thanks 

• Kevin Doniere, Alternative Transportation

Program Manager, Alaska Region, NPS

• Amy Thomas, Deputy Director of Engineering,

U.S. Forest Service

• Paul Escamilla, Project Engineer, U.S. Forest

Service

• Eric Taylor, Transit Program Manager, Alaska

Department of Transportation & Public

Facilities

• Roxanne Bash, Transportation Planning Team

Lead, FHWA WFL
1

Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

Interviewed Organization(s): USDOT Western Federal Lands Highway Division, US Forest 

Service, USDOT Volpe Center

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

The Alaska Transportation Working Group (TWG) – a 

group of federal land management and transportation 

agencies in Alaska – convened in 2008 to develop their 

first Collaborative Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 

and to coordinate on projects of mutual benefit. While 

developing their first LRTP, the TWG identified a need to

collect better data on user experience. As such, they 

conducted a statewide, multi-agency survey of users of 

federal lands to better understand their transportation 

experiences to and within federal lands sites. 

One barrier to collecting user survey data is the need to 

obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance 

for survey questions in compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980. To address this challenge 

and to create a resource for other public lands and 

transportation agencies across the U.S., the TWG 

developed the Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey 

(CVTS), which is a generic clearance with a range of public 

lands transportation-related questions. The Alaska TWG 

implemented the CVTS at several public lands sites across 

Alaska in 2016 and used the results of the survey in the 

2020 Collaborative LRTP update. 

The CVTS is a multi-agency collaboration with a range of 

specific roles, led by FHWA’s Western Federal Lands 

(WFL) Highway Division with technical support from the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center. The U.S. Forest Service 

houses the CVTS Generic Clearance and submits use 

requests to OMB for final approval. Other CVTS users and 

contributors include the Bureau of Land Management, 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities. 

Data Fields & Tools 

The CVTS is a tool for collecting social science survey data 

to understand the transportation experiences and 

perceptions of public lands users. The CVTS generic 

clearance includes an OMB-approved compendium of 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 - Identify a project champion 

The CVTS demonstrates the need for a project 

champion to work with a range of project partners and 

move the tool forward. This project had a few key roles: 

project management (WFL), social science technical 

lead (USDOT Volpe Center), and tool host (U.S. Forest 

Service). The project champion is particularly important 

for maintaining institutional memory and bringing in 

new agency contacts as staff turnover.

Lesson #2 - Design for flexible application 

One aspect of the CVTS that has made it successful is 

that its creators designed it to be applicable to a wide 

range of agencies and contexts. By designing the 

survey compendium with a range of questions that are 

generally useful for agencies who want to collect visitor 

transportation survey data, they have helped make the 

CVTS sustainable beyond their initial survey effort and 

created a tool that other agencies have used 

throughout the U.S. 

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

transportation survey questions and data collection 

methodologies. Public lands and transportation agencies 

can use the approved questions and data to measure user 

experience performance metrics related to transportation. 

They can also quantify users’ transportation experiences to 

help target transportation improvements. By providing an 

OMB-approved compendium of questions, the CVTS 

streamlines the OMB approval process, reducing the time 

and expense required to conduct individual surveys. The 

CVTS allows for more uniform survey data responses 

across users by asking standard questions. 

Implementation Challenges

The CVTS is a complex effort that requires staff input from 

several federal agencies. Identifying appropriate contacts 

from agencies and maintaining relationships despite staff 

turnover has been a challenge. 

Having a consistent champion to maintain and promote the 

CVTS has been important to the tool’s success. USDOT 

Federal Land Highways (FLH) has been the champion of 

the CVTS. Their role coordinating transportation 

investments across FLMAs gives them insight into the 

importance of user experience data when prioritizing 

projects. Additionally, FLH understands the OMB process 

as a federal agency that has engaged in the process and 

the value of having a shared streamlining tool.

The CVTS team emphasized communicating the value of 

the CVTS to potential users and to the OMB to ensure 

support for using the generic clearance approach for other 

topics of national and multi-agency interest.

Results/Main Takeaways

As CVTS is used consistently over time, agencies can 

monitor how patterns and perceptions shift. The CVTS 

streamlines survey collection by eliminating the need for 

separate agencies to go through the full OMB process each 

time, reducing administrative costs and timelines for 

developing user surveys. Some examples of projects that 

have used the CVTS include: 

• Alaska: The BLM, USFS, USFWS, and the NPS

collaborated on a statewide survey to measure

visitor experience performance metrics. The

partners then incorporated the data into their 2020

LRTP update.

• White Mountain National Forest (WMNF): The

USFS collected information across several sites to

evaluate and improve visitor transportation and

recreation management for the WMNF.

• Beaver Lake: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers used

information gathered to update of the Beaver Lake

Master Plan and Shoreline Management Plan.

• Millennial and Baby Boomer Mobility Preferences:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) administered a

survey to understand Millennial and Baby Boomer

interests and preferences regarding access and

circulation within FWS units in three western states

– California, Colorado, and Texas.

Looking Forward

The CVTS is a continuing effort. WFL, Volpe, and USFS 

continue to manage the CVTS generic clearance and 

support agencies interested in using it. Looking forward, 

the CVTS team would like to share more information on 

how agencies have used surveys through the CVTS to 

improve transportation plans and projects. The CVTS team 

would also like to provide a clearinghouse for CVTS survey 

data in the future.

Special thanks:

• Roxanne Bash, Transportation Planning Team

Lead, FHWA WFL

• Kenli Kim, Landscape Restoration and Ecosystem

Services Research National Program Leader,

USFS

• Margaret Petrella, Social Scientist, USDOT Volpe

Center

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

• Location: Alaska (statewide)

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Visitor transportation survey data

• Method of Data Sharing: OMB Generic Clearance, compendium of survey questions, coordinated survey data

collection

• Additional Resources: Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS)
1

Cape Cod Commission Outer Cape Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan

Interviewed Organization(s): Cape Cod Commission

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

In 2017, Cape Cod Commission (CCC) staff, in 

collaboration with the National Park Service Cape Cod 

National Seashore (NPS CCNS), completed the Outer 

Cape Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (OCBPMP). This 

plan creates a framework for an interconnected bicycle and 

pedestrian network linking the towns of Wellfleet, Truro, 

and Provincetown with the Cape Cod Rail Trail (CCRT), 

CCNS, and other destinations within the three 

communities. There were numerous attempts over the 

years to initiate this project, but it did not formally begin 

until CCNS, the CCC, and representatives from the three 

regional towns received funding through the Federal 

Transit Agency Transit in Parks (FTA TRIP) program.

A partnership to share data was necessary as there were 

several gaps in data between the various stakeholders. For 

instance, NPS was able to provide cultural resource data 

within its boundaries, however for areas outside of these 

zones, the data was gathered from the Massachusetts 

Historical Commission’s GIS database. NPS and towns did 

not have road data (such as geometries or traffic counts) 

for regional roads, so the CCC provided their own collected 

data on bike and pedestrian traffic and collaborated with 

MassDOT. Necessary data to accomplish the project were 

dispersed among many different agencies and 

stakeholders, requiring efforts for collaboration.

Data Fields & Tools 

Data for the project included roadway data, GIS data of 

regional roads and paths, bike and pedestrian traffic data, 

as well as subjective information such as “roadway 

characteristics” collected from the general public at 

community meetings. CCC compiled data collected over 

the years of the project and provided GIS services, 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Establish efficient data digitization 

processes

Digitizing data was found to be a time-consuming 

process. Some digitizing needed to be done by GIS staff, 

particularly converting raw data into usable data for GIS. 

Another form of data that required digitization was the 

input of public comments from community meetings. 

Sometimes this information was based on hand drawn 

maps and handwritten notes. There is a need to find 

means to modify qualitative data into quantitative data in a 

practical and time-efficient manner.

Lesson #2 – Establish mechanism for continued 

collaboration

A challenge that the partnership team encountered was 

that there was no mechanism to keep the team 

collaborating. In an ideal data sharing partnership, there 

would be an implementation plan to keep the partnership 

going. For instance, this could be an MOU incorporated 

as a part of the process to help determine when the plan 

is completed. After an initial plan is created, those 

involved are often exhausted and therefore the project 

lacks a champion to keep it going. The project team 

acknowledged that having some mechanism to help 

achieve an agreement among involved parties would 

have been beneficial earlier in the collaborative process. 

In addition, rotating the leads of meeting can help keep 

things fresh and allows smaller towns and collaborating 

stakeholders to have more buy-in in initiatives.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

including sharing GIS shape files, which were used to layer

a shared web map.

Implementation Challenges 

Developing the scope of this data sharing partnership was 

a lengthy process, requiring nearly a year and involved 

both park land and non-park land involvement. 

Determining the responsibilities of various partners was a 

challenging process. One of the initial relationships 

established was between CCC and CCNS, collaborating 

under a cooperative agreement related to data sharing and 

planning. The partnership helped streamline the process of 

navigating the CCNS protocol for requesting and receiving 

data. This relationship was integral when interacting with 

local towns, particularly when pertaining to sensitive 

subject matter such as delegating responsibilities between 

NPS managing federal land and nearby towns facilitating 

non-park lands. 

The project team achieved success sharing data and 

garnering community buy-in when developing the Bike and 

Pedestrian Master Plan. Despite this, the team has noted 

challenges related to executing the concepts presented in 

the Master Plan, siting slow progress as far as 

implementation is concerned. CCC does not own any land 

for implementation. A primary difficulty in implementing the 

initiatives developed thanks to shared data resources is a 

lack of a “champion” to push initiatives forward toward 

successful implementation. The towns and their unique 

governance and predispositions have been the cause of 

slow progress. 

Results/Main Takeaways

CCC was able to serve as a community liaison between 

CCNS and local towns connected along the bicycle and 

pedestrian network of the Cape Cod Rail Trail. This 

relationship underscores the benefit of having a partner in 

the community that has the trust of the public to gain their 

participation/buy-in. Establishing the relationship early 

helps the set up for sharing information. In the context of 

developing the OCBPMP, CCC facilitated discussions 

between CCNS and local partners, fostering improved trust 

and cooperation among the team.

Looking Forward

The data shared among the partnership established a good 

foundation of support for planning and decision making by 

the steering committee. Since the project, base data layers 

have been updated; however, there is not a regularly 

updated data set on the bike routes. This project was 

generally singular in approach, and there have been no 

major changes since.

Special thanks:

• Steven Tupper, Director of Transportation

Program, Cape Cod Commission

• Sarah Korjeff, Planning staff, Cape Cod

Commission

• Martha Hevenor, Planning Staff, Cape Cod

Commission

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Cape Cod Commission, National Park Service Cape Cod National Seashore

• Location: Cape Cod, MA

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Traffic volume data and cultural/environmental resource data

• Method of Data Sharing: GIS layers accessed via ArcGIS
1

Colorado Integrated Planning Project

Interviewed Organization(s): FHWA Central Federal Lands (CFL) Highway Division, Colorado Department of Transportation 

(CDOT), Grand Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization / Mesa County Regional Transportation Planning Office 

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

As part of the Colorado Integrated Planning Project, the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal 

Lands (CFL) Division convened a wide range of public land 

management agencies (PLMAs) and state and local 

transportation agencies to share information on project 

needs at regional and corridor scales. CFL established this 

partnership to determine where organizations had similar 

gaps in data and develop and create a communal platform 

to address these needs. Another goal of this data-sharing 

effort has been to support integrated planning to ensure 

state and local transportation agencies incorporate PLMA 

needs into their plans and programs, and vice versa. This 

can help agencies identify opportunities to collaborate on 

projects of mutual interest and can inform future funding 

and project prioritization. Through the Project, the CFL 

hosted a series of workshops and created an online GIS 

platform for local agencies to share standardized data on 

identified project needs.

Data Fields & Tools 

Several agencies found that their primary gaps were 

qualitative data, particularly data demonstrating why 

travelers are going to a place. The CFL workshop series 

brought PLMAs and state and local transportation agencies 

together to share information on travel needs and to 

document qualitative data in a standardized way on a 

shared online GIS platform. Partnering agencies were then 

able to use this shared and standardized data to 

collaboratively build long term transportation plans and 

other building projects. Agencies were able to provide data 

and information they had available, allowing different 

agencies at the local, state, and federal level to work 

together towards common goals.

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Create a standard platform for

data sharing 

CFL led workshops to review partner datasets and 

teach partner agencies how to access shared 

datasets, particularly HPMS data from CDOT. CFL 

invited participating agencies to incorporate their 

data into a shared online GIS platform and provided 

training on how to use the GIS platform. Agencies 

then added their transportation network and project 

needs datasets. As a result, the partners shared 

data on 170 projects throughout the state, 

strengthening the network writ large.

Lesson #2 – Link data sharing to future 

planning, projects, and funding 

opportunities

The Colorado Integrated Planning Project provided 

an opportunity for agencies to align their long-range 

transportation plans and programs of projects. The 

partners also used the findings to identify projects of 

mutual benefit and develop strategies to pursue 

funding through grant programs and other funding 

sources. This is especially important for programs 

like the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), for 

which PLMAs are not eligible applicants. Nevertheless, 

working with state, local, and tribal partners to support 

their application process is imperative.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and 

CFL entered into a data sharing agreement at the start of 

the project. CDOT shared Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS) data from their road dataset, 

and the partners used this data, along with PLMA road 

data, to supplement gaps in agency datasets, as well as to 

refine existing programmed projects.

By sharing data sets and working together, the agencies 

also developed a greater understanding of their respective 

planning processes. For example, local MPOs learned 

about the priorities of federal partners and were thus able 

to adapt their long-range transportation priorities to better 

position themselves as competitive applicants for federal 

funding.

Implementation Challenges

There were no barriers regarding the direct exchange of 

data. The primary implementation challenge was 

determining where data gaps existed.

Results/Main Takeaways

Sharing and comparing datasets across agencies 

highlighted overlapping data needs. Partner agencies 

incorporated the shared data into statewide long-range 

transportation and MPO plans to better position themselves 

as competitive applicants for federal funding.

Looking Forward

Partner agencies integrated data and findings from the 

Colorado Integrated Planning Project into their respective 

long-range transportation plans and programs of projects. 

CFL is establishing a similar integrated planning project in 

Nevada.

Special thanks:

• Aaron Bustow, Statewide and Metropolitan

Transportation Planner, FHWA – Colorado Division

• William Haas, Metropolitan Transportation Planner,

FHWA – Colorado Division

• Elijah Henley, Planning Team Lead, FHWA CFL

• Jeff Sanders, Transportation Planner, FHWA CFL

• Erica Cole, Transportation Planner, National Park

Service

• Dean Bressler, Senior Engineer, Transportation

Planning, Grand Valley Metropolitan Planning

Organization / Mesa County Regional

Transportation Planning Office

• Ross Mittelman, Mesa County Public Health Trails

Coordinator

• Matt Muraro, Environmental Specialist/Regional

Planner, Colorado DOT

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: Planning, Programming

• Agencies/Partners Involved: FHWA Central Federal Lands (CFL) Highway Division, Colorado Department

of Transportation (CDOT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS), and Colorado Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

• Location: Colorado

• Type(s) of Data Shared: HPMS Data

• Method of Data Sharing: Online GIS Platform

• Additional Resources: https://www.codot.gov/programs/your-transportation-priorities/regional-transportationplans
1

Bi-State Planning: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Interviewed Organization(s): Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

California and Nevada established the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency (TRPA) in 1969 to protect harmony 

between ecology and transportation with the consent of 

Congress through a bi-state compact. The compact 

enables the formalized coordination of efforts for corridor 

level planning by identifying common goals for Federal, 

state, and local planning, as well as resource protection 

agencies and tribes in Lake Tahoe. The compact charges 

TRPA with establishing a regional plan to achieve 

environmental standards that emphasize the intersection of 

ecology, land use authority, and transportation, with a 

specific focus on access, recreation, and land use. TRPA’s 

approach to transportation planning includes making their 

transportation demand model pairs with their travel 

demand model to build a recreational model. 

Partner agencies within the compact share datasets and 

together determine data gaps that will address common 

goals. They regularly coordinate to understand each 

other’s challenges and work to find solutions via 

agreements, charters, and other compact activities. This 

supportive problem solving, and ongoing support helps the 

partners realize the long-term value of participation and 

managing the corridor. 

Data Fields & Tools 

As an increasingly popular tourist destination, there is an 

overarching need for visitation data for the Lake Tahoe 

area, such as trip origin data, to understand travel behavior 

and how it impacts transportation and land use planning in 

the region. The partner agencies provide their data to 

TRPA who then pull it into the clearinghouse. Topline data 

showing the travel connections between the jurisdictions is 

a starting point for sharing. Data cleaning by TRPA staff is 

often necessary once it is acquired and before it can be 

added to the clearinghouse. They recently outsourced the 

data cleaning and travel demand modeling so in-house staff 

can shift to data management and communications. 

The TRPA conducts a travel mode survey to collect data on 

travel behaviors at different areas of the lake. The survey 

generates information on zip code of residency and income 

ranges to get an idea of who the traveler is, if they’re a local 

or visitor, and where they’re coming from and going. Bicycle 

counters are spread throughout the lake area and are now 

required for new trails. Parking data was recently added to 

the clearinghouse dataset; however, it isn’t received 

regularly. Survey results are shared in the clearinghouse 

available to TRPA and its partners.1 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Focus on the question

Given the amount of data available across the 

transportation and resource protection sectors, it is 

critical to focus on the question at hand and the data 

that will answer it. Collecting and analyzing data 

beyond what is needed can become overwhelming and 

waste critical time and resources without addressing 

the original need.

Lesson #2 – Regular coordination

Partner agencies and the TRPA are in regular 

communication with one another to understand each 

agency’s needs work to ensure those needs are being 

met by the collaboration. In addition to regular 

meetings, TRPA hosts an annual summit to reaffirm 

their commitment to the compact.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

Implementation Challenges

TRPA has had difficulty determining which of hundreds of 

indicators and data sets will best address long-term needs. 

To keep the process manageable, TRPA works to identify 

the most critical needs long-term and then focuses efforts 

to obtain that data to power the dashboards for decisionmaking with planning level data. They have started to 

prioritize data that supports decision-making for climate 

change initiatives, such as forest fuel hazards, because 

climate impacts are a high-priority goal for many agencies 

in the area. 

Another challenge is concisely communicating what the 

data says to the public. Partner agencies often use different 

data measures to describe similar things. If the message is 

not clear, the public doesn’t understand what the agencies 

are trying to convey. TRPA convenes discussions to select 

a single data point to report on and not confuse the 

community. Ultimately, it helps the partners speak with one 

voice, especially when they are advocating for funding or 

legislative action. 

Results/Main Takeaways

The TRPA’s longevity and success is firmly rooted in the bistate compact and having committed partner agencies that 

engage with each other frequently. TRPA’s collaboration 

with partners maximizes efficiency, providing higher-quality 

results by identifying common data needs, gaps, and 

sources that are then pulled into a common location with 

joint access. Their work advances the region’s 

transportation goals, protects the lake and its resources, 

and supports the economy by ensuring recreational travel 

is captured in the data and decision-making. It establishes 

a clear mission for transportation and resource protection 

for Lake Tahoe.

Looking Forward

TRPA is focusing on what data best addresses the 

compact partners’ needs and provides the greatest support 

for decision-making in the most cost-effective way. This 

includes more focused datasets that TRPA can use 

repeatedly and power decision-making dashboards with 

planning level data. Data relevant to planning for climate 

change are resiliency are especially important to TRPA in 

this effort. 

TRPA is also connecting with planning agencies in the 

broader California and Nevada area to understand 

recreational travel in the area to better plan for and support 

the future generations and resources at Lake Tahoe. TRPA 

is working to better correlate weather patterns, gas prices, 

and economic disposable income to model travel in a better 

way than a long-term model that glosses over those 

impacts. 

Special thanks:

• Michelle Glickert, Principal Transportation Planner,

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

• Julie Regan, Chief, External Affairs/Deputy

Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

• Nick Haven, Division Manager, Long Range and

Transportation Planning Division, Tahoe Regional

Planning Agency

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: Planning and Programming

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

• Location: Lake Tahoe Region, Nevada, and California

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Visitor survey results, air, soil, and water quality, land use, and transportation data

• Method of Data Sharing: Via email; building data clearinghouse for partnership

• Additional Resources: https://www.trpa.gov, https://www.trpa.gov/programs/maps,

https://gis.trpa.org/mapmaker/
1

MARAD and University of Arkansas TransMAP 

Interviewed Organization(s): U.S. DOT Maritime Administration, University of Arkansas, U.S. DOT University 

Transportation Center (UTC)

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

University of Arkansas academics and industry specialists 

teamed up with the U.S. DOT Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) to form a data sharing partnership to address the 

challenges of sourcing maritime freight data, overcoming 

barriers to accessing this specific data, and improving 

accessibility to data portals. MARAD and the University of

Arkansas established the Transportation and Maritime 

Analytics Partnerships (TransMAP) Hub project to create 

an open access online visualization platform to collect,

analyze, and disseminate transactional and dynamic

maritime freight data across multiple software platforms.

The project team made the datasets available on a realtime basis to government agencies, industry, and citizens

based on open-source data management software tools.

TransMAP houses valuable interagency information and is

an example of a project that successfully incorporated as a 

university research project as a mechanism for its upkeep 

and maintenance.

Data Fields & Tools 

The online tool, TransMAP Hub, pulls together maritime 

freight systems data that would otherwise be widely

dispersed and difficult to align for public users. The data 

are organized by categories, including vessel movement in 

and out of lochs, vessel type, as well as the frequency and 

types of commodities transported through a port. This data 

may be pertinent to researchers who seek to download and 

utilize data for assessment of local trade and maritime

transportation. MPOs and other transportation decision

makers at US ports can use TransMAP to understand 

freight systems and guide planning related to travel

patterns.

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Beta-test publicly available 

tools

The objective of TransMAP is to centralize public 

data into one place to improve data-informed 

maritime transportation planning. The partnership 

team benefited from initial “beta-testing” groups that 

sought out access to TransMAP for their own 

independent research and planning initiatives. The 

feedback from these groups was incorporated to 

improve Hub data collection and cleaning processes. 

Beta-testing the application ensured a high-quality 

tool for future users. future users.

Lesson #2 – Establish API standards

A significant problem with building data integration 

platforms is keeping them current. Many of the input 

data sources are formatted for human reading, but it 

is difficult and expensive to write and maintain 

software to integrate these documents 

(spreadsheets, pdfs, etc.) into the Hub. Websites like 

TransMAP rely on well-documented Application 

Programming Interfaces (API) to access these data 

sources as they update, use metadata to understand 

the data collection goals, make transformations to 

the data and data formats as they occur. While many 

of the sites use APIs to varying degrees, many do 

not, or the APIs are experimental and subject to 

change. Thus, established standards for APIs would 

allow for less expensive and more reliable data 

sharing.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

To develop the platform, project collaborators from the 

University of Arkansas and U.S. DOT MARAD delegated 

roles among industry experts and academic specialists. 

Industrial engineers provided industry expertise by scoping 

and assessing relevant data sources. They also 

maintained access to integral industry contacts and 

stakeholders. On the technical development side of the 

project, university academics and graduate students 

assumed the responsibility of aggregating data and 

integrating it into interactive maps and dashboards. 

Implementation Challenges 

Implementation of the program was time intensive. The 

MARAD and University of Arkansas partnership was 

established as a three-year project, where the first two 

years were dedicated to developing the TransMAP Hub. 

The third year focused on testing and validation of the Hub. 

The TransMAP development team is developing a user 

guide to assist users to navigate and use the system. A 

challenge of creating this data sharing platform has been 

establishing necessary modifications to provide a publicly 

accessible resource without jeopardizing sensitive 

information. For instance, information specifying exact 

routes and schedules of commodities shipments could 

result in a breach of national security, and thus it was 

imperative to omit this type of information. 

Results/Main Takeaways 

The TransMAP Hub centralized diverse datasets into one 

location. Even though all the data included in the Hub are 

free and publicly available, it would otherwise be difficult for 

individuals to find because it is so dispersed. Creating the 

Hub required collaboration and input from all partners. The 

partnership brought together industry experts with 

academic specialists who each learned from each other in

the process. Industry experts learned how to interact with 

the collected data and the academics learned from the 

specifics of maritime transportation data.

Looking Forward

The project is currently focused on the development and 

deployment of the TransMAP Hub, with the three-year 

partnership anticipated to culminate in September of 2022. 

However, there is interest to extend the project for a 

second phase to include enhanced data dashboards and 

analytics. An example of how to extend the project for a 

second phase could include increasing the scope of the 

TransMAP Hub to include other modes of transportation 

data, which would enhance its applicability. This would 

require partnerships with other modal agencies who could 

provide usable data access.

Special thanks:

• Jackson Cothren, Director, Center for Advanced

Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas

• Heather Nachtmann, Ph.D., Associate Dean for

Research, College of Engineering, Director,

Maritime Transportation Research and Education

Center, University of Arkansas

• Travis Black, Acting Director for the Office of Ports

and Waterways and lead for Port Infrastructure

Development Planning Program of the US

Department of Transportation, Maritime

Administration (MARAD)

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: Project Design and Environmental Review

• Agencies/Partners Involved: U.S. DOT Maritime Administration, University of Arkansas, U.S. DOT

University Transportation Center

• Location: National

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Physical and socioeconomic data related to multimodal transportation for visualizing

human geography, area-value data, and travel times

• Method of Data Sharing: TransMap, a centralized online tool

• Additional Resources: https://castuofa.github.io/transmap/
1

Mississippi National River Recreation Area Paddle Share Program

Interviewed Organization(s): Mississippi Park Connection, National Park Service, Volpe Center

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

Mississippi National River Recreation Area (Mississippi 

NRRA) was created in 1988 to help facilitate recreational 

access to the Mississippi River; however, the National Park 

Service (NPS) did not have a formal program to support 

nonmotorized boating access to the river until 2016. The 

Mississippi Park Connection (MPC), a 501c3 non-profit 

partner of the Mississippi NRRA, has a common interest in 

river education and recreational use with the Mississippi 

NRRA (along with share office space). Beginning in 2014, 

MPC established relationships between NPS and other 

organizations interested in supporting a paddle share 

program. In addition to establishing the locations for paddle 

share stations, the partnership provided a mechanism for 

engaging with vendors to supply kayaks and lockers and 

operate the service. MPC manages the vendors and, 

together with the municipal and park district partners, owns 

the equipment, which NPS is unable to do because of 

limitations around maintenance costs and liability. 

Mississippi NRRA collects the use data and analyzes it for 

trends to help the partners manage the system’s 

performance, inform schedule and route changes, and 

demonstrate how paddle share meets the program goals. 

For instance, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 

uses the shared data to learn whether people with a 

Minneapolis zip code use the paddle share system, which 

helps validate the Park Board’s involvement in the 

program. MPC is also able to use the data to advocate for 

funding subsidies based on the results.

Data Fields & Tools 

The data includes information about when paddle share 

users reserve kayaks, where and when they pick the boats 

up, where the boats are returned, and approximately how 

long they were out. The data is shared through a portal 

(called Checkfront) set up by the operating vendor. Data 

from the portal can be downloaded to a spreadsheet and 

requires little data cleaning. MPC, NPS, and the vendor 

can look at the number of reservations for upcoming days, 

right-size on-duty staff, and communicate to user groups 

when there are reservations available to encourage more 

use. NPS analyzes the data and provides the results to 

MPC. During the off-season, data from the previous year of 

operation is reviewed to inform decisions about modifying 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Good working relationships

Relationships between staff are vital to creating and 

establishing planning and data sharing partnerships 

between organizations. Good staff communication and 

coordination across agencies combined with positive 

data demonstrating the success of the partnership 

program fosters trust and confidence in the outcomes 

and continued collaboration.

Lesson #2 – Details in contracting

When working with a partner organization or vendor 

through an agreement or contract, it is critical from the 

outset to articulate the data points to be shared, the 

frequency of data reporting, the points of contact for 

sending and receiving data, and how they will be used, 

as well as the responsibilities of each signatory group. 

Mississippi NRRA and MPC realized that they should 

have been more explicit about their data needs and 

reporting requirements after the contract with the 

vendor was signed.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

operations, such as adding more boats or reservation

opportunities to the busiest stations. Nice Ride, the local

bike share that is operated by Lyft, co-locates bike share 

stations next to paddle share stations wherever possible 

and shares its use data from these stations. The Nice Ride 

data helps MPC and NPS understand the multimodal

nature of paddle share trips.

Implementation Challenges

Initially, there were challenges with the amount of data that

the vendor would share with MPC and NPS. The initial

agreement did not specify data reporting outside of monthly

invoices. The parties were able to come to an agreement

on data sharing by repeatedly asking the vendor to provide 

back-end access to the reservation system software. Since 

paddle share is the vendor’s top customer, the vendor

eventually provided this access.

NPS is constrained in its data collection through visitor 

surveys by the Paperwork Reduction Act and rules about 

collecting any data that contains personally identifiable 

information. When possible, it is better for NPS to leave the 

collection of data that contains this information to its 

partners. Surveys are an important tool in gauging the 

satisfaction of paddle share users. A subsidiary of MPC, 

Mississippi River Paddle Share LLC, was able to collect 

annual post-trip survey data to share with the partnership. 

The remaining challenge is consistent funding revenue. 

The paddle share program partners are all non-profit

organizations or local governments. Modest annual

subsidies from each of the partners helped cover any gap 

between expenses and revenue from paddle share user

fees. Operating costs have been increasing, especially as

the kayaks and other equipment age. At the same time,

grants have been shrinking. The partners are taking a

strategic look at how to balance funding and costs.

Results/Main Takeaways

The paddle share system has expanded over the years and 

the partnership has been successful due to continued 

collaboration and support amongst the partner 

organizations. The paddle share uses data to inform costeffective changes that sustain the program year after year. 

The data demonstrate high system usage and sufficient 

revenues to justify the program’s continuation. Mississippi 

NRRA benefits from the partnership by fulfilling its mission 

to increase recreational access to the river; MPC benefits 

from higher visibility and a greater ability to gain support for 

its other programs.

Looking Forward

For improving the data sharing and planning aspect of the 

partnership, Mississippi NRRA and MPC would like the 

vendor to improve its reservation interface, enable more 

customizable reports, and allow for real-time weatherrelated and emergency shutdowns, as well as information 

on invoicing.

As the paddle share program continues, partnering with 

local institutions, such as the University of Minnesota Twin 

Cities, to spread the word about the program may attract 

more users and make the program more financially 

resilient. Many people who engage with the University and 

even metro area residents do not realize the Mississippi 

River is close by, it is part of the National Park Service, nor 

that there is paddle share nearby to enjoy. 

Special thanks:

• Katie Nyberg, Executive Director, Mississippi Park

Connection

• Karen Katz, Outdoor Recreation Planner,

Mississippi NRRA

• Ben Rasmussen, Public Lands Team Lead, U.S.

DOT Volpe Center

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: Operations and Maintenance

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Mississippi Park Connection, National Park Service; secondary: Three Rivers

Park District, City of Brooklyn Park, City of St. Paul, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Mississippi

Watershed Management Organization, Nice Ride/Lyft

• Location: Minneapolis and St. Paul metro area, Minnesota

• Type(s) of Data Shared: User data

• Method of Data Sharing: Data portal, regular in-person, and virtual meetings

• Additional Resources: https://www.nps.gov/miss, https://parkconnection.org, https://www.paddleshare.org
1

National Park Service National Capital Area Regional Count Program

Interviewed Organization(s): National Park Service, National Capital Region

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

The National Park Service National Capital Area (NPS 

NCA) engages with multiple partners on planning and data 

sharing. NPS NCA is part of the National Capital Planning 

Commission (NCPC), the regional Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO), which meets monthly to discuss the 

current and upcoming projects, as well as any issues 

related to them. The Commission members also include 

representatives from other Federal agencies, District of 

Columbia DOT (DDOT), Virginia DOT (VDOT), Maryland 

DOT (MDOT), and some presidential appointees. 

NPS NCA established a cooperative agreement to conduct 

a coordinated count program throughout the region. The 

goal is to install more counters, collect better data, and 

store it in a database available to participants. The partner 

agencies benefit from the economies of scale in trail 

counters, the technical support for maintaining them, and 

the resulting processed data. NPS NCA has a partnership 

with DDOT focused on traffic counts and has also 

proactively engaged with the NCPC to coordinate trail data 

collection and analysis. DDOT places temporary traffic 

counters on federal roads and shares the data with NPS. 

NPS shares any traffic data it collects with DDOT, as well. 

The two agencies also coordinate on projects that entail 

road closures and other construction phases that impact 

traffic flows. Regarding trails, NPS has more than 50 miles 

of trails that connect to other trails within the region. The 

centralized approach to trail count data facilitates continued 

data collection despite regular staff turnover at public lands 

agencies, especially for staff with specialized skills in data 

counting technology and analysis.

Data Fields & Tools 

DDOT and NPS share traffic counts and related data 

through the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), which 

applies the methodologies documented in the Highway 

Capacity Manual (HCM). The Federal Lands Highway Field 

Operations Technical Support Center (FOTSC) collects 

traffic data for NPS that can be used for traffic studies upon 

request, and then shared through the HCS. The transfer of 

traffic data is usually a single transaction based on 

individual project need rather than a consistent schedule.

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Cross-agency relationships

Relationships across agencies are critical to 

establish sustainable, long-term collaboration. Interagency relationships must be maintained with regular 

communication and coordination of projects 

impacting each partner.

Lesson #2 – Collaborate on data collection and 

management

Maintaining data counters in good working order 

requires consistent monitoring and a specific skill set 

to troubleshoot problems. Data management and 

processing are also required to apply the information 

in decision-making. These tasks pose funding and 

bandwidth challenges for many agencies. 

Collaborating on collection and access to data can 

distribute the costs over multiple agencies and allow 

all to benefit from economies of scale.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

The regional trail count data is pulled directly from the 

counters into a database that is managed through a 

contract with the University of North Carolina (UNC), which 

manages technical work done by Virginia Tech and 

Portland State University Transportation Research and 

Education Center (TREC). While TREC is responsible for 

maintaining the counters in addition to processing the data 

in the database, NPS first established the counters and has 

access to the database. 

Implementation Challenges

Maintaining good relationships is a challenge as staff 

change across agencies. In the scope of the National 

Capital Region, the NCPC must work with the Federal 

Government which owns much of the land in Washington, 

DC. There are many actors involved, including the NPS

regional office, NPS units, DDOT, and other members of

the NCPC.

Another challenge is maintaining the funding to collect 

data. DDOT and other smaller agencies have funding and 

staff constraints limiting their ability to maintain their own 

counter program, let alone bear the cost of increasingly 

advanced counter technology. NPS has worked to 

establish a 5-year agreement with UNC, funded through 

FHWA for research, for UNC to conduct research and 

manage the regional trail count data collection efforts by 

Virginia Tech and TREC. 

Looking Forward

The longer-term goal for NCA is to issue an annual report 

with information beyond raw counts about the number of 

trail users. The goal is to translate raw collected data into 

performance measures, such as crash reduction and

emissions reductions, to communicate regional data trends 

across several sectors, such as public health, environment, 

and safety.

Special thanks:

• David Daddio, National Capital Area Regional

Transportation Manager

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning

• Agencies/Partners Involved: National Park Service (NPS), District of Columbia Department of Transportation

(DDOT), National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

(MWCOG)

• Location: Transportation networks and recreation trails in the greater DC metro area

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Traffic count data, trail count data, project plans and schedules

• Method of Data Sharing: Database downloads, digital file transfers, Regional Transportation Data

Clearinghouse (RTDC), coordination meetings

• Additional Resources: https://www.ncpc.gov/; https://www.mwcog.org;

https://rtdcmwcog.opendata.arcgis.com;

https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?&A=X1FahAYWSbbzUZJeicVZ7SznncgkG4CQ0pQ9QDUYRNw%3D
1

Oregon Coast Trail Action Plan

Interviewed Organization(s): Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Association of Oregon 

Counties, Oregon Solutions, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

The Oregon Coast Trail Action Plan is a regional 

collaborative planning effort to identify and inventory 

existing conditions, plan for improvements and 

realignments, and plan for long-term maintenance and 

governance of the Oregon Coast Trail. The Action Plan 

partnership includes the Association of Oregon Counties, 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and Oregon 

Solutions. Partners compiled existing geospatial trail data 

with existing facilities and ownership data to determine 

baseline conditions. They also regularly engage with the 

public, tribes, and local elected officials to identify areas 

where the trail needs safety improvements. Qualitative 

information from the public engagement is regularly 

converted to geospatial data and added to the existing 

database, which is then used for long-term decision making 

and governance.

Once existing conditions are inventoried, several products 

will be developed: Declarations of Cooperation between 

trail segment owners for the North, Central, and South 

Segments and a Declaration of Cooperation for the overall 

trail’s long-term governance. The Declarations of 

Cooperation will be incorporated into a final planning 

document that will include, to the degree possible, 

conceptual drawings and cost estimates to advance future 

design and construction to address trail gaps.

Data Fields & Tools 

The Oregon Coast Trail Action Plan has a wide range of 

data inputs. The majority is geospatial data followed by 

natural and cultural resource data. There is also qualitative 

through-hikes data from other land management agencies, 

information from public engagement, and hiking books. The 

team is establishing a framework to accurately capture 

word-of-mouth data in a format that is meaningful to the 

Action Plan. 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Establish data storage and access 

plan

The Oregon Coast Trail Action Plan partnership 

recommends establishing a protocol for how to store 

data, who can access the data, and how they will 

access it. After several staffing changes over the 

course of the project, partners have learned that it is 

imperative to establish a development framework to 

ensure the project moves forward regardless of staff 

turnover.

Lesson #2 – Identify tasks based on individual 

skillsets

It is helpful to identify and complement other partners’ 

strengths and regularly communicate with partners. 

Team members can identify who will complete each 

task based on their skillset. Individual agencies may be 

best positioned to assume tasks based on a specific 

data focus or audience. This ensures everyone is on 

the same page while maximizing the team’s efficiency 

without repeating work.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

The Action Plan team has a contract with Parametrix, an

environmental planning and engineering firm, to collect, 

clean, house, and disseminate data through ArcGIS Online. 

Parametrix cleaned historical data where trail alignments 

differ from existing conditions, as well as gathered 

additional data for trail segments without existing data.

Once clean, Parametrix added the data to ArcGIS Online. 

The ArcGIS online dataset is then used by Action Plan 

members to explore different alignments and layers and 

make governance and maintenance decisions. Following 

the Action Plan’s completion, the ArcGIS data will be 

migrated to Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 

(OPRD) systems.

Implementation Challenges

In many cases, acquiring the most up-to-date data requires

going to specific locations on the trail to “ground-truth” it, or 

walk the trail and validate the exact route and condition. 

This requires more time and resources to collect that data.

Results/Main Takeaways

Currently, the team is still collecting data that will be used 

for all aspects of the project lifecycle. The data collection 

and analysis from the Oregon Coast Trail partnership has 

been critical to developing the Action Plan and has also 

provided baseline information for other projects. The Action 

Plan will be used to set goals and priorities for the groups 

involved, identify gaps and funding opportunities for the 

trail, and prioritize gaps based on usership and cost.

Looking Forward

The Oregon Coast Trail Action Plan hopes to identify types 

of users of the trail, what they are using it for, the length of 

hikes, and other measures to better understand how the 

trail is used. This will allow the team to better support 

facilities and focus those efforts on the most used areas. 

The Action Plan will set the path for a complete, 

sustainable long-term Oregon Coast Trail.

Special thanks:

• Cole Grisham, FHWA, Transportation Planner

• Peter Dalke, Oregon Solutions, Project Manager

• Paul Reilly, Oregon State Parks, Program

Coordinator

• Andy Smith, Association of Oregon Counties,

County Solutions Director

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Oregon State Parks, Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon Solutions, and

FHWA

• Location: Oregon Coastal Counties

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Geospatial, natural and cultural resources

• Method of Data Sharing: ArcGIS Online

• Additional Resources: https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/projects/or/dot-2018-3; https://orsolutions.org/

osproject/oregon-coast-trail
1

Oregon Department of Transportation Regional Integrated

Transportation Information System

Interviewed Organization(s): Oregon Department of Transportation

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) purchased a 

Regional Integrated Transportation Information System 

(RITIS) enterprise license to collect and house data on 

traffic speeds and recreational routes for planning needs. 

RITIS is a data aggregation and dissemination platform for 

solving transportation problems, from the Center for 

Advanced Transportation Technology Laboratory at the 

University of Maryland.

Data on ODOT’s RITIS platform is available to everyone in 

the state working in public transportation. RITIS serves as 

a data sharing platform, where ODOT inputs data in RITIS 

and becomes accessible to all ODOT users on the 

platform. It supports a broad range of tools and features 

and allows agencies to easily collaborate and share data. 

This enables better decision making and higher quality 

projects across the state.

Data Fields & Tools 

ODOT’S RITIS platform houses a wide range of data 

across the state. Examples include state highway traffic 

volume data, incident and weather data, traffic signal 

locations, and congestion data and associated calculations, 

such as hours of delay, cost of delay, and contributions to 

delay. RITIS performs its own calculations from inputted 

data, eliminating any possible inconsistencies or errors 

from people completing their own calculations.

The RITIS enterprise platform has data format 

requirements, which requires ODOT to clean some data to 

have it added to the platform. There are no barriers for 

users to access and download data once it is on the 

platform. ODOT has training resources from RITIS 

available on their website for users, and plan on visiting 

agencies throughout the state to increase awareness of the 

tool and its benefits.

Implementation Challenges

ODOT has faced challenges determining how users are 

using the data in RITIS. RITIS is available to all ODOT 

employees, State of Oregon public agencies, and 

consultant or university staff performing work for a public 

agency in the State of Oregon. Non-ODOT RITIS accounts 

require an organization to sign an INRIX data use 

agreement to establish a new account for that organization. 

Users must fill out a login application and be approved by 

ODOT staff to gain access to RITIS.

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Learn from peers

RITIS has been available for many years longer than 

ODOT’s use of the system, which has enabled ODOT 

staff to learn from other state that have a more mature 

working knowledge of the platform. ODOT’s access to 

RITIS serves as an example of how a state agency can 

make transportation data available to its partners, 

which includes land managers. As the primary contract 

holder to RITIS, ODOT allowed for other agencies, 

particularly those that are smaller or less resourced, to 

utilize data under ODOT’s contract without the burden 

of high start-up costs.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

While staff in various agencies in Oregon can use RITIS, it 

is their consultants accessing the data, which makes it 

difficult for ODOT to gauge who the “real” users are, 

identify what future data inputs would best serve its users, 

and which additional groups to include.

Results/Main Takeaways

RITIS has saved time and resources by having all the data 

ODOT and other agencies need in one easy-to-find 

location with many calculations already completed. ODOT 

has used RITIS to plan transit programs, especially in 

recreational districts that have experienced recent surges 

in population growth and tourism. The data has helped 

ODOT determine who is travelling on Oregon roads and 

their trip start and end points. This information and RITIS’ 

calculations allow ODOT to tell road users the best time to 

visit destinations to avoid congestion and manage parking. 

Additionally, RITIS has dramatically increased data access 

to users across the state, allowing them to answer 

questions they were unable to with only their agency’s 

data. Furthermore, it ensures consistency across projects 

from various agencies because all calculations and 

necessary indices are preloaded into the tool.

Looking Forward

ODOT has a license for RITIS until 2030. They plan to visit 

agencies throughout the state to increase awareness of 

RITIS and its benefits. Project efficiency, quality, and 

decision making will increase statewide as more agencies 

use the tool, and reduce costs associated with making 

individual data purchases.

Special thanks:

• Thanh Nguyen, Oregon Department of

Transportation, Senior Transportation System

Analyst

• Chi Mai, Oregon Department of Transportation,

Transportation Systems Analysis Engineer

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: Evaluation and Reporting

• Agencies/Partners Involved: University of Maryland (RITIS owner), Oregon Department of Transportation,

various State of Oregon public agencies

• Location: Oregon

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Traffic volumes and speeds, incident data, recreational routes

• Method of Data Sharing: Enterprise license to database

• Additional Resources: https://ritis.org; https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Pages/RITIS.aspx
1

Collecting Multi-Jurisdictional Road Stream Crossing Data in Maine 

Interviewed Organization(s): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

The Maine Stream Crossing Survey partnership formed in 

2006 to collect and disseminate statewide data on stream 

barriers and barriers to fish passage throughout the state. 

The reason this group formed in Maine was to focus on 

improving habitat for the Atlantic salmon, an endangered 

species whose remaining habitat in the United States is 

almost entirely within the state of Maine. The partnership 

included the following partners: 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

• Maine Department of Transportation

• Maine Department of Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries,

and Wildlife

• Maine Department of Environmental Protection

• Maine Forest Service

• Atlantic Salmon Federation

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

The partnership began in 2006 with a pilot study on fish 

passage in the Lower Penobscot River area. They 

developed their own data collection protocols and 

conducted a survey of stream crossing data to prioritize 

improvements at crossings. The team then expanded data 

collection to all public roads and some private roads1

throughout the state, which it maintains in a database and 

disseminates through the Maine Stream Habitat online 

viewer. This dataset includes asset management and 

ecological information on road stream crossing structures, 

such as culverts and aquatic organism passage structures. 

Data Fields & Tools 

TNC manages the partnership, including directing data 

collection, managing staff and volunteers, coordinating 

with private landowners, land managers, and public 

entities. 

Additionally, TNC created a data use agreement for 

private landowners to increase their level of comfort with 

the data collection process. USFWS hosts and populates 

the stream crossing database. The database has 26,000 

records that represent road stream crossings and 

includes associated resource and asset data attributes. 

The stream crossing database feeds into the Maine 

Stream Habitat online viewer, which presents stream 

crossing data 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – Develop common goals among 

partners 

When creating a partnership with a myriad of groups 

with differing goals and capacity, it is important to 

focus first on the areas where the most parties have 

a shared interest. For example, the Maine Stream 

Crossing Survey partners found success by first 

working together on shared interests, like improving 

data on road conditions and aquatic habitat quality. 

Lesson #2 – Identify realistic goals for the 

partnership 

To be successful, partnerships should be conscious 

of their capacity and careful to set realistic goals.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

and a network analysis tool. The viewer has layers such as 

stream crossings, fish passage barriers, priority habitats for 

various species, water features, and watersheds. The data 

available for each stream crossing includes potential 

impacts on aquatic species, watershed information, and 

other detailed crossing information. The viewer highlights 

the data that is most relevant and beneficial to the public 

users, but additional information is available to partners in 

the database.

Implementation Challenges

This partnership has encountered several challenges and 

Partner engagement was a significant reoccurrence. This 

project requires the participation of a wide range of 

agencies and private entities, including some whose 

primary mission is not environmental protection. It has 

been important to communicate the value of this dataset to 

a wide range of partners so that they support the project. 

The partnership has also had to build trust with private 

landowners and show them the value of this data for their 

land management. 

Additive to the partner engagement aspect, it has been 

difficult to maintain consistent funding for this partnership, 

which is necessary to keep the dataset current and to 

maintain the data-sharing site.

With regards to developing data protocols, the partnership 

needed to establish an agreed-upon data dictionary and 

data collection methodology that would meet the partners’ 

specific needs related to ecology and asset management. 

The project developed a data collection protocol that has 

since become a model for other ecology data collection 

efforts in New England and other locations in the U.S.

Results/Main Takeaways

The stream crossing database and online viewer combines 

infrastructure and habitat information to identify high priority 

crossing sites for repair or replacement and areas at risk of 

flooding. This partnership benefits private and public users, 

such as municipalities, road owners, and other 

stakeholders. The database has also resulted in the 

development of a bond fund from the Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection to competitively fund crossing 

replacements. The Maine Department of Marine Resources 

has also used the results of this partnership to help set 

restoration and recovery goals. The Maine Stream 

Connectivity Work Group convenes to coordinate with 

partners on data collection, updates, and general work 

progress.

Looking Forward

The project partners would like to make the stream 

crossing database as accurate and up to date as possible 

and have a consistent host for the online viewer, as 

multiple partners have hosted the online viewer over the 

years. The partnership is also interested in incorporating 

LiDAR data in the database, as more imagery becomes 

available. Additionally, the project would significantly 

benefit from funding to support local rural road data 

collection.

Special thanks:

• Alex Abbott, GIS Analyst and Stream Restoration

Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning; Maintenance and Operations

• Agencies/Partners Involved: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Maine Department of Transportation, Maine

Department of Marine Resources, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Forest Service, Atlantic

Salmon Federation

• Location: Maine (statewide)

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Culvert and stream crossing data

• Method of Data Sharing: Data dictionary, database, and online web viewer

• Additional Resources: Maine Stream Habitat Viewer; Maine Road-Stream Crossing Survey Manual
1

Wasatch Front Regional Council Active Transportation and Congestion 

Management Programs

Interviewed Organization(s): Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Utah Department of Transportation

Forming a Data Sharing Partnership 

Utah has a strong network of public organizations sharing 

geospatial information system (GIS) mapping data that is 

coordinated by the Utah Geospatial Resource Center 

(UGRC). The UGRC is the map technology coordination 

office for the state of Utah. It is a common hub for the Utah 

Department of Transportation (UDOT) Planning 

Department, the Wasatch Front Regional Commission 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (WFRC MPO), and 

other local and state-level partners public agencies to 

share and access updated GIS data. UGRC serves as the 

coordinator among the agencies using the data and have 

the responsibility to improve the quality of collected and 

shared data and ensure consistency across projects. 

UGRC created a linear referencing system for projects 

across the state. All planned projects involving Utah 

Department of Transportation (UDOT) are based on this 

linear referencing system, which is regularly updated if 

roadway geometry changes. Federal land management 

agencies (FLMAs) have not been engaged in coordination 

outside one-off data requests.

Data Fields & Tools 

State- and local-level GIS layers represent most data 

shared in the hub. State-level GIS layers include roads, 

address points, and boundaries. The local-level roadway 

centerline data has been especially useful for many 

projects because it has detailed information on roadway 

lanes, bike infrastructure, sidewalks, signal counts, 

pedestrian delay, and collisions. Other data sets include 

public lands boundaries, which are maintained by the Trust 

for Public Land, and aerial imagery that are available on 

the Wasatch Front Regional Council website.

UGRC previously housed all the data; however, they 

have shifted to a distributed system. WFRC stewards 

data for their area and shares the data with other groups 

to further disseminate it. They also house state-level 

data on their website and index it with UGRC to 

maximize its audience. UGRC conducts quality control 

on data they receive, cleaning the data as needed. 

There are also some datasets where UGRC collects 

public input to crowdsource existing conditions. UGRC 

has an internal central multi-user database for the 

centerline data. Several years ago, 

Lessons Learned

Lesson #1 – The project champion

UGRC has established a strong statewide network of 

partners for sharing high quality geospatial data. The 

office provides a consistent, reliable centerline 

dataset that is used at all levels of government in the 

state. Strong partners, such as WFRC and UDOT, 

provide support to UGRC by being stewards of data 

relevant to their constituents.

Lesson #2 – Efficiency in common baselines 

The linear referencing system that UGRC developed 

and distributed is used statewide. As new data is 

incorporated into the system, UGRC has quality 

control to ensure it references the correct geometry 

and imports into maps correctly. Until there is an 

active trusted exchange of accurate info, agencies 

are going to use their own datasets. Combining data 

from disparate sources often leads to compatibility 

issues that can be difficult to been resolve.

FHWA Planning & Data Sharing 

Partnerships Case Study Series 
2 

the agencies worked together to expand the data to 

include existing and planned bike facilities. UDOT updated 

linear referencing system and WFRC can log in and 

update data. UGRC ensures data from all the counties is 

accurate and reliable before publishing it.

Implementation Challenges 

An authoritative and correct data source is key to efficient

and effective transportation planning. If there is no 

coordination to bring the databases closer together, project

staff first must validate the information, which is very time 

consuming. Eventually, the people who pick up the data 

later must determine which database is correct with little 

information on where to start. UDOT referenced an 

experience regarding active transportation plans in which 

planners had to retain and refer to multiple datasets

throughout the project. It reduces efficiency and can lead to 

recurring issues.

Federal agencies have been minimally involved in the data 

sharing process, which has led to data gaps resulting in 

challenges with implementation on projects that intersect or 

border federal land. Federal agencies in the state aren’t

using this referencing system, so when they do share data 

with UDOT or others in the state there are some 

inconsistencies in the geometry.

It has been challenging to find the right person within the 

FLMA to engage. UGRC and UDOT have been trying to 

put together a federal user group to foster better

communication with those other agencies. It’s currently 

most active with U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and the Farm Service Agency. 

Some agencies are more willing to participate than others. 

The project team achieved success sharing data and 

garnering community buy-in when developing the Bike and 

Pedestrian Master Plan. Despite this, the team has noted 

challenges related to executing the concepts presented in 

the Master Plan, siting slow progress as far as

implementation is concerned. CCC does not own any land 

for implementation. A primary difficulty in implementing the 

initiatives developed thanks to shared data resources is a 

lack of a “champion” to push initiatives forward toward 

successful implementation. The towns and their unique 

governance and predispositions have been the cause of 

slow progress.

Results/Main Takeaways

The partnership has ensured consistent high-quality data 

across the state. Organizations across the state, like 

planning agencies and police departments, rely on these 

data sets, which increases overall data efficiency and 

consistency. Local agencies can streamline project 

development because Wasatch Front Regional Council 

ensures high-quality and comprehensive input data.

Looking Forward

This is an enduring data sharing effort. UGRC is continuing 

to identify data stewards to ensure the data is maintained in 

the long term while continually working to improve datasets 

to ensure its high quality. As the data sharing network in 

Utah has matured, many data consumers became data 

contributors under the guidance of UGRC. It will be 

important for UGRC, WFRC, UDOT, and other proponents 

to communicate the benefits of data sharing in effort to 

institutionalize contributions to a common database. In the 

future, they would like to increase coordination with Federal 

agencies to determine data accuracy and ensure data 

exchanges moving forward.

Special thanks:

• Bert Granberg, Analytics Director, Wasatch Front

Regional Council

• Matt Peters, Director, Utah Geospatial Resource

Center

• Stephanie Tomlin, Central Planning Modeling,

Data, and GIS Program Manager, Utah

Department of Transportation

Quick-Reference Information

• Project Phase: System and Project Planning

• Agencies/Partners Involved: Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Utah Department of Transportation, Wasatch Front

Regional Council

• Location: Wasatch Front Region, UT

• Type(s) of Data Shared: Roadway lanes, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, signal counts, pedestrian delay, collisions

• Method of Data Sharing: Housed on Utah Geospatial Resource Center website

• Additional Resources: https://wfrc.org; https://gis.utah.gov; https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect;