) + 5,754 (Text) + 6 * 250 (Figures) = 7,500 Words 36 Submittal Date: July 31, 2015 37 38 Keywords: Geographic Information System, Enterprise GIS, comm uter rail, business case, strategy, 39 approach, marketing, staffing, standards, policy, p rocedures 40 41 42 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 2 of 21 ABSTRACT 1 Triggered by both Superstorm Sandy aftermath and a minor operational incident—where accurate and 2 rapid mapping would have been tremendously helpful— Metro-North Commuter Railroad deployed its 3 first Enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS ) in 2012 by federating existing departmental 4 systems, creating a companywide Office of GIS Coord ination, promulgating GIS policies and standards, 5 and developing and marketing a uniform set of web m apping viewers designed for all employees. This 6 paper describes state-of-practice and a checklist o f strategies utilized to promote a new technology t hat, 7 by its very nature, requires interdisciplinary coll aboration and coordination within a proud organizat ion 8 steeped in rich tradition of craft-based engineerin g excellence. From early beginnings of companywide 9 survey and finding an organizational home for GIS, to later phases of training, holding project manage rs 10 responsible for consultant data deliverables, refre shing marketing campaigns and monitoring usage, thi s 11 case study offers a glimpse of how creeping increme ntalism and a web-based rapid deployment strategy 12 can overcome institutional inertia, culminating in an ongoing culture transformation where GIS became 13 a common acronym understood by many functional grou ps and managerial levels within the 14 organization. While there will always be different degree of GIS readiness across departments, many 15 employees at Metro-North now see the value of GIS a nd proactively seek it out as a resource to improve 16 their daily workflow where circumstances warrant. Mobile device accessibility is the next logical pha se 17 of Enterprise GIS development, allowing field force s to reference and share information without printi ng 18 out hardcopy maps or calling-in to office. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 3 of 21 INTRODUCTION 1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), State of New York Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) 2 operates regional rail service between New York Cit y and its northern and eastern suburbs. Assuming 3 operations from Conrail in 1983 after its Federally -mandated divestment in commuter services, Metro- 4 North today operates about 790 track miles serving 124 stations seven New York counties and two 5 Connecticut counties. With a service territory cov ering 2,701 square miles, travellers and connecting 6 services originating from adjacent commonwealths of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, 7 overhead Amtrak trains operating to key intercity d estinations on the Northeast Corridor, Midwest, 8 Vermont, and Canada—and freight services travelling over Metropolitan Region territory on the general 9 system of railroads, Enterprise Geographic Informat ion Systems (EGIS) is a truly nationwide endeavor a t 10 Metro-North. 11 12 With over 6,000 employees (of which approximately 1 ,000 are professional, technical, or managerial), 13 Metro-North's Enterprise GIS needs transcends many departments, disciplines, jurisdictions, traditions , 14 and employee backgrounds, demographics, and technic al proficiency. At 84.7 million annual riders, 15 Metro-North's 2014 ridership was highest in its 31 year history, requiring a robust Enterprise GIS 16 architecture to serve the needs of its broad, diver se, and generally technically-savvy customer base. 17 With 1,138 bridges, 3,503 drainage structures, 111 grade crossings, more than 1,420 alternating curren t 18 catenary poles, and 6,500 track inspection “flags” being generated every six months, databases must be 19 tremendously scalable—it currently has 500 feature classes and growing. 20 21 Under MTA's umbrella oversight, Metro-North's EGIS must be compatible with, share and exchange data 22 with, not only sister agencies like MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and MTA Bridges and Tunnels, but 23 also regional emergency management agencies and loc al governments big and small from New York City 24 Office of Emergency Management (NYC OEM), New York City Police Department (NYPD) to smaller 25 entities such as Village of Hastings-on-Hudson. If it is the transport function and raison d'être of 26 commuter rail systems to be the lifeline that conne cts rural hamlets and townships to the City, nowher e 27 else is variety of scale and differing requirement more vividly illustrated than in the Enterprise GIS 28 program. 29 30 As another illustration of tremendous variations in temporal and spatial scale, Metro-North's business 31 needs call for an EGIS capable of tracking precise routing of cable ducts, trays, and drainage wells w ithin 32 our right-of-way using survey-grade GPS—but can als o manipulate maps that shows all five lines and 33 regional connections in the entire Northeast Region . Track defect surveys must distinguish between le ft 34 and right hand running rails, and locate problems t o within four feet of a railroad tie (nearest 2-3 t ies), 35 but also conduct longitudinal analysis going back a s far as data would allow. Train operations need t o 36 know in real-time which train is on which track and if crossover moves are being made. Demographics 37 planners visualize population growth of entire serv ice area over 30-50 years. 38 39 Metro-North Enterprise GIS, now in its third year o f operation, is a success story of creeping 40 incrementalism overcoming institutional inertia at a time of tremendous corporate turbulence due to 41 succession planning challenges and incidents of his toric proportions. This paper provides a case stud y of 42 management practices and ideas used to justify inve stment in EGIS, generate internal support, increase 43 momentum, implement policies, practices, and new or modified business processes against this 44 background. 45 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 4 of 21 BUSINESS CASE FOR ENTERPRISE GIS 1 In mid-2012, employee seeking geospatial informatio n already had a plethora of resources available 2 throughout the company. However, not all data was available in GIS geodatabase format, data from 3 disparate systems was difficult to overlay, nor was there an organizing framework for making data easi er 4 to find and access. Quite frequently, the nascent GIS Office discovered data sources not well known t o 5 others, including sometimes employees within the sa me department! Systems were also variously 6 called BIM, CAD, GPS, or simply known by proprietar y names or vendor-creator company names. 7 Although these resources were available, and it was understood by some that information could be 8 shared and made more useful to everybody if the rig ht platform was available, several organizational 9 questions needed to be answered before EGIS could r eally get underway. In the meantime, trigger 10 events occurred that brought GIS to the forefront o f the organization's focus—and highlighted GIS need s 11 that weren't being met by resources then available. 12 13 Trigger Event—Hurricane Sandy 14 Hurricane Sandy made landfall at 8pm on October 29, 2012 near Brigantine, N.J. with maximum 15 sustained winds of 80mph. Shortly thereafter, a ma ximum storm surge of 9.4 feet (above mean lower 16 low water) was recorded at NOAA station at The Batt ery, N.Y. (southern tip of Manhattan Island). 17 Although Governor Cuomo took unprecedented steps in preparation to close all transit systems 18 beginning 8pm on October 28, flooding nonetheless c aused widespread destruction to New York's 19 transit systems, including severe water damage to N ew York City Transit Authority's numerous 20 underwater tunnels between Manhattan and Brooklyn, LIRR's electric power, signal, and yard 21 infrastructure in the Rockaways, Long Beach, Manhat tan's west side, and Metro-North's Harlem River 22 Lift Bridge and Hudson Line south of Croton-Harmon— formerly known as New York Central “Water 23 Level Route”, much of which was constructed on land reclaimed from the Hudson River, with parts 24 barely 6-8 feet above water level (Figure 1(a)-(d)) . 25 26 In the aftermath, insurance claim maps were require d to show exact geographical location of key 27 infrastructure assets in relation to Federal Emerge ncy Management Agency (FEMA) base flood 28 elevations (Figure 1(f)); flood maps were needed to assess risks to existing infrastructure and to 29 determine design standards for replacement infrastr ucture (Figure 1(e)). Many other maps were 30 requested, sometimes at short notice, to provide vi suals for discussions with outside stakeholders and 31 assessors. At that time, it became obvious that ot her agencies had a “GIS contact” and a department t o 32 coordinate sharing and mapping of geographic data, whereas Metro-North was reliant on many outside 33 contractors each with different expertise and datas et, yet had no internal capability to quickly turn 34 around map products. As in other railways ( 5), flood mapping is very much a key competency offe red by 35 mature GIS programs. 36 37 Trigger Event—Westport 1532 38 On July 22, 2011, an electric train stopped between Westport and Green's Farms stations, in a rural pa rt 39 of Connecticut, due to sagging electric catenary wi re being snagged by a pantograph during an unusual 40 heat wave. While catenary was powered-off and unde r repair, several passengers onboard called 911 to 41 report that traincar interior temperature was risin g and uncomfortable for some. 42 43 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 5 of 21 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (Figure 1 continues on next page) Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 6 of 21 (g) (h) (j) How often do you or your Department need to communi cate or describe the location of something to someone else within the co mpany? [ ] Constantly [ ] Several times a day [ ] Once a day [ x ] Few times a week [ ] Few times a month [ ] Rarely How would you typically describe the location? (e.g . 1,750 ft. N. of CP 244) By CP, station or catenary pole How much time do you or your Department spend manua lly counting the number of instances something or some incident occu pies a given space? (e.g., Station platform gap incidents; how many track circ uits are between CP 216 and CP 223? How many Northbound Amtrak trains were delayed entering New Rochelle in 2011? How many people live within 2.5 miles of this station?) [ ] All day long [ ] Half of my day [ ] An hour a day [ x ] An hour a week [ ] Few mins per month [ ] Never do it What reference sources would you use to figure that out? The on car data reports incidents with GPS location s. This has to be analyzed when one kind of incident becomes frequent. (k) GIS Need % Respondents Precisely describing a location (at least monthly) 90% Communicating a location (e.g. geocodes) to an outside entity 66% Locate a fixed asset in the field 62% Print out a map for sharing, reporting, etc. 34% Count number of features within a geographic area 62%-66% Figure 1. Enterprise GIS Trigger Events and Early Strategy: (a) Boat Removal—To restore Hudson Line service after Hurricane Sandy, a crane was needed t o remove a boat that had washed up on the tracks near milepost 31 at Ossining, N.Y. (Photo: MTA/Al C ecere); (b) Metro-North Right-of-Way (ROW) between Philipse Manor and Scarborough shows N.Y. C entral “Water Level Route” at barely 6-8 ft above the Hudson River, with Tappan Zee Bridge in the back ground; (c) ROW in the vicinity of Bear Mountain Bridge is surrounded by water on both sides; (d) To pographical Contours near Kemey's Cove in Scarborough, N.Y.; (e) Track and Asset Inundation M ap Book ( 3) generated in the wake of Hurricane Irene; (f) Map showing substation A-25 bisected by FEMA 500-year flood limit but was nevertheless inundated by Sandy (Map: Day Environmental/Chris Sm elt); (g) Traditional engineering diagrams showing catenary locations do not relate well to ou tside features and are not easily understood by emergency personnel; (h) GIS-based representations makes clear the relationship between catenary poles and other features like stations and overpass es; (j) GIS survey instrument with sample response ; (k) GIS survey results. Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 7 of 21 While this might otherwise be described as a routin e incident, when Westport emergency services 1 attempted to provide assistance, they were unable t o locate the train because Metro-North internally 2 tracks locations using interlockings, mileposts (no t well known outside the railroad), and “catenary p ole 3 numbers” (Figure 1(g)-(h)) that forms in essence a proprietary linear-referencing system (south to nor th) 4 along New Haven Line—whereas emergency services typ ically use cross streets and longitude-latitude 5 geocodes. With difficulty in geo-translation, it t ook 45 minutes for emergency services to ascertain 6 train's location near Beachside Ave. overpass in We stport. 7 8 Once arrived, emergency services was unable to dete rmine how best to access right-of-way—by the 9 time a plan was figured out, power had been restore d and so train started up and moved into Green's 10 Farms station, ½ mile away. While this incident re sulted in no serious lingering effects, it highligh ted 11 importance of coordination and joint drills between local emergency responders and Metro-North, and 12 ensuring compatible means of communicating geograph ical locations exist. GIS is an accepted 13 emergency management practice in air ( 6), highway ( 7), and hazmat transport ( 8), but application to 14 passenger railway appears to be a novel practice wi thin extant literature. 15 16 EARLY STRATEGY 17 Early strategy adopted by Planning group was one of education and outreach. While background GIS 18 level-of-comfort existed amongst some technical man agers, this did not extend to executive chambers 19 at first. Targeted discussions and early products were critical to achieving buy-in at highest levels . 20 21 Companywide GIS Survey 22 While employees agreed that better GIS would advanc e company's mission, divergence of opinions 23 existed as to how best to deliver it and relative p riorities. To help achieve consensus on defining a nd 24 scoping EGIS, a companywide survey was used as a st rategy. It gathered some quantitative data, but 25 was really designed for educating stakeholders, and generating support and publicity. Few questions 26 (and sample answers) are reproduced in Figure 1(j) to illustrate type of questions that educate 27 stakeholders on value of GIS, and less for data gat hering. Results are shown in Figure 1(k), which he lped 28 to provide “ammunition” for budget justification. 29 30 Another benefit was to help generate ideas for EGIS pilot projects. Some departments have heretofore 31 not been on GIS Office's radar as requiring GIS sup port, but actually articulated such convincing answ ers 32 that they received higher priority as EGIS was roll ed out. For instance, engineers throughout the 33 company found it difficult to locate as-built recor d drawings of infrastructure, and wanted an interfa ce 34 where online maps would offer access to drawings by location. This idea, first identified in 35 companywide GIS survey, eventually became an EGIS m anagement initiative. 36 37 Hire GIS Specialist 38 One theme coming out of the survey was, while GIS i s everybody's job at some level, it is also nobody' s 39 job. Dedicated resources were needed in GIS Office to manage the program. Job posting (Figure 2) was 40 drawn up for a GIS specialist to perform all roles related to EGIS—coordination, production, and 41 evangelical roles. Recruitment for such employee w as expected to be difficult as it combines high 42 organizational, technical, and people skills requir ements all within one position. 43 44 To address anticipated recruitment difficulties, a multi-pronged approach was taken. Job was posted t o 45 MTA website through normal channels, but copies of posting was also distributed to alumni lists of loc al 46 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 8 of 21 GIS college programs, online GIS network groups, GI S staff amongst vendor communities, and non- 1 traditional channels like mapping and orienteering enthusiast communities, railroad professional 2 networks, etc. This generated a good response; in fact each finalist in selection process came throug h a 3 different channel; some may not have seen the posti ng had a wide variety of channels to reach potentia l 4 candidates not been used. 5 6 Where should GIS Live? 7 Having decided to hire a GIS Specialist, another is sue was where GIS Office belongs organizationally. 8 Initially, GIS position was slated for Safety and S ecurity, a large user department, but not ultimate owner 9 of infrastructure or associated data. Finance and I.T. was considered logical, but it was thought 10 important to establish GIS office in the business s ide rather than support side, to ensure presence of a 11 business champion for the entire affair. 12 13 Literature review and benchmarking yielded no consi stent patterns ( 1,2 ), with some organizations 14 putting GIS within large user departments like Plan ning or Engineering, others putting GIS in support 15 groups like I.T. or Analysis, while some have creat ed special purpose “GIS Department” attached direct ly 16 to Executive offices or put in corporate functional areas like Graphics or Public Affairs. Indeed, wi thin 17 MTA agencies diversity of placements exist: LIRR pu t GIS within Strategic Investments, whereas NYCTA 18 had GIS within I.T., and MTA headquarters put it in Planning. In essence, there is no rhyme or reason as 19 to where GIS should reside to maximize effectivenes s. Key is obtaining appropriate executive 20 sponsorship. 21 22 After discussion, decision was to house the functio n in Capital Planning department. Historically, 23 Planning unit had been a natural organizational hom e for analytical functions that required “time to 24 think” and for integration functions requiring clos e interfaces and a team approach with many 25 departments across the railroad. At that time, Pla nning is one of few areas within the company that 26 were familiar with this “matrix” organizational str ucture and thus considered suited to EGIS. However , 27 in other organizations logical home for GIS could b e different, and it could have easily gone another way 28 and still be just as successful. 29 30 31 SIZING ENTERPRISE GIS INFRASTRUCTURE 32 In GIS's early stages, discussions were held betwee n corporate and I.T. regarding hardware and softwar e 33 needs. Conflicts arose because I.T. favored an “En terprise” model with many software licenses 34 (sufficient to support entire company's eventual re quirement) and large-scale resilient and redundant 35 backup servers that could respond to many GIS reque sts simultaneously and provide for automatic 36 failover in case of server failures—whereas corpora te was concerned about demonstrating “return-on- 37 investment” in terms of future headcount reductions (anticipating more efficient work processes that 38 GIS could bring) to justify upfront investment in G IS. 39 40 I.T. understood GIS's benefits and criticality, thu s they were particularly concerned that once deploy ed, 41 if insufficient capacity or reliability was install ed at the outset, I.T. would come under pressure fo r 42 having undersized technology infrastructure. On th e other hand, budget office was hesitant to commit 43 copious operating revenues to a technology initiati ve which may or may not actually generate future 44 cash savings, particularly since no single departme nt agreed to commit to headcount or contracting 45 reductions due to GIS investment. This impasse thr eatened to derail EGIS efforts. 46 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 9 of 21 Position Title Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Manager Position Objective Develop and lead efforts to expand GIS technology u sage within Metro-North. Launch a companywide GIS i nitiative and manage its ongoing development by acting as point-of-contact and coord inator between departmental users, information tech nology, vendors, outside consultants and regional agencies. Serve as Metro-North's prima ry GIS resource for the identification of GIS needs , database construction and maintenance, and analysis requirements, including G IS mapping. Responsibilities Act as internal and external point of contact on al l corporate GIS and associated data issues; provide functional and analytical expertise as a resource to GIS users within the company; define GI S data formats. Represent Metro-North at MTA and re gional clearinghouses and industry trade groups to promote proper data interchange. Chair the Metro-North GIS Task Force, working with departments to secure implementation of company-wid e GIS initiative. Identify and work with designated departmental GIS liaisons to import existing databases into GIS, including GIS-enabled CAD drawings of capital projects. Develop processes and procedures, to ensure GIS dat a is routinely updated by data owners. Create and maintain GIS base layers from publicly a vailable material. Continually monitor, develop, an d identify available databases (public and internal, AutoCAD, GIS, PDF, paper, etc.), GIS assets and resources, and staff persons with GIS ex perience or knowledge, to move corporate GIS initiative forward. Perform geospatia l analysis as needed for studies, master plans and inquiries. Identify projects/tasks that would benefit from use of GIS applications. Working with IT and liaisons, develop business need s, functional specifications, hardware and software requirements for the GIS initiative. Plan for integration of existing systems and databa ses, specifying consultant services where needed. M onitor levels of service on company- wide GIS resources; develop upgrades as required. Serve as project manager for GIS initiatives establ ishing a timeline and budget. Design and execute GIS training and outreach effort s: train liaisons to perform GIS analyses required of their workflows and to access and contribute data. Continually assist departments in identifying unmet GIS need and new applications; recommend/specify n ew products to meet business demands. Monitor the rapidly changing GIS technolog ies marketplace; develop internal standards as nece ssary. Provide in-person GIS support to Metro-North situat ion room in case of a major incident or weather eve nt. Required Qualifications • Strong analytical and problem solving skills. Exce llent verbal and written communication skills. • Strong GIS development and database administration skills. Excellent knowledge of underlying technica l principles of GIS databases, including data structures, issues, policy considera tions, etc. • Ability to assess GIS-aware data quantitatively. • Demonstrated ability to specify, develop, formulat e, and direct the implementation of, a wide range o f GIS products including data exports, maps, and end-user web or desktop applicat ions that relies on GIS databases. • Project management proficiency. • Must be organized, detail oriented, with proven ab ility to motivate and manage ad-hoc teams, and to m ove projects and initiatives forward. Strong leadership skills. • Ability to build coalitions to implement initiativ es, act as internal advocate, and external point of contact. • Demonstrated ability to communicate with a wide ra nge of departments and stakeholders with different job functions and varying degrees of subject matter understanding. • Proficiency with Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Exc el, PowerPoint), ArcGIS, TransCAD, and/or comparabl e applications. Preferred Qualifications • Experience running or initiating a companywide or department wide integrated GIS effort is strongly p referred. • Experience in managing GIS efforts or other comple x technical issues in a multi-modal, multi-stakehol der environment. • Experience with defining and implementing companyw ide internal standards and protocols, particularly as it relates to GIS. • Experience in defining or implementing regional IT S, GIS, EDI, or other data exchange architecture is preferred. • Good knowledge of current GIS marketplace and tool s, and current web application development platform s, is preferred. • Knowledge of data warehousing and archiving practi ces is preferred. • Ability to understand railroad operations and engi neering organizational cultures is preferred. Required Education/Experience Bachelor's Degree in Geography, GIS, Computer Scien ce, Engineering, City and Regional Planning, Transp ortation Planning, Technology Management, or related field. Minimum five (5) years of progressively responsible experience in a GIS administration, project manage ment, or management consulting function, including two years production and/or pro ject management experience in GIS or other related surveying and mapping operations. Preferred Education/Experience Experience launching and implementing a comprehensi ve GIS initiative at a large public sector operatio ns or engineering organization. 1 Figure 2 Sample GIS specialist job description, for first dedicated GIS employee in an organization. 2 3 4 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 10 of 21 Small-Scale but Expandable Infrastructure 1 A strategy was devised addressing everyone's concer ns. At an initial stage, many employees' GIS roles 2 are limited to visualizing map data (similar to Goo gle Maps), a function easily fulfilled with web-bas ed 3 GIS viewers. Only advanced GIS users with specific software skills (including those in GIS Office) re quire 4 desktop software licenses. Thus, initial deploymen t focuses on creating an Enterprise GIS web-server 5 providing mapping services to employees, with very few desktop software licenses available only to 6 those with advanced GIS skills. Individual license s can be added incrementally as needs are identifie d— 7 and more importantly budget for licenses can be all ocated to specific departments based on utilization 8 and business justification. 9 10 Leverage Enterprise Virtual Servers 11 Regarding EGIS web server, redundancy and resilienc y was sacrificed in the short-run to reduce upfront 12 investment, but technical architecture was designed for future scalability and expandability. Initial plan 13 provided only a single server chain each for develo pment and production environments (Figure 3(a)), 14 but additional production servers could easily be a dded in a load-sharing configuration. Furthermore, 15 EGIS web servers were built as “virtual servers”, n ot physical computers but boxes running under 16 emulation on mainframe computers. Advantages of us ing “virtual server” technology is that, should 17 needs arise, size of each server can be quickly inc reased simply by reconfiguring emulation set-up 18 instead of physically adding processing units or me mory modules. This design addressed I.T. 's concer ns 19 about potential need to quickly scale up GIS deploy ment in unforeseen situations, particularly when 20 used for emergency management purposes. 21 22 23 FEDERATED APPROACH —SHARING OF RESPONSIBILITIES 24 One critical decision faced by the nascent GIS Offi ce was whether to centralize GIS systems and 25 functions or to federalize by sharing responsibilit y and control. Historically, government authoritie s in 26 the Northeast approached technologies by creating l arge agencywide service offices and then 27 consolidating technology functions to reduce duplic ation, increase specialization, and thereby 28 theoretically reducing costs—i.e. attempting to do more with less by taking advantage of supposed 29 economies of scale, most recently for payroll and g eneral I.T. functions. 30 31 However, as EGIS developed, concerns arose from dep artments already using GIS regarding potentially 32 disruptive consolidation impacts. Both Environment al Compliance and Bridge departments already had 33 vendor-developed and proprietary GISes installed, b oth were used for critical business functions 34 including aspects of asset management. When these systems were assessed in detail, it became clear 35 that to replicate and transition these systems to n ew EGIS platform is both cost-prohibitive and 36 potentially counter-productive. “Mother-of-all-sys tems” approach was neither technically feasible nor 37 desirable, particularly due to different pre-existi ng user interfaces designed carefully to very close ly 38 mirror each department's business processes. 39 40 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 11 of 21 (a) (b) Hydrology and Bridge Engineers using ArcGIS Desktop for Analysis RailAdvise GIS db (system of record) Read/Write REST Services (all shapes and attributes) Hydrology and Bridge Inspectors using Field Devices for Data Collection Employees Browsing Bridge and Drainage Data for Reference Purposes Enterprise GIS (ArcGIS Server) Read-Only REST Services (shapes and limited attributes) RailAdvise Enterprise GIS 1 Figure 3. Enterprise GIS Architecture: (a) Initial server c onfiguration was based on providing no 2 redundancy but could support future resiliency upgr ades; (b) Departmental systems would be the 3 system of record while EGIS would fulfill a portal role with read-only access to departmental geodata. 4 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 12 of 21 Initially there was considerable difficulty explain ing this finding to executives, who perhaps expecte d 1 savings associated with bringing many systems into one. This approach gathered more support when it 2 was cast in terms of a “federated” or “distributed” approach, where each department is responsible for 3 maintaining its own GIS data and systems—but agrees to centralized standards and oversight, including 4 data sharing. Data ownership is particularly impor tant because GIS Office could never acquire suffici ent 5 resources or expertise to maintain specialized data associated with every railroad department. GIS 6 Office's role is coordination and facilitating shar ing—breaking down data silos where they exist—and 7 not an outsourced configuration management function for everyone. 8 9 EGIS fulfills a portal-like function—most basic dat a is gathered from all departments and displayed on 10 maps suitable for general audience of all employees and company executives. Clicking on assets 11 belonging to specific departments (e.g. undergrade bridge) provides click-thrus to departmental GIS or 12 asset management site, allowing those with proper a ccess rights to view detailed drill-down. Updates of 13 EGIS data is provided via interfaces like REST Serv ices, allowing proprietary departmental application s to 14 exchange data with EGIS (e.g. Figure 3(b)). 15 16 Decision rules determine how new GIS data is stored . Pragmatic, commonsense approach suggests that 17 if user department already has GIS-like systems whi ch employees are comfortable with, and has current 18 vendor support, new data and functionalities are ad ded to departmental systems (with relevant read- 19 only EGIS interface). If user department doesn't h ave current installations, decision is based on whe ther 20 current EGIS can support proposed data volume and f unctionality. Specialized functionalities or large 21 data volumes (e.g. GIS data from track geometry car s) require specialized solutions installed 22 departmentally; otherwise, data is hosted on EGIS, and GIS Office provides off-the-shelf application 23 functionalities directly. 24 25 26 GIS POLICIES AND STANDARDS 27 One critical early action item in comprehensive EGI S programs at passenger railways are GIS policies a nd 28 standards. GIS touches many corners of the organiz ation, and can result in inter-departmental issues, 29 particularly in an environment with horizontally is olated semi-autonomous functional units or district s 30 often present in railways. GIS Office promulgated policies in six areas and attempted standardization in 31 two areas with varying degrees of success. 32 33 Policies 34 1. Software —At time of EGIS inception, software budgets weren' t centralized and each 35 department held its own licenses. GIS software oft en offered possibility of “floating licenses,” it 36 was necessary to develop methods for allocating ava ilable software capacity and providing 37 charging mechanism to user departments for purchasi ng add-ons and extensions, yet making 38 licenses available for companywide use. Figure 4(a ) shows example policy. 39 40 2. Procurement (Boilerplate) —In a full-service passenger railway infrastructure owner, capital 41 projects are managed in-house with third-party cont ractors doing design and construction under 42 railway personnel supervision. When capital projec ts are “delivered” to customer (i.e. 43 Transportation or other user departments), “as-buil t” drawings and GIS/BIM models must be 44 turned over, quality checked, and kept up-to-date a s maintenance forces make repairs or 45 alterations over time. GIS Office developed two se parate policies, one governing construction 46 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 13 of 21 projects, and another governing consulting projects or equipment purchases, to ensure data and 1 deliverables generated by projects pass through GIS quality check and appropriate 2 georeferencing information is collected. Figure 4( b) shows important elements of these 3 procurement policies. These policies don't apply t o projects built entirely by in-house railway 4 employee forces (i.e. Force Account); GIS updates f or Force Account work must be dealt with by 5 creating a configuration management group (potentia lly part of asset management efforts). 6 7 8 (a) 1. Software is a precious business resource and req uests must be backed up by business justification. 2. Web-based GIS functionalities are preferred for all employees; desktop GIS is provided to advanced users. 3. Initial request should fill out form providing u ser name, job title, job description, rank, an example use case, and tra ining needs. 4. GIS office will evaluate request based on whethe r example use case can be fulfilled by web service or if software is needed. Additional software procurements may be charged to the department budget. 5. Normally, the employee with GIS software will al so serve as departmental GIS liaison. (b) 1. All georeferenced deliverables shall specify coo rdinate system datum and projection, WGS84 or NYS State Plane is p referred. For vertical datum use NAVD88 or indicate “ground l evel”. 2. Layers shall consist of different asset classes based on standard asset hierarchies. Asset attributes (e.g. install date, part number, etc.) shall be provided. Each asset shall have an unique ID. 3. Annotation and notes on CAD drawings shall be av ailable as spreadsheet keyed to asset ID or as GIS attributes. 4. Data deliverables of measured values shall conta in longitudes and latitudes for each data record and have properly de fined units. Data shall be delivered in open formats such as CSV . 5. Contractor shall obtain any necessary clarificat ion from project manager, whose sole discretion is binding and final . (c) Level 1 Public Access : Any GIS data already released to the public or easily observable from publicly accessibl e areas. No restrictions. Level 2A Employee Access: Proprietary GIS data describing assets knowable to employees but not by general pub lic without railroad knowledge (e.g. interlockings, culverts). Access restricted to employees only, or contractors with signed non-d isclosure agreement. Level 2B Departmental Access: Data designated by owner dept. as not available to employees without their approva l (e.g. signal design charts). Access restricted to data owner de partment employees only. Level 2C Confidential, Personal, or Private: Datasets accessible only to H.R., Legal, or Safety depts. with business justification. Level 3 Sensitive Security Information (SSI): Classified by Security Dept. in accordance with FTA SSI guideline s. Must not be stored on networked computers or general-use GIS sy stems. (d) 9 Figure 4. Enterprise GIS Policy and Standards: (a) skeletal framework of a sample software policy; (b) 10 generic CAD drawing/data deliverable boilerplate la nguage; (c) example data classification scheme; (d) 11 sample check in/out and data QA/QC process. 12 13 14 3. Data Security —During EGIS process, it was discovered that no dat a classification guidelines 15 existed within the organization for distinguishing between sensitive infrastructure data (e.g. 16 load ratings of key structural members) and publicl y-observable GIS information (e.g. passenger 17 stations locations). Through meetings with Securit y department, data owners, and 18 infrastructure asset owner groups facilitated by Se curity consultant ( 4), detailed guideline was 19 developed to classify GIS data sources. Figure 4(c ) shows these classifications. 20 21 4. Data Hygiene Procedures —Otherwise known as “check-in/-out process”, its de sign intent is to 22 ensure contractors and third parties can get access to railway's baseline data to perform 23 updates without re-creating base maps or overwritin g changes made by others. Ideally, in- 24 house changes gets handled with multi-user geodatab ases while third-party changes must be 25 reviewed and QA/QC-ed by GIS specialists. Figure 4 (d) shows an example process. Our efforts 26 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 14 of 21 in this area wasn't as successful due to early deci sion to federalize the EGIS framework, resulting 1 in each department essentially keeping data exchang e procedures existing prior to EGIS. 2 3 5. Human Capital —GIS/CAD and data skills are within today's standar d engineering, planning, and 4 business school curriculum. However, if not explic itly mentioned in job descriptions of technical 5 and project manager roles, H.R. and hiring managers wouldn't necessarily screen for them, and 6 thence organizational GIS proficiency would be low. Metro-North added under “preferred 7 qualifications” requirements for GIS, CAD, MicroSta tion, statistical analysis, and database 8 management skills in selected professional/technica l positions within Capital Programs, 9 Maintenance of Way, and Operations Administration d ivisions. Recognizing no single candidate 10 is likely to possess all these skills, but many (bu t by no means all) recent engineering/planning 11 graduates would have at least one, hiring manager i s given latitude to select best candidate for 12 their specific position, and are encouraged to give GIS skills metric due consideration, to support 13 EGIS efforts. 14 15 6. Establish Data Ownership and Update Responsibilitie s —This is next logical step in classic 16 Enterprise GIS process, to establish data ownership and devolve data updating responsibility to 17 each department or a configuration management group . In an infrastructure-dominated railway 18 environment, large fraction of GIS data concerns as set locations, thus GIS Office devolved this 19 work item to ongoing asset management project. 20 21 Standards 22 1. Coordinate System —A frequent issue with decentralized GIS implementa tion is GIS products 23 not being properly notated with datum, coordinate s ystem, and projection upon delivery. GIS 24 analysts then must “guess” and try different combin ations, which could result in data 25 inaccuracies. Boilerplates require global coordina te system of Project Manager's choice, to 26 allow maximum flexibility for different types of pr ojects while eliminating local coordinate and 27 stationing systems that requires specialized projec t knowledge and translation before mapping 28 to true locations on earth. One exception is allow ed for projects within Grand Central Terminal 29 (GCT), due to difficulty of obtaining GPS fix withi n tunnels, deliverables are permitted to use 30 historic New York Central Railroad stationing and g rid system, well-defined and generally known 31 within the agency. 32 33 2. Milepost Location —Railroad mileposts are typically measured sequenti ally from a known point 34 such as a major terminal or junction. However, ove r time, due to minor changes in alignments 35 and/or movement in mile markers, long and short mil es can occur. A project is underway by 36 Maintenance of Way and a consultant to measure and re-mark locations of mileposts based on 37 valuation maps and other sources, providing a clear definition of locations of irregular length 38 miles. (Mileposts are not easily relocated because most infrastructure locations are specified 39 relative to the nearest milepost.) GIS group will complete a linear referencing model once 40 locations of all mileposts are positively reaffirme d and specified using latest GPS technology. 41 42 43 ENTERPRISE GIS WEB VIEWERS 44 EGIS program aims to make mapping capabilities and data accessible to all employees. Based on web 45 viewer strategy and desire to balance achievable pr ocessing speeds and anticipated audiences, several 46 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 15 of 21 viewers were created to serve data needs of differe nt departments. Tools available on Metro-North's 1 EGIS portal (some link to external sources, most cr eated in-house) are briefly discussed below and 2 shown in Figure 5. 3 4 1. Enterprise GIS Viewer —Provides most basic general access layers like val uation maps, charts 5 plans and diagrams, stations, mileposts, insulated joints, signal, switches, interlockings, 6 equipment cases and houses, catenary bridges, track centerline, yard, culverts, bridges, grade 7 crossings, platforms, electrical substations, stree t labels, ferry feeders, tax map parcels, political 8 districts, and civil boundaries. These features ar e overlaid on default base maps like aerial 9 imagery, street map, USGS topo maps, or light gray canvas. Main objective is quickly relating 10 railroad infrastructure (features identified in LiD AR flyover survey) to outside world (from base 11 map). There is limited integration with outside GI S and information services, for instance 12 clicking on mileposts link to Google Maps at that p recise location, and stations link to MTA's 13 station website. Viewer is optimized for rendering speed. 14 15 2. Track Department Automated Sensor Data —For Maintenance of Way, various GPS-based data 16 streams are loaded onto basic map of track centerli nes, stations, and interlockings. Automated 17 sensor data comes from routine infrastructure condi tion assessment scans like Grex Aurora for 18 assessing tie condition, Sperry car for ultrasonic rail defect scan, and track geometry cars. 19 20 3. Census Demographics —Designed for planners, this viewer overlays servic e area and railroad 21 infrastructure on various U.S. Census demographics variables. 22 23 4. Environmental Features —For environmental engineers and flooding risk asse ssors, this shows 24 bodies of water together with floodplains, dams, we tlands, natural communities, and geological 25 information like faults, bedrock, soil, etc. Most information comes from publically available 26 source like FEMA maps and Army COE, but because the se datasets were generally slow to 27 render, they were not included in the main viewer. 28 29 5. Superstorm Sandy Cable Job —EGIS program has an explicit strategy to collect i nfrastructure 30 data by piggybacking on extensive aerial surveying required for ongoing Capital design and 31 construction projects. By accumulating baseline da ta, future surveying needs may be reduced. 32 First project to afford this opportunity was Sandy Cable Replacement project between Mott 33 Haven Junction, Bronx, and Croton-Harmon in Westche ster County. After aerial surveys, data 34 was delivered to Metro-North in AutoCAD format alon g with design elements (e.g. manhole, 35 pullbox, vault, wall mount, equipment platform, etc .) and imported into web viewers. Although 36 users are effectively limited to project staff, it touches upon major parts of track, 37 communications and signals, and power infrastructur e in affected segments. As infrastructure 38 replacement design progresses beyond Sandy affected regions due to normal replacement 39 needs, EGIS goal is to eventually “see” all active buried cable infrastructure. 40 41 6. Quasi-Public Facilities —Aimed towards planners and public affairs official s, viewer provides 42 publically available locations of universities, sch ools, emergency services, airports, hospitals, 43 government offices, nursing homes, libraries, cemet eries, churches, recreational areas (beaches, 44 parks, golf courses, shooting ranges), river ports, parking facilities, county fairgrounds, retail 45 centers, military installations, Federal lands, and fire districts. High densities of these facilitie s in 46 New York City resulted in a very busy map, requirin g a separate viewer. 47 48 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 16 of 21 1 Metro -North Enterprise GIS Portal Enterprise GIS Viewer (for all employees) Track Dept. Automated Sensor Data Viewer (Grex, Sperry, TGC, etc.) Census Demographics Viewer Environmental Features Viewer Sandy Cable Job Viewer Quasi -Public Facilities Viewer West of Hudson Signal Project Viewer (As Built) Integrated Google(R) Street Viewer Topographical Contours Viewer Grand Central Terminal Floorplan Viewer New Haven Railroad Valuation Maps (UConn) Westchester County GIS 2 Figure 5. A selection of applications available to all employ ees on Metro-North's Enterprise GIS Portal. 3 4 5 7. West-of-Hudson Signal Project As-Built —This was the first construction project for which GIS- 6 enabled as-built drawings were delivered. Data was loaded into web viewer as proof-of-concept 7 and shows new infrastructure items like interlockin gs, signals, switches, electric locks, 8 equipment cases and housing, power vaults, C&S vaul ts, snowmelter boxes, telco demarcation 9 points, cable trays, chain link fences, and detaile d attributes for each box, e.g. generator, power 10 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 17 of 21 distribution center, central instrument location, e tc. This data will prove invaluable for locating 1 and maintaining infrastructure elements in future. 2 3 8. Integrated Google(R) Street View —Allows Google Street View imagery to be accessed f rom 4 within EGIS. Although this feature is now integrat ed into the main viewer, it will eventually 5 permit other video-based data like track-level cab- view videos and CCTV camera footage to be 6 retrieved within EGIS. 7 8 9. Topographical Contours —Designed for hydrologists, drainage and civil engi neers requiring good 9 understanding of specific sites' topological terrai n. 2-ft and 10-ft topo lines were downloaded 10 from each county in service area and clipped to wit hin 0.5-mile of right-of-way (to speed up 11 processing time). Although this feature could have been integrated into Environmental Features 12 viewer, the combination was unacceptably slow. As demand increases, this viewer is a 13 candidate for justifying additional disc space for caching techniques or processor/memory 14 upgrades. 15 16 10. Grand Central Terminal Floorplan —Provides multi-level GCT building floor plans. It is more 17 Building Information Management (BIM) system than G IS, and used by departments needing to 18 understand spatial relationship between different G CT areas, particularly relationship between 19 different levels. Also included is information reg arding tracks, platforms, stairs and 20 passageways, room utilization, emergency exits, HVA C, and certain building infrastructure 21 elements. This will eventually be expanded into fu ll-featured emergency management and 22 security management application for GCT, although a ccess restrictions are required by layer to 23 safeguard sensitive information. 24 25 11. New Haven Railroad Val Maps —Most valuation maps are provided within EGIS, but internal 26 railroad archives didn't include segments that Metr o-North does not own, including all trackage 27 within Connecticut. University of Connecticut libr ary hosts this collection and link is provided 28 from EGIS Portal. 29 30 12. Westchester County GIS —Many employees were previously using Westchester C ounty GIS for 31 limited service area coverage prior to advent of EG IS; link is provided for employee convenience. 32 33 34 INTERNALLY MARKETING GIS 35 Railway and other district-based environments often suffer from "not invented here" syndrome, 36 whereby new systemwide tools don't achieve immediat e adoption because of unawareness, force of 37 habit, local pride, or legitimate disagreements abo ut standardization benefits. Multi-pronged strateg ies 38 were devised to combat potential issues and help ro ll out EGIS in truly companywide fashion. 39 40 1. GIS Portal —A legitimate complaint often heard when rolling ou t new technology products is 41 users often can't find it, or don't have access to it. GIS portal was designed with this in mind. 42 Portal consolidates in one place all GIS applicatio ns that have complex, hard-to-remember web 43 addresses, and GIS Office purposely didn't require logins for all but most sensitive applications— 44 making assumption that employees using company intr anet computers should have access to all 45 GIS information approved for general employee use. A prominent link will go to GIS Portal from 46 company intranet homepage. 47 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 18 of 21 1 2. REST Services Directory —REST Service (representational state transfer) is an application 2 programming interface (API) allowing different comp uter programs to talk to each other and 3 exchange information, including GIS data. Normally , these services are secured to programmers 4 on need-to-know basis. However, EGIS directory of services are purposely left wide open 5 (within company intranet) and advertised to employe es with technical skills to use them. 6 Employees in Maintenance of Equipment bases are usi ng REST Services to pull down GIS data 7 from centralized repository for prototype applicati ons being implemented. 8 9 3. Asking Project Managers for Approval —In fact, no approval of GIS data by infrastructure 10 project managers are really necessary; it is more i mportant for GIS Manager to quality check 11 data deliverables. However, an explicit strategy w as put in place requiring project managers to 12 approve GIS deliverables. This created opportuniti es for GIS Manager to teach each PM use of 13 web-based GIS tools, and allowing PMs opportunities to see EGIS's value to their project. 14 Frequently, in this interaction, PMs spotted errors in contractor-originated data that never 15 would have been picked up by GIS Manager (like mino r location errors requiring detailed site 16 knowledge to detect). This strategy generated many EGIS champions within engineering 17 disciplines, created connections for GIS Office, an d offered opportunities for learning about 18 specialized capital projects on the railroad. 19 20 4. Relevance of Early Products —Strategy here is to produce limited number of quic k maps dealing 21 with timely topics presented to senior management a s demonstration of early progress with 22 EGIS program. Products included maps tracking muds pots in trackbed monthly, and one-off 23 maps tracking third rail bracket incidents (Figure 6(a)), operating employee residence locations 24 (for fatigue modelling), Mail & Ride zipcodes (to t rack parking demand by stations, Figure 6(b)), 25 and three dimensional visualizations of station rid ership. Other rail agencies have done similar 26 mapping with ridership ( 10 ) and incident locations ( 9). 27 28 5. Infomercial Video —One idea currently in development is a script offe ring a QVC or Home 29 Shopping Network style infomercial describing how t o use EGIS web interface in somewhat 30 whimsical fashion. It was thought to be a way to r each older employees some of whom are not 31 as comfortable with technology. However, as the or ganization is currently going through a wave 32 of retirements, video production was put on hold pe nding further discussion. 33 34 6. Email Blasts —When EGIS launched, emails were sent out by compan y executives and managers 35 at different levels to their audiences highlighting availability of web viewer services. Repetition 36 of message by different managerial levels is import ant: e.g., Senior Director sent short and brief 37 message to Executive Leadership Team, while Deputy Director sent longer introductory message 38 to Corporate Leadership, then GIS Manager sent deta iled “how to use EGIS viewer” messages to 39 technical leads within each department. 40 41 7. Roadshows —GIS Manager made arrangements with department head s to provide half-to-one 42 hour demonstrations of web applications and provide venue to discuss EGIS principles and 43 usage in everyday company functions. Presentations , informal in style, are tailored to specific 44 departments and bridge knowledge gaps for those who se job doesn't require whole-day training 45 classes, but need peripheral awareness of EGIS capa bilities and tools. 46 47 48 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 19 of 21 (a) (b) 1 (c) 0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2014-09 2014-10 2014-11 2014-12 2015-01 2015-02 2015-03 20 15-04 2015-05 2015-06 Hits per Month Month Year Enterprise GIS Growth (data as of 2015-6-30) WofH Title6 Street View Stations Sandy Rock Slope Public Facilities MOW GCT Enviro Drainage Contours Census Camera Rest Services EGIS Portal 2 Figure 6. Enterprise GIS Marketing Strategies: (a) an early product showing locations of third rail 3 brackets issues; (b) rider origination patterns by zipcode at Tarrytown station; (c) EGIS web viewer 4 server statistics by category. 5 6 7 8. Employee Newsletter Article —Although understood that any given channel would o nly reach a 8 subsegment of employees, newsletter articles can pr ovided needed buzz to encourage water- 9 cooler conversations and prompt folks to try web ap plications. Ultimately, employee newsletter 10 was used to publicize training opportunities. 11 12 9. Software Training —Training is also a strategy to get more buy-in fro m technical resources 13 throughout the railroad. Not only does a day of tr aining offer reprieve from monotony of 14 operations or technical functions, it also allows e mployees to feel empowered because the 15 company invested in their careers by providing them knowledge and skills to utilize latest GIS 16 tools. Training should be relevant to railroad's c ore mission, so if outside course materials are 17 used, railway-specific discussions and customizatio ns of course content can be considered. 18 19 20 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 20 of 21 Monitoring Enterprise GIS Usage 1 Using webserver logs, EGIS team can monitor how man y employees used web viewers, and which 2 viewers are hit hardest. Figure 6(c) shows during launch month (November 2014), webserver 3 experienced a surge in demand. Subsequently demand stabilized at around 300 uses per month 4 (average of 15 employee users on any given workday) . Training activity conducted in June and a 5 concept of operations report being widely distribut ed resulted in accesses peaking again that month. 6 7 General lessons learned here is that GIS office sho uld “keep up the continuing drumbeat” regarding EGI S 8 efforts via any and all channels. Until a geolocat ion culture catches on, successes in permeating exi sting 9 business processes are far more likely if GIS is at forefront of employees' minds as they go about the ir 10 daily routine. Organizational culture changes lik e cultures of safety, transparency and openness, 11 security, and of course GIS are multi-year efforts that depend on maintenance for continuing 12 improvement. 13 14 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 15 As Metro-North's Enterprise GIS program enters its third year, GIS is becoming a common acronym on 16 the railroad. Software was purchased and installed , staffing is in place, policy and procedures were 17 promulgated and employees were trained. Data was a cquired and, for the most part, web strategy was 18 successful as more departments are requesting featu res they need and also contributing GIS data to the 19 crowd-sourced and federated companywide effort. 20 21 For the EGIS team here, one unexpected development that generated some excitement is, unbeknownst 22 to us, Transportation Operations Division had been using EGIS to locate incident trains by telephone—a 23 Trainmaster in the field would call the office and ask question like, “Train 2167 at Cat (catenary) Po le 24 523 needs attention, nearest cross street and Exit No. on Conn. Tpke., please?” and office personnel u se 25 EGIS to find answers—instead of using track book sh owing catenary numbers and Google Maps showing 26 grade crossings. While obvious next step here is t o make EGIS available on mobile smartphones already 27 carried by Trainmasters, clearly the technology is of such value that field personnel discovered and 28 derived an old-fashioned way (voice communications) to gain access to new technology! 29 30 While EGIS's success and information-sharing impact it's had on the organization was dependent on 31 many factors outside of GIS Office's direct control , we hope that practices and strategies presented 32 herein provides ideas for other transit properties looking to implement EGIS as a transformative 33 technology for continued teamwork and organizationa l development. 34 35 36 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 37 Authors gratefully acknowledge support and assistan ce of Metro-North's Information Technology Team: 38 Ronnie Schaefer (ret.), Charles Nottingham, John La rsen amongst others, and many employees who 39 gave their valuable contributions in the early days of the Enterprise GIS Program: Anne Kirsch, Matt 40 Peloso, Karen Timko, Jian Wang, Anamaria Bonilla. We also would like to thank our vendor 41 representatives Dave Lashell and Caroline Walker fo r supporting us at every opportunity. Responsibili ty 42 for errors or omissions remains with the authors. Opinions expressed or implied are the authors' and do 43 not necessarily reflect official policies of any or ganization. 44 45 Xiaojing Wei, et al. DRAFT —Preliminary Use Only (trb_16-2121_mn_egis_016.doc) Page 21 of 21 1