1. Case Study: Franklin County, Ohio Location Based Response System (LBRS) Project Presented by: Transmap ® Corporation Ohio GIS Conference 2009

2. Agenda LBRS Overview Franklin County Project Overview Project Approach Benefits Project Approach Challenges Summary

3. LBRS Overview Managed by the Ohio Geographically Referenced Program (OGRIP) Establishes partnerships between State and County government for the creation of spatially accurate street centerlines with address ranges and field verified site-specific address locations. Provides compliancy specifications Data maintained at the local level Intended to reduce redundant data collection efforts Source: http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ServicesData/LBRS/tabid/87/Default.aspx

4. LBRS Overview LBRS Uses/Users 9-1-1 Dispatch/ First Responders County Auditors County Commissioners and Engineers Ohio Highway Patrol/MARCS County Emergency Management Agencies Ohio Department of Transportation US Department of Homeland Security US Census Bureau Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Department of Agriculture Ohio Utilities Protection Service Source: http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ServicesData/LBRS/tabid/87/Default.aspx

5. Franklin County Project Overview Two Phases Phase 1 – Centerline Development (approx 5,600 miles) Phase 2 – Address Point Verification (approx 650,000 points) Utilize existing datasets to support the LBRS data development Integrate datasets from multiple municipalities Validate existing information for use in the LBRS compliant database Conduct field verification activities as required

6. Franklin County Project Overview 2 nd most populated County in Ohio Contains mix of densely populated urban areas as well as rural areas

7. Participating Partners / Stakeholders MORPC Franklin County Engineer’s Office (FCEO) Franklin County Auditor’s Office (FCAO) ODOT City of Columbus City of Dublin City of Westerville City of Gahanna Grove City MEC COTA

8. Existing Datasets Centerlines / Address Data Franklin County City of Columbus City of Dublin City of Westerville City of Gahanna Grove City Combat ANI/ALI

10. Phase 1 - Street Centerlines Geometry Alignment, Shape, Divides, Intersections, Coincident Geometries, Generalization and Densification County and Jurisdictional boundaries Cul-De-Sacs Island – Loop around No Island – End at Center Driveways, Parking Lots, Alleys Metro Park Roads

11. Phase 1 - Street Centerlines Topology Dangles, Pseudo Nodes, Overlaps, Self-Overlaps All segment ends are “Snapped” Verify all dangles are street ends Nodes A node at every at-grade intersection. A node where a road name changes. A node at the intersection of jurisdictional boundaries Overpass/Underpass should have no segment ends/starts

12. Phase 1 - Street Centerlines Other Centerline Geometry Checks Coincident geometries Offset Centerlines Centerlines that do not accurately match curvatures of roadways Centerline Orientation Zero Length Geometry Overpass/Underpass

13. Phase 1 - Street Centerlines Attributes Street Name Fixes/Updates NLFID and Begin/End Log Points (ODOT) SFRAIR00270**C, SFRAUS00023**C, SFRASR00315**C Continuous, Leave/Reenter or Overlapping Inventory Left and Right Cities Left and Right FIPS Left and Right Address Ranges Others

14. Phase 1 - Street Centerlines Log Point computation Routes 14 Char NLFID – Network Link Feature ID IR, US, SR, CR, TR, RA – Preserves Route Numbers NR, MR, PR – 5 digit Route Number assigned Lower Left to Upper Right, County Boundary start at 0 Mile. Transportation Orientation maintained for street centerline Digitized Direction consistent with increasing Milepost Direction

15. Phase 2 - Address Points Assign unique Street Segment Identifier Basis for building segment level address ranges Identify points to be field verified Missing address point Coincident and Duplicate address points Missing or Incorrect address number Missing or Incorrect address street name Address point location Address point with missing street centerline

17. Benefits of using existing data Data Collection / Data Development has already occurred No need to spend money recollecting good data Able to focus required field activities Overall project cost is lower than collecting all new data

18. Challenges of using existing data Different data sources covering the same area Varying data quality Data currency issues Different database schemas Different domain and pick list values

19. Summary Each County is different so the approach will depend on a variety of factors Total size of County Population Density Existing dataset accuracy and currency Participation from all stakeholder groups Existing datasets can be utilized as a foundation to meet LBRS specifications New field data collection/verification as needed

20. QUESTIONS? Contact Info: Craig Schorling, GISP Business Development Manager cschorling@transmap.com Todd Pulsifer Operations Manager tpulsifer@transmap.com