




Organizational Results Research Report October 2010

OR11.007

Light Detection and Ranging

(LiDAR) Technology Evaluation





Prepared by
Sanborn Map Company,
HDR Engineering and Missouri
Department of Transportation
 Final Report

TR 10-007

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Technology Evaluation

Prepared for
Missouri Department of Transportation
Organizational Results

by

Richard A. Vincent
The Sanborn Map Company
Michael Ecker
HDR

October 2010

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the principal investigators. They
are not necessarily those of the Missouri Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or
the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation.
 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
OR11-007
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date October 2010
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Technology Evaluation
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) R Vincent ,M Ecker 8. Performing Organization Report No.

TR10-007
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
The Sanborn Map Company, Inc. 1935 Jamboree Drive, Suite 100, Colorado Springs,
CO & 11. Contract or Grant No.
HDR ONE Company, 325 21st Street Suite 400,St Louis, MO
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Missouri Department of Transportation Final Report
Research, Development and Technology 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
P. O. Box 270-Jefferson City, MO 65102
15. Supplementary Notes
The investigation was conducted in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract:
Evaluation project was undertaken to provide an analysis on the current state of Laser based technology and its applicability,
potential accuracies and information content with respect to Missouri Department of Transportation( MODOT) applications.

17. Key Words – Aerial LiDAR , Mobile Mapping, Mobile LiDAR, 18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public
through National Technical Information Center,
Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassi fied 102

Form DOT F 1700.7 (06/98)

 Executive Summary

The study TR10-007 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Technology Evaluation project was
undertaken to provide an analysis on the current state of Laser based technology and its
applicability, potential accuracies and information content with respect to Missouri Department
of Transportation (MODOT) applications. This study involved collection of Airborne, Static
(Terrestrial) and Mobile LiDAR over a known project area with existing control and check data
sets and provides an assessment of accuracy, cost and feasibility for MODOT projects.

The mobile, aerial and static data sets meet the accuracy and information content required for
geospatial information for mapping applications as well as additional information that can be
mined for potential asset inventory and infrastructure information content.
The mobile technology allows for low risk and rapid collection of geospatial information,
limiting safety impacts to workers, however there are limitations as to the range of the sensor and
occlusions or shadowing affecting potential information content. The aerial LiDAR acting
similar to traditional aerial imagery allowing for rapid collection of elevation information for
detailed surface modeling as well as feature extraction using “LiDARgrammetry”. The static
system collects point cloud data, has more flexibility in scanning in “shadowed” areas from the
mobile or aerial systems, but requires significantly more time and adds potential risk to the
collection teams. All three technologies collect enormous amounts of point cloud data that
proved extremely difficult to process and manage. Current software is limited in dealing with the
mobile dataset in particular, requiring additional file creation and data management challenges.
The mobile technology significantly reduces field collection time but increases back office
processing, requiring potentially additional hardware and software to effectively manage the
datasets. The software vendors must catch up to the hardware capability in order to reduce time
and effort required to manage and extract useful information from the point clouds.

Mobile Mapping technology can provide a rich information dataset but is currently limited in its
ability to be fully exploited due to software and processing limitations. However in order to
collect surface elevations for contours, and base mapping features mobile mapping offers a safe,
rapid complementary technology for DOT applications. Traditional survey or static scanning
may still be required to fill any required information that may be “shadowed” by the mobile
system, but the Mobile Mapping process can significantly lower costs and reduce worker safety
risk.

Projects should be carefully scoped so that collection plans and data feature requirements are
well defined, enabling concurrent field work if required. The accuracy of the LiDAR data and
the speed at which it can be collected is a major benefit to the end user.
Contents 
INTRODUCTION 1 
OBJECTIVES 2 
PRESENT CONDITIONS 3 
LITERATURE REVIEW AND PUBLICATIONS - PRINT 4 
LITERATURE REVIEW AND PUBLICATIONS - WEB 5 
TECHNICAL APPROACH – FIELD OPERATIONS 6 
FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS -TECHNICAL APPROACH 7 
AERIAL LIDAR DATA COLLECTION -TECHNICAL APPROACH 8 

Equipment 8 

Collection 9 

Flight Collection 11 

Field QC 14 
MOBILE LIDAR DATA COLLECTION -TECHNICAL APPROACH 19 

Equipment 19 

Collection 19 

Post Processing 20 

Post Processing Procedures 25 

Final Processing Of Aerial and Mobile Data 30 

STATIC LIDAR DATA COLLECTION -TECHNICAL APPROACH 31 
FEATURE EXTRACTION – TECHNICAL APPROACH 34 
QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 37 
LIDAR DATA IMPORT TO DESIGN SOFTWARE TECHNICAL APPROACH–GEOPAK TIN 39 
LIDAR DATA IMPORT TO DESIGN SOFTWARE TECHNICAL APPROACH–GEOPAK TIN 39 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41 

Triangulated Irregular Networks (TIN) Surface Evaluation 41 

TIN Accuracy Assessment – TIN to Control 42 

Volumetric Surface Evaluation 42 

Planimetric Feature Evaluation 52 

COST ANALYSIS MATRIX 55 
SCHEDULE COMPARISON 61 
MATRIX OF SAFETY IMPACTS 67 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND FEATURE MATRIX 68 
CURRENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY 69 
DATA ACCURACY 70 
CONCLUSION 71 

Sources of Error 74 

Cost Comparison 74 

RECOMMENDATIONS 75 
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 76 
IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVE 77 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 78 
APPENDIX A CONTROL REPORT - MOBILE DATA 1 
APPENDIX A CONTROL REPORT - AERIAL DATA 6 
COMMON MISSING POINTS 9 
APPENDIX B SURVEY REPORT 1 

List of Figures 
Figure 1 Project Route .................................................................................................................... 6 
Figure 2 Aerial LiDAR System Leica ALS50-II ............................................................................ 8 
Figure 3 Aerial Digital Camera Appanix DSS 439 ........................................................................ 8 
Figure 4 Aerial LiDAR Collection Trajectories (Blue) Route (Red) ........................................... 10 
Figure 5 Aerial Laser Intensity Image .......................................................................................... 10 
Figure 6 Aerial Natural Color Image ............................................................................................ 11 
Figure 7 Flight Log Page 1 ........................................................................................................... 12 
Figure 8 Flight Log Page 2 ........................................................................................................... 12 
Figure 9 Airport Base Station (Used for System Verification)..................................................... 13 
Figure 10 PDOP Planning ............................................................................................................. 14 
Figure 11 Aerial Tile Scheme ....................................................................................................... 16 
Figure 12 Classified Laser - (Top View) Ground, Buildings, Vegetation .................................... 16 
Figure 13 Classified Laser (Front View) Ground, Buildings, Vegetation .................................... 17 
Figure 14 Bare Earth and Buildings.............................................................................................. 17 
Figure 15 Bare Earth ..................................................................................................................... 18 
Figure 16 Mobile Mapping System .............................................................................................. 19 
Figure 17 GPS Track .................................................................................................................... 20 
Figure 18 Number of Satellites ..................................................................................................... 21 
Figure 19 Chart of PDOP.............................................................................................................. 22 
Figure 20 SBET Review ............................................................................................................... 23 
Figure 21 Mobile Trajectories ...................................................................................................... 24 
Figure 22 Mobile Trajectory ......................................................................................................... 24 
Figure 23 Mobile Tile Scheme ..................................................................................................... 26 
Figure 24 Mobile Data - All Points............................................................................................... 27 
Figure 25 Mobile Bare Earth points.............................................................................................. 28 
Figure 26 Aerial Sample ............................................................................................................... 28 
Figure 27 Lidar Colored by Elevation Range ............................................................................... 29 
Figure 28 Combined Aerial and Lidar Data ................................................................................. 29 
Figure 29 Optech ILRIS 3D Laser Scanner .................................................................................. 31 
Figure 30 Terrestrial Scan Location ............................................................................................. 31 
Figure 31 Trimble GX Advanced Terrestrial Scanner .................................................................. 32 
Figure 32 Static LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB ................................................. 32 
Figure 33 Static LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB Colored by Elevation .............. 32 
Figure 34 Mobile LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB .............................................. 33 
Figure 35 Stereo Intensity Image .................................................................................................. 35 
Figure 36 Mobile Stereo Image .................................................................................................... 36 
Figure 37 Geopak XM - las import ............................................................................................... 39 
Figure 38 Aerial TIN Analysis ..................................................................................................... 41 
Figure 39 Mobile TIN Analysis .................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 40 Volumetric Contour Evaluation ................................................................................... 48 
Figure 41 Feature - Position Analysis........................................................................................... 52 
Figure 42 Point 520 ....................................................................................................................... 53 
Figure 43 Point 562 ....................................................................................................................... 54 
Figure 44 Points outside of coverage (blue) ................................................................................... 4 
Figure 45 Point 345 ......................................................................................................................... 4 
Figure 46 Point 347 ......................................................................................................................... 5 
Figure 47 Point 351 ......................................................................................................................... 5 
Figure 48 Point 503 ......................................................................................................................... 5 

List of Tables
Table 1 Leica Flight Parameters ..................................................................................................... 9 
Table 2 Aerial Point Count ........................................................................................................... 18 
Table 3 Mobile Point Count.......................................................................................................... 26 
Table 4 Volumetric Surface Evaluation - Aerial LiDAR ............................................................. 43 
Table 5 Volumetric Surface Evaluation -Mobile LiDAR ............................................................. 47 
Table 6 - Photogrammetric- vs Aerial and Mobile TIN Analysis ................................................ 51 
Table 7 Cost Analysis Matrix - Traditional Survey Design ......................................................... 55 
Table 8 Cost Analysis Matrix - Aerial LiDAR ............................................................................. 56 
Table 9 Cost Analysis Matrix - Mobile LiDAR ........................................................................... 57 
Table 10 Cost Analysis Matrix - Static LiDAR ............................................................................ 58 
Table 11 Cost Analysis Matrix - Conventional Mapping ............................................................. 59 
Table 12 Cost Analysis Summary................................................................................................. 60 
Table 13 Schedule Traditional Survey .......................................................................................... 61 
Table 14 Schedule Aerial LiDAR ................................................................................................. 62 
Table 15 Schedule Mobile LiDAR ............................................................................................... 63 
Table 16 Schedule Static LiDAR .................................................................................................. 64 
Table 17 Schedule Conventional Mapping ................................................................................... 65 
Table 18 Schedule Summary ........................................................................................................ 66 
Table 19 Feature Assumptions for Costs and Schedule................................................................ 66 
Table 20 Matrix of Safety Impacts ............................................................................................... 67 
Table 21 Additional Features Matrix ............................................................................................ 68 
Table 22 Mobile and Aerial Data Accuracy ................................................................................. 70 
Introduction

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is interested in evaluating the advantages

or disadvantages of data collection using Laser based technologies when compared to traditional
photogrammetric or survey methods. MoDOT is interested in evaluating not only the technical
aspects of information regarding this type of technology but also evaluating estimates on
potential financial and schedule impacts and challenges for Laser Based Technology.
Transportation officials desire to implement the most economical data collection method that
meets the project requirements. Recently, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) based mobile
mapping technology draws lot of practitioners’ attention, and has been recognized as an efficient
and economic method for collecting various types of roadway asset data.

Mobile Laser Mapping has been in use in practical mapping studies that indicate its feasibility
for survey applications.1 These studies indicate that the speed, accuracy and information content
that can be collected without impact to traffic or traditional survey safety concerns have the
potential to provide cost and schedule benefits. Some of the key drivers for reviewing this
technology with respect to MODOT operations are recently reported improvements in the overall
accuracy of the technology, its application to support MODOT requirements, and the increased
application of this technology.

This research will assess three different types of LiDAR data collection technology, and provide
recommendations for the most viable data collection method based on results of the study. The
LiDAR based mapping methods that will be evaluated in this research include:
a) Airborne LiDAR
b) Mobile Terrestrial LiDAR
c) Static Terrestrial LiDAR (3-D Scanning)

1
CLOSE PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND LASER SCANNING USING A MOBILE MAPPING SYSTEM FOR THE HIGH DETAILED
SURVEY OF A HIGH DENSITY URBAN AREA The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial
Information Sciences. Vol. XXXVII. Part B5. Beijing 2008

1
Objectives

The key objectives for the project are to develop the following information as a result of the field
data collection and post processing:

 Provide an error analysis matrix of TIN surfaces, features and control

 Provide a cost matrix detailing industry rates for collection and processing
 Provide a matrix of potential additional features or information that could be created from
each technology

In addition as part of the report summary provides the following additional information:

 Field operations – basic procedures and note/records

 System calibration – pre and post collection procedures
 Operational pre & post collection methods and results
 Overview of post processing calibration and system checks.
 Feature collection methods – software and tools
 Quality control plan
 Matrix of feature and surface based accuracy assessment
 Matrix of schedule comparisons including planning times, field operations-collection
flexibility, and data extraction
 Matrix of safety components and impacts

 
Page 2
 
Present Conditions

Currently MODOT collects this mapping and road information using a combination of traditional
aerial photogrammetric mapping supported by field surveys for aerial control. Detailed road
cross sections are performed using traditional ground surveys and field crews. These methods
although well understood and robust have potential issues with worker safety and traffic impact
issues for collecting information on the road or near right of way. Additionally weather issues
and traffic issues impact collection schedules and drive cost. These surveys also capture discreet
or local point information for the immediate purpose of the survey. This potentially adds
duplication of effort and cost if additional or other information is required in the same
geographical area for other departments or uses.

Photogrammetry is a useful surveying tool for a few reasons. First, it allows the collection of
visual data over a much larger area in a shorter period of time than can easily be surveyed at
ground level by conventional means in a comparable amount of time. Second, the photographs
offer a 3D representation of items and landmarks that may have changed over time, and possibly
no longer exist as they once did. Surveyors are often times called upon to show that a specific
object was in a particular location in respect to another object. While simple photographs cannot
allow for the spatial differences, a 3D photogrammetric photo can. Third a 3D digital model is
developed from the 3D photogrammetric photo. The photogrammetric image is an x-y-z model
that has the added benefit of being fixed to a particular time and place. The digital processing of
the imagery adds in GPS measurements to ensure the highest possible accuracy and GIS
placement. The resulting digital terrain model created from the photogrammetric topographic
survey is then used as a base for road cross sections, aerial mapping and design/build work.

As the mobile mapping technology has evolved to a point in the market where there is evidence
that it provides potential benefit for mapping operations. MoDOT is seeking an evaluation of
Laser based technology and its potential impact to the financial and safety aspects for it
programs.

 
Page 3
 
Literature Review and Publications - Print
Magazine  Date  PG  Relevance to The project  
Article on Definitions, applications 
and current Industry state on 
Airborne and Terrestrial Laser 
GIM International  Dec‐09  22  Scanning 
Article on University College of 
GIM International  Feb‐10  12,14  Dublin YobiLiDAR SW 3d Viewer 
Cloudworx AD for SmartPlant 3d – 
GIM International  Oct‐09  77  Sw for point cloud manipulation 
3Dlasermapping Ad on mobile 
GIM International  Jan‐09  18  scanning  
Application of Static scanning for 
runway and rail application, saftey 
POB   Feb‐09  12,16  and on site time benefits 
Overview Aerial  LiDAR and InSar 
GIS Development   Jun‐09  41  applications 
GEOConexion  Dec‐09  33,38  Article e‐cognitionfor LiDAR analyis 
GEOConexion  Feb‐10  13  Article 3D Laser Mapping China  
3D City modeling using Aerial LiDAR 
GEOConexion  Mar‐10  13,41  ‐ Blom 
Mobile Mapping for asset mapping 
Trimble Technology & More  Mar‐09  13  – NetherlandS  
Article –Geoff Jacobs Laser Scanner 
Versatility Factors – overview of 
Professional Surveyor  Jan‐10  33  various applications and benifits 
Article Gorden Peery  Mobile 
Mapping Overview – challenges in 
Professional Surveyor  Feb‐10  16,26  data management and processing 
Mobile Mapping system overview – 
PE&RS  Mar‐10  217,222  Geocue  

These articles provided additional information and understanding on these technologies, uses,
applications and solutions for collecting and using the data

 
Page 4
 
Literature Review and Publications - Web

There are a number of web based GIS, Surveying Journals that provide information on
technology trends and applications. As this technology continues to change and mature and the
hardware in particular continues to develop, maintaining an awareness to new and near future
hardware and software solutions and improvements are critical to execute these type of programs

A sampling of key web sites and organizations is listed below that provide on aerial and mobile
mapping technology

American Congress on Surveying and Mapping 
(ACSM)  www.ascm.net  

International Society for Photogrammetry (ISPRS),   www.isprs.org  

American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote 
Sensing (ASPRS),   www.asprs.org  

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration,   www.fhwa.dot.gov  

American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO),   www.transportation.org  

Transportation Research Board,   www.trb.org 

Point of Beginning  www.pobonline.com  

Asian Surveying & Mapping  www.asmmag.com  

Cadalyst Magazine ( Autodesk)  www.cadalyst.com  

Directions Magazine  www.directionsmag.com  

All Poin ts Blog  www.apbdirectionsmag.com  

Geocommunity  www.geocomm.com  

GeoConnexion   www.geoconnexion.com  

Geoinformatics  www.geoinformatics.nl  

Georeports  www.geoplace.com  

GeoSpatial Solutions  www.gpsworld.com/gis  

GeoWorld  http://digitalmagazinetechnology.com  

http://www.gim‐
GIM International   international.com/index.php  

GIS Café  www.giscafe.com  

GIS User  www.gisuser.com  

GPS World  www.gpsworld.com  

IN The Scan‐ Laser News  http://LiDARnews.com/  

Google Alerts ‐ Keyword searches  www.google.com/alerts  

 
Page 5
 
Technical Approach – Field Operations

The data collection for this research was undertaken along Route A in Franklin County, Missouri
between the cities of Union and Washington. This area was chosen due to the availability of
independent survey control and reference data

Figure 1 Project Route

The data was collected December 16 through December 18, 2009.

Aerial Data was collected December 17, Mobile data was collected December 17 with a test run
on December 16 to review the route for any potential collection issues (i.e. active construction,
restricted access). The static collection occurred December 17th and December 18, 2009.

 
Page 6
 
Field Survey Operations -Technical Approach

Sanborn in conjunction with EFK Moen established survey control to support the data collection
efforts on December 16 and 17th 2009. Sanborn established two base stations as part of the EFK
Moen network survey on December 17 to support the mobile, aerial and static LiDAR collection.
EFK Moen utilized the MoDOT Global Positioning System (GPS) Virtual Reference Station (VRS)
to verify the MoDOT values of the site survey control network were still in compliance with the
MoDOT control survey requirements set in March 2009 for aerial and topographic mapping
purposes.

EFK Moen re-established the MoDOT GPS reference station values on site, in addition EFK
Moen located and tied 4 National Geodetic Survey (NGS) points used in the original survey and
tied in vertical control using the same differential level methods as the original March 2009
survey. Reference to values of NGS control stations obtained from the NGS and reported to be
on the National Spatial Reference System, NSRS 2007.
The equipment used was TDS Nomad collector software version 1.0.3 and Epoch 35 Antenna,
cell freq. 450-470 Mhz.

The common Horizontal NGS Monument points used were FR31 FR 88 FR 25 and FR23, the
common Vertical NGS Monument control points used were T334 and J339. The conventional
level loop was checked holding the elevations of NGS Monuments T334 and J339, and the
Virtual Reference Stations (VRS) values at the observed stations.

EFK Moen Certification

“The horizontal coordinates were established and verified by GPS observations through the use
of a cellular device equipped Epoch Model 35 GNSS Rover and TDS Nomad Controller utilizing
the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission Global Navigation Satellite Real Time
Network for Continuous Operating Stations. This information was adopted and checked by filed
GPS observations to two (2) nad83(nsrs2007) adjusted points. Field observed check stations
were as follows; FR-20 with a NGS PID (Permanent Identifier) of AC6167, FR-23 with a PID of
AC6170, FR-25 with a NGS PID of AC6234. The site grid azimuth and project grid factor were
adopted as calculated by the TDS Nomad survey controller software. The Missouri East Zone
NAD83(NSRS2007) state plane grid coordinates for the control points were adopted as
calculated by the TDS Nomad survey controller software. To the best of our knowledge, the
calculated state plane grid coordinate meet the accuracy standards of the current Missouri
minimum standards for property boundary surveys (20 csr 2030-16) as an urban class survey
relative to stations FR-20, FR-23, FR-31 and FR-88”2
A copy of the full report can be found at Appendix B

2
EFK Moen LLC Job Lidar Report Appendix B

 
Page 7
 
Aerial LiDAR Data Collection -Technical Approach
Aerial data collection occurred Dec 17, 2009. The aerial data was collected using a Leica
ALS50II MPIA (Multiple Pulse In Air) system combined with a Applanix DSS 439 medium
format digital camera. The combination of LiDAR and digital imagery enable more accurate
filtering and classification of features in the laser datasets

Equipment
The Leica ASL 50 II is a laser based system designed for the acquisition of Topographic and
return signal intensity data from airborne platforms. The MPIA system is capable of measuring
up to 4 returns collecting at up to 150,000 Hz. The data is computed using range and return
signal intensity measurements recorded in flight along with position and attitude derived from
airborne GPS and inertial subsystems..3

Figure 2 Aerial LiDAR System Leica ALS50-II

The Applanix Digital camera is a 39 mega-pixel (MP) 5412x7216 pixel imaging system.4 The
camera is co-mounted with the LiDAR sensor to allow for capture of simultaneous digital
imagery. The camera can collect in natural color or color infrared and create orto-rectified
imagery when post processed.

Figure 3 Aerial Digital Camera Appanix DSS 439

3
Leica ALS50-II Product Specifications © Leica Geosystems AG Heerbrugg, Switzerland
4
Applanix DSS 439 Specifications ©2009 Applanix, A Trimble Compnay. All rights reserved. Applanix and the Applanix logo
are trademarks of Applanix Corporation registered in the Canadian Patent and Trademark Office and other countries.

 
Page 8
 
Collection

The system was configured to collect approximately 15 points / sq meter – The route was flown
twice – primarily in a South to north – then north to south aspect effectively doubling the data
density. Two base stations were located in the project area (Point 25a and 113) and were
confirmed operating prior to collection. A backup Base Station was established at the airport in
the event of a failure of a project base station. All three base stations were Sanborn NovAtel DL-
4 Plus high accuracy GPS receivers.

Leica ALS50 II-MPIA

High point density
Flight altitude 500 Meters
Repetition rate 139000 Hertz
Scan frequency 88.3 Hertz
Half Scan angle 5 degrees
Scan Full angle 10 degrees
Average Air Speed 100 / 100 Knots
Overlap N/A
Swath Width 105 meters
Pulse foot print 0.15 meters
Average Point spacing 0.22 meters
Flight Line Spacing N/A
Projected Hor. Accuracy 7 centimeters
Projected Vert. Accuracy 8 centimeters
Planned Point spacing 15 points per meter
Table 1 Leica Flight Parameters

 
Page 9
 
Figure 4 Aerial LiDAR Collection Trajectories (Blue) Route (Red)

Figure 5 Aerial Laser Intensity Image

 
Page 10
 
Figure 6 Aerial Natural Color Image

Flight Collection

The crew verified equipment functionality, ensured Positional Dilution of Precision PDOP was
with allowable tolerances (less than 3.2) and verified flight plans and mission profile prior to
departure. The crew set a base station at the airport to create a backup control point in the event
of a failure of a station in the project area. (Figure 9)

Flight plans were created using Trackair planning software, this sets the flight altitude, flight
line spacing and flight orientation with respect to the project area and laser settings. The pilot
follows the TrackAir interface (a graphical interface showing aircraft position to planned flight
lines allowing for precise navigation with respect to collection in the project area.

The aerial collection started with a 5 minute static system initialization for GPS and IMU at
Washington Regional airport in City of Washington, Missouri. The aerial crew then coordinated
with the field team to ensure the project area base stations (point 25a and 113) were collecting
prior to system initialization.

The aircraft departed December 17th with flight to collection area approximately 10 minutes.
Prior to project collection the crew flew two reference calibration lines (C1-C4 Figure 7&8) at
the airport this was also performed after the collect and prior to landing. These lines are flown
over the runway in opposite directions at the planned flight parameters for the project area.
The flight plan was designed to collect approximately a 400 foot wide corridor or 200 feet wide
from each side of the road centerline.

 
Page 11
 
Figure 7 Flight Log Page 1

Figure 8 Flight Log Page 2

 
Page 12
 
Figure 9 Airport Base Station (Used for System Verification)

 
Page 13
 
Figure 10 PDOP Planning

Field QC

During flight the system “health” is monitored to ensure all subsystems are operating in normal
ranges via the operator console. PDOP is monitored and recorded on a per flight line basis to
identify any PDOP spikes that would require a re-flight; re-flights are required for PDOP above
3.2. At the end of the mission the data is copied to a transfer drive and shipped to the office. The
operator will verify data coverage in the field using initial processed GPS positioning to verify
aircraft track.

Post Processing Procedure

Using the EFK Moen survey control and base station information for calibration of the aerial
data collection, the data was then processed in the office using Leica’s ALS post processing SW
and Applanix POSPAC MMS for post processing of the GPS and Inertial Measurement Unit
IMU data.

The output .las files were loaded into a GeoCue project environment for data processing and
management.

“The .las file format is a public file format for the interchange of LIDAR data between vendors
and customers. This binary file format is an alternative to proprietary systems or a generic ASCII

 
Page 14
 
file interchange system...”5

GeoCue is a data management software system that facilitates data management, production
processing and final product generation for LiDAR data sets. The GeoCUE LiDAR Cue PAC
was used to facilitate the organization and the multi-user processing for filtering and editing. Due
to the size of the files, greater than 50 Million points the aerial data sets were tiled to facilitate
processing and editing. The aerial LiDAR mission was tiled into 34 tiles 1500ft x 1500 ft with
any single file not exceeding 8 million points, this took approximately 8 hrs to setup and 20
hours to process.

The data sets were tiled to optimize the point density along the route. The width of the route was
set at 300 feet – 150 feet either side of the centerline based on supplied feature data. The
resulting average tile is approximately 12 Million points. The data sets were then filtered to
extract bare earth for use in surface modeling using Terrasolid’s Terrascan product. Custom filter
parameters were generated and the point cloud was automatically filtered to classify bare earth
points. Each tile was then manually reviewed and edited using Terrasolid’s Terramodeler
product that allows interactive editing of the data.

The filtering of .las data does not change the point count in the files, as part of the classification
the points are “attributed” with a classification according to ASPRS .las specification, the default
classes are class 2 bare earth, class 0 or 1 created or unclassified, class 3,4,5 vegetation, class 6
buildings.

The datasets were then inspected for accuracy in the bare earth filtering, and the bare earth
classified tiles were output in ASCII format.

5
American Society For Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
http://www.asprs.org/society/committees/lidar/lidar_format.html

 
Page 15
 
Figure 11 Aerial Tile Scheme

Figure 12 Classified Laser - (Top View) Ground, Buildings, Vegetation

 
Page 16
 
Figure 13 Classified Laser (Front View) Ground, Buildings, Vegetation

Figure 14 Bare Earth and Buildings

 
Page 17
 
Figure 15 Bare Earth

The total project point count by classification after automated and manual processing is outlined
in Table 2 (below).

Class Points
Default                           39,871
Ground                   30,815,366
Low Vegetation                   57,778,875
Medium Vegetation                     2,680,066
High Vegetation                   18,064,128
Buildings                     3,105,888
Low Points                             5,266

Total                 112,489,460
Table 2 Aerial Point Count

 
Page 18
 
Mobile LiDAR Data Collection -Technical Approach

The mobile data collection occurred first on Dec 16 2009 as a test drive and system validation
for the collection. The system was tested for GPS/IMU solution, and data capture ensuring that
during the travel to the site no system operational components were affected. On Dec17, 2009
base stations were established under the guidance of EFK Moen to support the mobile and aerial
collections. These stations are identified as 25a and 113. Both stations were collecting at 0.5
seconds for the duration of both aerial and mobile collection on December 17, 2009.

Equipment

The system deployed was an Optech Lynx, consisting of Dual 200Khz Lasers, 2 GPS antennas
and a Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). The system was configured to collect at the full 200
Khz per laser head effectively collecting 400,000 points/sec. One key aspect of the test drive was
to identify areas where logical breaks for data collection could occur. This aspect is critical for
post mission processing. By collecting in short segments (approx <0.5miles) the risk that a
period of poor GPS reception will adversely affect the post processing is minimized. In addition
short segments can be processed through the calibration software whereas long missions
(1 mile >) can cause errors in software and post field additional data processing is required.

Figure 16 Mobile Mapping System

Collection

The route (Figure 1) was driven in both directions to ensure maximum coverage and reducing the
potential of laser “shadows” obscuring features of interest. Mission planning for collection is
based on a number of project specific variables including traffic density and patterns, single, dual
or multi-lane highways and obstructions, near road obstructions, walls, vegetation etc. Missions
are designed to optimize data collections and minimize shadow areas.

 
Page 19
 
The PDOP was checked to ensure it was below 3.2 (using the same PDOP Planning data as the
aerial to ensure both collects would fall within the same PDOP windows in Figure 10)

The data was collected in 15 segments (missions) – the system health was monitored using the
laptop controller that provides a “health” reading on the sensor and the collection allowing for
real time monitoring of GPS solution and data collection from the sensors. By breaking the
collection into missions allows for smaller raw data blocks that can be processed through the
Optech Lynx post processing software

Post Processing

The GPS and IMU data was post processed using Applanix’s POSPAC Land which processes
the GPS and IMU data into trajectories. The results of POSPAC Land was used to compute the
positioning of the .las point cloud processed using Optech’s DASHMAP SW for converting the
“raw” laser data to .las files.

The GPS output is reviewed and verified, number of satellites, PDOP and final Smoothed Best
Estimated Trajectory (SBET) Day 351 B Dec 17th 2nd mission (Figures 17-20)

Figure 17 GPS Track

 
Page 20
 
Figure 18 Number of Satellites

 
Page 21
 
Figure 19 Chart of PDOP

 
Page 22
 
 Mission Start

Figure 20 SBET Review

SBET results x & y for B mission segment nominal 1cm or less and z 1.6 cm

 
Page 23
 
Figure 21 Mobile Trajectories

Combined trajectories for 3 mission segments from collection (Fig 21)

Figure 22 Mobile Trajectory

Figure 22 shows detail of collection position and trajectory data (track of the vehicle) mission B

 
Page 24
 
Post Processing Procedures

The mobile data “missions” were then loaded into GEOCUE. A new module GEO CUE Lynx
MMS Cue Pac was required in order to process and manipulate the approximately greater than
0.5 Billion points from the mobile system. There were significant issues in dealing with a data
set of this size, initial processing and tiling attempts failed due to large file data sizes. Also in a
mobile mission there are many “strips” for both sensors and that the software was treating each
scan as an “aerial” mission which uses a unique mission and strip id. This required a workaround
and manual renaming of the strips to load the sensor and strip segments. A strip is defined as a
unique sensor, mission and strip (as in aerial) but in mobile there are 2 sensors, 1 mission and
multiple “strips” (from the two sensors).

A scheduled update to the software version 6.1 in March 30 2010 allowed the entire mobile data
set to be loaded into the project for subsequent tiling and processing as a single project as well as
improving the ability to load SBET and GPS track for managing the individual “mission”
segments.

This required a smaller tile scheme to manage the datasets (Figure 23) for processing in
TerraScan; this resulted in the largest tiles being approximately 15 million points. The number of
total tiles created were 226 tiles, 500ft x 500ft. The filtering and editing was performed using
Terrasolid’s TerraScan and Terramodeler creating a bare earth surface from the point cloud
(Figure 24 & 25).

Additional challenges with this aspect of the laser processing resulted from the fact that most of
the processes, filtering, classifying and manual editing tools and methods have been developed
over the last decade focusing on aerial data. The density of the mobile datasets significantly
reduced the effectiveness of the filters and processes. This required additional development of
modified filtering parameters and creating an iterative filter-check-modify parameters filter and
manual edit process.

Each tile is loaded into TerraModeler to review the accuracy of the automated filters; points were
manually classified to bare earth in areas where the filter misclassified the points. Manual review
and edit was required more extensively for the mobile data due to difficulties in the automated
filters in correctly defining low bushes and ground clutter.

The resulting point class count is as follows: Mobile Data (not including noise points)

 
Page 25
 
Class Points
Default                   12,930,697
Ground                   88,843,333
Low Vegetation                 429,024,011
Medium Vegetation                   24,694,914
High Vegetation                 101,940,979
Buildings                     1,018,456
Low Points                           14,308

Total                 658,466,698
Table 3 Mobile Point Count

Figure 23 Mobile Tile Scheme

Smaller footprint tile scheme to manage the high density of point cloud data

 
Page 26
 
Figure 24 Mobile Data - All Points

High density mobile data “paints” the earth with points. Resulting point density is approx 1cm
point spacing on the ground

 
Page 27
 
Figure 25 Mobile Bare Earth points

Resulting bare earth surface after filtering approximately 1cm data density on the road surface in
the bare earth classification

Figure 26 Aerial Sample

 
Page 28
 
Figure 27 Lidar Colored by Elevation Range

A relative elevation “map” with dark blue being lowest points in the view up through green,
yellow, to red; the highest points. Effective for quick visualization of the data sets

Figure 28 Combined Aerial and Lidar Data

Aerial and mobile data combined into single las for viewing purposes

 
Page 29
 
Final Processing Of Aerial and Mobile Data

The filtered bare earth data sets generated into 3 different ASCII surface types. One surface
containing all points resulting in a surface of over 88 million points, one bare earth surface using
a intelligent thinning to retain a point approximately every 3 feet resulting in a 4 million point
surface, and a third bare earth surface using intelligent thinning to retain a point every 1foot
approximately resulting in a surface of > 20 million points. These surfaces are based on
interpolation but retaining original point measurements based at the intervals above. The smaller
point count surfaces are able to be more readily used in Microstation Geopak for surface
generation to support surface analysis.

 
Page 30
 
Static LiDAR Data Collection -Technical Approach
Sanborn collected a target sample area using both a Trimble GSX Advanced Terrestrial Scanner
and the Optech ILRIS on Dec. 17 and Dec. 18 respectively at approximately 1cm relative point
spacing to match the data density of the mobile scanner. The resulting datasets were processed to
LAS point cloud using Trimble’s “RealWorks” and Optech’s point cloud transformation
workflow. The resulting data sets were calibrated using collected survey targets and feature
matching using TerraSolids TerraMatch software to tie the scan into the mobile data. The
resultant .las file sets were examined for additional information detail and content with respect to
the mobile dataset. This data did not hold significant additional informational content from the
mobile collect and was incorporated as a representative sample of this technology.

Figure 29 Optech ILRIS 3D Laser Scanner

The Optech scanner is a survey grade laser imaging device, capable of collecting laser point
cloud data from 3m – 1500m.

Figure 30 Terrestrial Scan Location

 
Page 31
 
Figure 31 Trimble GX Advanced Terrestrial Scanner

The Trimble GX Advanced scanner is a survey grade laser imaging device, capable of collecting
laser point cloud data from 0m – 350m

Figure 32 Static LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB

Figure 33 Static LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB Colored by Elevation

 
Page 32
 
Figure 34 Mobile LiDAR Intersection Route A and Highway BB

 
Page 33
 
Feature Extraction – Technical Approach

After initial calibration and tiling, the feature extraction process that was initially used was to
export the TerraScan .las point cloud files into a Microstation dgn file and direct digitizing in the
point cloud. This proved to be extremely difficult and inefficient due to limitations in the ability
to load and view the point cloud as well as “snap “ to and select the correct points to digitize and
extract the features. This approach was abandoned due to lack of tools and robust software to
perform this task. As stereo collection using LiDAR- Grammetry has been utilized for breakline
and feature extraction on past LiDAR projects it was determined that all features would be
extracted using this method.

Synthetic “black & white” Stereo Imagery was generated from both the mobile data and aerial
datasets using GEOCUE LiDAR1 Cue PAC for use in feature mapping in 3D stereo
environment. The stereo imagery was created using all point classes to create 3D datasets
comprising all the required features. The data was created and loaded in Intergraph’s ISSD and
ISFC stereo mapping tools. The stereo models were based on the tiles created for the LiDAR
data. Aerial LiDAR “imagery” was created at a 6 inch synthetic resolution; the mobile data was
created at a synthetic 4 inch resolution. The data was digitized into a single dgn file. The
following features were captured: buildings, drain lines, gravel road, signs, paved road (also
driveways), power poles, utility poles, impounded or standing water, light poles, roadway
breaklines, trees and shrubs. The files were checked by a senior technician prior to release.

One significant factor was the inability to “view” and capture data from a “perspective other than
“look down” traditional stereo approach. Given the information content visible in the mobile data
sets in the point cloud; the stereo tools available limit the ability to capture this additional
information. Additional tools for viewing and manipulation of the point cloud include Applied
Imagery’s Terrain Modeler software that allows 3D viewing of the point cloud; however it does
not support any feature extraction.

Newly released tools by Certainty3D called TopoDOT ( June 2010) will support the unstructured
point clouds for the mobile mapping systems and hold potential for direct feature mapping in a
3D environment into Microstation native file format.

 
Page 34
 
Figure 35 Stereo Intensity Image

 
Page 35
 
Figure 36 Mobile Stereo Image

 
Page 36
 
Quality Control Plan

The quality control plan was developed to verify each step of the data collection and data
processing steps. HDR acted as independent Quality control on data accuracy, formats and
deliverables and provide input for the final report

Apart from basic procedures such as measuring instrument heights in meters and feet and
comparing the results before leaving the field, Sanborn’s primary LiDAR quality control
procedures include processing the airborne or mobile GPS data in both forward and reverse
temporal directions, and processing with respect to at least two GPS base stations.

Sanborn performs rigorous post-processing of the GPS data, yielding more accurate and reliable
results than the straightforward use of the real time internal navigation system (INS) output. In
addition static initializations on the ground are made before and after each airborne mission.

Pre-mission and post-mission calibration passes are made for every mission over an
independently surveyed data validation test site, which will be situated near Sanborn’s base of
operations.

The complete series of quality control tests done in the field also include complete processing of
the IMU data with Applanix POSpac software to check the quality of the IMU data. Post
processing of all LiDAR data flight strips is done to verify quality and coverage of the LiDAR
data using the Leica ALS post processor and Trimble’s TerraModel Software. The GPS control
Network and Check points were verified using Trimble’s TGO, GPsurvey, and GeoLAB
Software.

Prior to flying the project area we collected two passes perpendicular to the runway in opposing
directions (C1 & C2) in the flight logs. At the end of every mission collection, two additional
passes over the runway were flown (C3 & C4). One pass was parallel to the runway to detect
edge of scan differences in relationship to the runway and other calibration lines. The final line
was flown perpendicular to the runway to check the swath repeatability from the beginning to the
end of the flight.

The mobile data GPS was monitored directly by the system providing realtime solution analysis
and indicating areas of weak or PDOP. This is the reason that the mobile system collection is
broken into segments, to reduce the risk of long periods of poor GPS.
Field Steps: Check QC: verify swath, and scans for the mobile, drive and flight data, ground
reference data, verify GPS and IMU quality.

Office Steps: Extract POS data, perform the processing of Survey network and network

 
Page 37
 
adjustment and verify results. The next step is the processing of the GPS data and to validate the
GPS data. Following that the runway calibration data is processed and validated. Following that
the runway strips are processed (C1-C4) and the system calibration is validated.

Once calibrated and verified all laser data is converted from raw to LAS using the project
calibration values and out- put as strips. Following calibration and output the project is set-up in
GEOCUE, creating the tiling structure and project extents. Both the mobile and aerial
trajectories and LAS data files are then imported into the project and coverage is verified.
Following these steps are the filtering and manual editing of the LAS files using Terrasolids,
Terrascan and Terramodeler software.

The filter process requires adjustments to the algorithms based on terrain type. Different types of
terrain, vegetations, and urban areas require different algorithms. Based on the complexity of the
project area, different values will be applied based on the terrain slope, proximity of adjacent
points and the structure of these points. Adapting the filtering parameters is an iterative process
due to data size, terrain and localized conditions (i.e. vegetation density, building density).

Following filtering a manual QC for any anomalies and data issues is performed on a tile by tile
basis. Manually editing and QC of every tile is performed. This step ensures there are no tile
boundary artifacts or voids between DEM tiles and no avoidable miss-classification of returns as
well as checks for correct classification of identifiable artifact, vegetation, building, and outlier
removal as required. Independent or 3rd party control points are then run against the bare earth
surface and the results are reviewed for any anomalies or issues.

There is then the Final QC check, including independent accuracy assessment and delivery
performed by HDR an independent party for this project from the data producer.

 
Page 38
 
Lidar Data Import to Design Software Technical Approach–GeoPAK
TIN

The initial delivery of the .las files that contained the aerial and mobile data was completed on
May 21, 2010. A total of 14 aerial files and 226 mobile files comprised the complete data set.
HDR was tasked with converting this information into a format that can be utilized within the
standard Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) design and drafting software
packages. The current MoDOT standard for drafting software is Microstation V8 (08.05.02.70)
and for design software is Geopak V8 (08.08.03.24). The current version of Geopak does not
support direct manipulation of .las files. HDR upgraded to Microstation XM (08.09.04.88) and
Geopak XM (08.09.07.28) in order to access the tools that have been developed to work in
conjunction with LiDAR survey data sets.
Geopak has suggested workflows for processing LiDAR data and permits users to extract various
point classifications. It should be noted that only one Microstation XM drawing was needed to
process the .las files. The remaining project drawings were not converted to a new version of
Microstation. LiDAR tools are located inside of Geopak XM in the DTM toolset. LiDAR tools
facilitate the reduction of large LiDAR survey data sets to a more manageable size and one that
represents the area of interest. The reduction of the data set can be accomplished via filtering
and/or clipping. The maximum number of points that can be filtered on a machine with 1GB of
main memory is approximately 30 million. This limitation necessitates the tiling of LiDAR data
sets into smaller packages. The reduced data sets were converted to a binary format (see Figure
26) and then the Geopak triangulated irregular network (.tin) models were generated. These .tin
models correspond to the tiling layout of the .las survey data.

Figure 37 Geopak XM - las import

The contours and triangles from the aerial and mobile survey .tin models were overlaid on the
feature graphics from the Sanborn survey. As expected, a very accurate representation of the
survey was present in the graphics that were displayed inside of Microstation. When the LiDAR

 
Page 39
 
survey data and graphics were referenced into the original data from the photogrammetric
survey, a couple of issues were encountered. A shift in the coordinate systems between the two
data sets was identified. One data set was compiled using the modified state plane coordinate
system and the other was compiled in state plane coordinates. The other issue was with the
working units of the Microstation drawings. It is extremely important that all of the drawings
contain the same working units and that the units.def file for all users of the data is in the same
format. The units.def file is located on the local drive after Microstation is installed on a
computer. The default layout of this file places international feet/inches ahead of survey
feet/inches in the priority list. Problems arise when one end user is referring to a units.def file
that is different than another user. The use of international units can lead to a coordinate shift of
approximately two feet per one million feet.

The data sets were revised to correct the issue with state plane coordinates and with the
Microstation unit definitions. These data sets were delivered in .xyz at a density of
approximately 1 point per foot utilizing bare earth points only. This reduction in point density
allowed for a more efficient processing of the data using the standard MoDOT software
packages. It was not necessary to use the upgraded version of Microstation since the data sets
were .xyz instead of .las.

HDR generated revised .tins for the aerial and mobile data sets using the convert to binary and
build triangles toolsets inside of Geopak. XM (08.09.07.28) 14 aerial and 163 mobile .tin
models were created. The .tin models were left independent of each other to retain the original
tiling layout. The networks can be combined using the merge .tins toolset in the design phase in
order to simplify the roadway modeling.

Quality control checks on the surfaces and contours were conducted using Microstation XM and
Geopak XM. Several toolsets allow users to evaluate survey data including compare for fit,
reporting coordinate ranges, displaying LiDAR points, and elevation differences comparison.
The direct .tin to .tin comparison toolset provides a visual representation of the difference in
elevation between two .tin models. The user can select an area of interest and define a grid
matrix depending on the level of detail that the user would like to utilize.

 
Page 40
 
 Results and Discussion
Triangulated Irregular Networks (TIN) Surface Evaluation

The .tin model evaluation was performed using the elevation differences toolset inside of
Geopak. The .tin model from the aerial photogrammetry was used as the base model to compare
against. The .tin models were not expected to match one another exactly. There is an elevation
error that is already present in the .tin model that was produced from the photogrammetric
survey. That error from the photogrammetric .tin model to the actual pavement elevation varies
depending on the scale of the imagery, the accuracy during mapping, and the frequency of points
that are collected for the photogrammetric (aerial film) surface

For example, the aerial LiDAR AB_08.tin was compared to the photogrammetry .tin and a grid
of elevation differences was displayed (see Figure 38). Also, the mobile LiDAR 1832.tin and
1833.tin were compared to the photogrammetry .tin and a grid of elevation differences were
displayed (see Figure 39 ). In both of these cases, no consistent pattern for the elevation
differences between the LiDAR .tin model and the base model was identified.

Figure 38 Aerial TIN Analysis

 
Page 41
 
 Figure 39 Mobile TIN Analysis

TIN Accuracy Assessment – TIN to Control

Another method of comparing the accuracy of the various .tin models was to utilize the control
point data that was hard shot in the field and compare .tin elevations to those records.
Approximately 40 control points were located that fell inside the mapped boundaries of the .tin
models. One limiting factor in utilizing additional mapped points for comparison was the
relatively narrow band that encompassed the photogrammetric .tin. The LiDAR mapping
provided broader coverage along the corridor than the photogrammetric mapping.

Volumetric Surface Evaluation

The volumetric surface evaluation was performed using the volume calculations toolset inside of
Geopak. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the magnitude of the volumetric
variations between the .tin models that were developed through the use of the photogrammetric
and LiDAR survey methods. The .tin model from the aerial photogrammetry was used as the
base model to compare against. The outside limit of the photogrammetric surface was utilized as
the boundary polygon in this process.

The current MoDOT standard for drafting software is Microstation V8 (08.05.02.70) and for
design software is Geopak V8 (08.08.03.24). The computer that was utilized for this analysis
contained a 3.2 GHz processor, 4 MB of RAM, and was configured with the Windows XP
operating system. This configuration was able to run the volumetric analysis for all of the
LiDAR .tin models, except for the three largest aerial LiDAR surfaces. These three .tin models

 
Page 42
 
were all larger than 285 MB, with the largest .tin model being greater than 353 MB. Several
solutions were attempted to resolve this processing problem including running the analysis
outside of Projectwise and increasing the size of the paging file for the virtual memory to 16 MB.
These methods were not able to process the volumetric calculations on these three surfaces.
Ultimately, these three surfaces were analyzed on a computer that contained a 3.0 GHz
processor, 8 MB of RAM, and was configured with the Windows 7 64-bit operating system. The
large file size of these .tin models necessitated the use of a more powerful computer system in
order to analyze the data. The end user can alleviate this issue by breaking the job into smaller
segments which will limit the overall size of the .tin model.

The aerial LiDAR surfaces were compared to the photogrammetry .tin and a summary of the
volumetric variances was generated (see Table 4). Also, the mobile LiDAR surfaces were
compared to the photogrammetry .tin and summary tables were generated (see Table 5).

VOLUMETRIC SURFACE EVALUATION: AERIAL LIDAR

Photogrammetric Surface
(.tin) Aerial Surface (.tin) Total Cut (CY) Total Fill (CY) Balance (CY)
J6S2194 AB_01 1156.357 2716.486 -1560.129
J6S2194 AB_02 1567.799 5285.009 -3717.210
J6S2194 AB_03 1143.224 9860.187 -8716.963
J6S2194 AB_04 182.549 6457.568 -6275.019
J6S2194 AB_05 348.753 9599.499 -9250.746
J6S2194 AB_06 3734.058 12143.923 -8409.865
J6S2194 AB_07 2420.736 7246.539 -4825.803
J6S2194 AB_08 1989.263 4829.369 -2840.106
J6S2194 AB_09 1058.098 4046.028 -2987.930
J6S2194 AB_10 1195.590 11028.903 -9833.313
J6S2194 AB_11 2122.380 5652.902 -3530.522
J6S2194 AB_12 1260.413 6463.625 -5203.212
J6S2194 AB_13 542.307 5311.414 -4769.107
J6S2194 AB_14 1723.551 5081.267 -3357.716

Total: 20,445.08 95,722.72 -75,277.64

Table 4 Volumetric Surface Evaluation - Aerial LiDAR

 
Page 43
 
 VOLUMETRIC SURFACE EVALUATION: MOBILE LIDAR

Photogrammetric Surface
(.tin) Mobile Surface (.tin) Total Cut (CY) Total Fill (CY) Balance (CY)
J6S2194 1704 93.188 805.609 -712.421
J6S2194 1707 5.088 981.315 -976.227
J6S2194 1708 183.564 2480.284 -2296.720
J6S2194 1711 20.390 3361.504 -3341.114
J6S2194 1713 72.125 468.031 -395.906
J6S2194 1714 42.594 744.163 -701.569
J6S2194 1717 119.716 1316.032 -1196.316
J6S2194 1720 7.970 274.772 -266.802
J6S2194 1721 31.153 2306.262 -2275.109
J6S2194 1723 0.000 13.487 -13.487
J6S2194 1724 37.761 1978.646 -1940.885
J6S2194 1725 8.796 262.425 -253.629
J6S2194 1727 23.392 1099.213 -1075.821
J6S2194 1728 7.829 455.849 -448.020
J6S2194 1732 0.017 33.531 -33.514
J6S2194 1733 0.035 70.05 -70.015
J6S2194 1734 0.907 236.448 -235.541
J6S2194 1735 55.309 653.924 -598.615
J6S2194 1736 171.264 1041.613 -870.349
J6S2194 1737 49.059 435.109 -386.050
J6S2194 1740 2.606 2219.214 -2216.608
J6S2194 1741 27.488 4340.876 -4313.388
J6S2194 1742 9.728 4035.421 -4025.693
J6S2194 1743 19.522 2937.763 -2918.241
J6S2194 1744 23.939 1535.105 -1511.166
J6S2194 1745 0.090 1146.383 -1146.293
J6S2194 1748 1.631 2963.946 -2962.315
J6S2194 1753 21.356 3015.522 -2994.166
J6S2194 1756 0.387 376.185 -375.798
J6S2194 1757 18.172 2424.749 -2406.577
J6S2194 1760 1.260 148.962 -147.702
J6S2194 1761 14.763 1770.805 -1756.042
J6S2194 1762 17.966 2375.906 -2357.940

 
Page 44
 
 J6S2194 1763 0.007 380.377 -380.370
J6S2194 1766 2.462 1172.247 -1169.785
J6S2194 1767 24.719 1934.055 -1909.336
J6S2194 1768 1.395 493.062 -491.667
J6S2194 1771 8.195 730.646 -722.451
J6S2194 1772 12.707 1514.775 -1502.068
J6S2194 1776 14.621 1496.936 -1482.315
J6S2194 1777 19.534 965.162 -945.628
J6S2194 1778 0.015 106.878 -106.863
J6S2194 1179 13.497 2190.802 -2177.305
J6S2194 1781 100.911 2135.939 -2035.028
J6S2194 1784 49.953 1816.053 -1766.100
J6S2194 1787 47.399 1980.673 -1933.274
J6S2194 1789 2.192 146.515 -144.323
J6S2194 1790 196.463 963.119 -766.656
J6S2194 1792 18.129 543.879 -525.750
J6S2194 1793 273.114 431.790 -158.676
J6S2194 1795 20.864 396.225 -375.361
J6S2194 1796 482.665 605.798 -123.133
J6S2194 1798 40.274 315.042 -274.768
J6S2194 1799 256.067 1010.458 -754.391
J6S2194 1800 101.334 352.185 -250.851
J6S2194 1801 414.187 736.433 -322.246
J6S2194 1802 78.178 811.011 -732.833
J6S2194 1803 179.236 477.011 -297.775
J6S2194 1804 24.521 740.026 -715.505
J6S2194 1805 210.979 968.950 -757.971
J6S2194 1808 486.375 1397.807 -911.432
J6S2194 1811 286.228 1112.963 -826.735
J6S2194 1812 82.304 72.402 9.902
J6S2194 1813 41.441 1008.238 -966.797
J6S2194 1814 31.273 923.186 -891.913
J6S2194 1816 0.023 50.734 -50.711
J6S2194 1817 42.813 1524.619 -1481.806
J6S2194 1820 6.087 2220.167 -2214.080
J6S2194 1822 0.000 0.015 -0.015

 
Page 45
 
 J6S2194 1823 27.636 1691.048 -1663.412
J6S2194 1825 0.066 299.632 -299.566
J6S2194 1826 49.201 1048.073 -998.872
J6S2194 1828 5.651 1580.357 -1574.706
J6S2194 1829 59.460 651.048 -591.588
J6S2194 1830 49.376 780.757 -731.381
J6S2194 1831 50.215 606.208 -555.993
J6S2194 1832 178.952 443.119 -264.167
J6S2194 1833 253.809 173.401 80.408
J6S2194 1835 3.502 507.847 -504.345
J6S2194 1836 60.843 3908.234 -3847.391
J6S2194 1837 56.935 685.863 -628.928
J6S2194 1838 0.136 33.793 -33.657
J6S2194 1842 21.986 1455.857 -1433.871
J6S2194 1843 98.544 1914.387 -1815.843
J6S2194 1844 0.910 582.344 -581.434
J6S2194 1845 0.607 573.905 -573.298
J6S2194 1846 58.915 1420.090 -1361.175
J6S2194 1847 29.202 1924.367 -1895.165
J6S2194 1848 2.436 2272.564 -2270.128
J6S2194 1849 0.000 0.123 -0.123
J6S2194 1852 0.000 1021.817 -1021.817
J6S2194 1853 1.118 2379.370 -2378.252
J6S2194 1854 19.766 1133.044 -1113.278
J6S2194 1855 7.260 209.168 -201.908
J6S2194 1857 3.438 804.167 -800.729
J6S2194 1858 114.267 1625.150 -1510.883
J6S2194 1859 72.509 1537.630 -1465.121
J6S2194 1860 79.412 1165.878 -1086.466
J6S2194 1861 146.942 1497.392 -1350.450
J6S2194 1862 1.961 242.965 -241.004
J6S2194 1867 3.108 304.797 -301.689
J6S2194 1868 0.172 318.000 -317.828
J6S2194 1869 0.375 149.580 -149.205
J6S2194 1870 122.533 1308.465 -1185.932
J6S2194 1872 193.204 1512.130 -1318.926

 
Page 46
 
 J6S2194 1875 205.567 1285.323 -1079.756
J6S2194 1876 134.034 407.378 -273.344
J6S2194 1877 0.577 301.644 -301.067
J6S2194 1878 268.902 2066.363 -1797.461
J6S2194 1881 175.035 2156.908 -1981.873
J6S2194 1882 134.785 447.333 -312.548
J6S2194 1885 181.946 2015.865 -1833.919
J6S2194 1886 23.178 308.773 -285.595
J6S2194 1888 7.059 469.674 -462.615
J6S2194 1889 118.000 2893.799 -2775.799
J6S2194 1890 0.006 48.513 -48.507
J6S2194 1892 18.815 1022.640 -1003.825
J6S2194 1893 238.130 1971.119 -1732.989
J6S2194 1894 8.356 136.891 -128.535
J6S2194 1896 14.945 1439.861 -1424.916
J6S2194 1897 151.143 1916.487 -1765.344
J6S2194 1900 102.256 817.609 -715.353
J6S2194 1901 0.072 224.994 -224.922
J6S2194 1902 74.268 1078.075 -1003.807
J6S2194 1903 13.932 263.321 -249.389
J6S2194 1904 21.091 2159.238 -2138.147
J6S2194 1905 10.138 874.365 -864.227
J6S2194 1906 79.139 220.569 -141.430
J6S2194 1913 3.606 308.985 -305.379
J6S2194 1914 70.399 1022.815 -952.416
J6S2194 1915 46.821 1715.875 -1669.054
J6S2194 1916 316.809 1779.191 -1462.382
J6S2194 1917 1309.850 1557.497 -247.647
J6S2194 1918 132.752 640.859 -508.107

Total: 10,295.29 151,349.82 -141,054.53

Table 5 Volumetric Surface Evaluation -Mobile LiDAR

 
Page 47
 
The results of the volumetric analysis indicate that the difference between the photogrammetric
surface and the aerial LiDAR surface is approximately 75,000 cubic yards of fill material. The
difference between the photogrammetric surface and the mobile LiDAR surface is approximately
141,000 cubic yards of fill material. Although these values are representative of the relative
variations between the surface elevations, they are misleading as to the accuracy that can be
expected from the various surveying methods. The comparison of the LiDAR techniques to the
photogrammetric methods will not provide an accurate volumetric analysis as related to the
actual in place field conditions. This is due to several factors including, but not limited to, the
shadowing affect of buildings and knolls on the mobile scanner, the accuracy of the extraction of
the photogrammetric data, and the impact of vegetation on the LiDAR scanning system.

In order to illustrate one example of the difficulty in evaluating the LiDAR surfaces against the
photogrammetric surfaces, the contours for each one of the surfaces were draped over one
another (see Figure 40). At this location, the LiDAR data sets maintain a fairly consistent pattern
with one another and indicate a uniform roadway crown. The photogrammetric contours do not
illustrate the crown along the existing roadway. The lack of the crown could be that the
centerline of the existing pavement was not collected during the initial data extract of the
photogrammetric survey or the breakline for this data was not incorporated into the
photogrammetric .tin model. This issue leads to approximately a six inch differential in the
surfaces along the existing roadway. This elevation difference contributes to the overall fill
volumes that were generated in the volumetric calculations analysis.

Figure 40 Volumetric Contour Evaluation

 
Page 48
 
 Tin Surface: Existing Contour Comparison

Tin Model: Major Contour Minor Contour

(5’ interval): (1’ interval):
Photogrammetric White Light Blue

Aerial LiDAR Dark Blue Magenta

Mobile LiDAR Red Orange

The ability to analyze the LiDAR surfaces against the existing photogrammetric surface is
limited by many factors. This analysis provides the ability to calculate relative volumetric
differences between the surfaces, but the analysis is inconclusive as to what survey method will
provide for more accuracy in the roadway modeling phase of a project and potentially fewer
construction overruns in the field

 
Page 49
 
A matrix of the control point elevations and the elevations contained within the various .tin
models is shown below (Table 6). It can be seen from the results that the mapping from the
aerial LiDAR survey provides very accurate data. This mapping was generated from the filtered
bare earth LiDAR file that provided 1 point every foot. The quality of this survey will allow
designers to accurately and efficiently complete their projects.

 
Page 50
 
 TIN SURFACE EVALUATION: CONTROL POINTS vs. TIN MODELS

Pt. ID. E (X) N (Y) Elev (Z) Photo Dz Aerial Dz Mobile Dz

100 675819.843 956830.290 589.937 589.657 0.280 590.180 -0.243 590.076 -0.139
101 672594.330 959419.902 730.758 730.947 -0.189 730.640 0.118 730.602 0.156
102 672229.392 959886.600 739.758 739.669 0.089 739.787 -0.029 739.557 0.201
103 669360.917 963103.603 749.989 750.246 -0.257 750.040 -0.051 750.07 -0.081
104 668586.001 963356.133 746.529 745.810 0.719 746.370 0.159 746.525 0.004
105 664512.056 964719.789 810.718 810.567 0.151 810.743 -0.025 810.824 -0.106
106 664564.789 965658.647 801.845 802.138 -0.293 801.961 -0.116 801.944 -0.099
107 664048.014 970484.107 766.045 765.940 0.105 766.047 -0.002 766.080 -0.035
108 663948.923 975720.992 761.436 761.196 0.240 761.609 -0.173 761.749 -0.313
109 664470.975 976252.550 745.678 745.668 0.010 745.562 0.116 745.598 0.080
110 670220.247 981057.825 675.429 675.132 0.297 675.421 0.008 675.484 -0.055
111 670439.937 981659.389 664.509 664.367 0.142 664.499 0.010 664.427 0.082
115 666592.348 978984.694 726.046 725.073 0.973 726.149 -0.103 726.263 -0.217
116 666395.943 977593.560 706.947 706.409 0.538 706.918 0.029 706.822 0.125
304 675156.991 956847.521 626.337 626.207 0.130 626.408 -0.071 626.255 0.082
306 674074.488 957064.723 649.747 649.728 0.019 649.824 -0.077 649.863 -0.116
309 673470.524 957164.647 698.809 698.805 0.004 698.941 -0.132 698.787 0.022
314 670813.886 962401.602 755.699 755.492 0.207 755.817 -0.118 755.798 -0.099
316 670460.591 963229.993 768.341 767.803 0.538 768.286 0.055 768.352 -0.011
323 664766.784 964419.895 785.906 785.984 -0.078 786.154 -0.248 786.16 -0.254
333 664218.060 974517.220 757.299 757.299 0.000 757.410 -0.111 757.392 -0.093
340 666677.161 978940.356 722.564 722.599 -0.035 722.616 -0.052 722.681 -0.117
344 669636.814 980012.394 698.960 698.929 0.031 699.048 -0.088 699.039 -0.079
504 667735.745 978964.684 717.749 717.546 0.203 717.607 0.142 717.783 -0.034
508 669775.443 980173.814 693.705 693.306 0.399 693.686 0.019 693.658 0.047
512 668638.020 979161.125 710.611 710.424 0.187 710.702 -0.091 710.507 0.104
516 665838.636 976991.810 734.931 734.320 0.611 734.823 0.108 734.801 0.130
520 664088.890 975826.410 756.061 755.249 0.812 755.793 0.268 755.968 0.093
522 664128.058 974924.102 765.835 765.572 0.263 765.932 -0.097 765.743 0.092
525 664175.593 972812.110 781.362 781.454 -0.092 781.434 -0.072 781.261 0.101
530 664189.653 969750.119 767.311 767.556 -0.245 767.321 -0.010 767.225 0.086
532 664599.540 968558.619 771.172 771.079 0.093 771.094 0.078 771.036 0.136
534 664767.520 967300.751 784.280 783.845 0.435 784.202 0.078 784.166 0.114
537 664660.020 966036.048 798.228 798.142 0.086 798.362 -0.134 798.277 -0.049
540 664689.471 964432.725 795.156 795.077 0.079 795.314 -0.158 795.158 -0.002
548 669482.916 963082.494 753.565 753.043 0.522 753.631 -0.066 753.478 0.087
550 670499.593 963166.654 766.433 766.292 0.141 766.318 0.115 766.381 0.052
553 670850.046 962370.619 758.194 758.282 -0.088 757.827 0.367 758.038 0.156
558 672261.475 959851.527 738.686 738.701 -0.015 738.562 0.124 738.507 0.179
560 672783.734 959242.455 727.662 727.498 0.164 727.711 -0.049 727.536 0.126
562 673474.543 957222.722 700.526 700.224 0.302 700.558 -0.032 700.437 0.089
566 675540.481 956828.730 603.556 603.132 0.424 603.319 0.237 603.343 0.213

RMSE = 0.338 RMSE = 0.130 RMSE = 0.124

Table 6 - Photogrammetric- vs Aerial and Mobile TIN Analysis

 
Page 51
 
Planimetric Feature Evaluation

The evaluation of the planimetric features was performed using the distance toolset inside of
Microstation. During the initial phase of this process, it was noted that the analysis of the aerial
survey features and the LiDAR survey features may not provide quality results. This is the result
of the lack of multiple field cross section shots to compare the survey data against.

An example of how the lack of field survey shots affects the planimetric feature evaluation
process is represented in the mapping of the existing buildings and structures. The aerial
photography mapping and the LiDAR survey mapping give similar building shapes, but they are
not exactly alike (see Figure 41). This may be a result of the accuracy of the initial survey, the
expertise of the individuals performing the mapping and translating the data into a CAD design
package, or a problem with the coordinates or units that the project is currently using.

Figure 41 Feature - Position Analysis

Since there are no hard data survey points at the existing building corners, the measurement of
the offset between the mapped shapes is subjective. The ability to determine which data is more
accurate is limited due to the uncertainty in where the error in the planimetric features could have
originated.

 
Page 52
 
The collection of field cross sections and multiple shots on existing structures would allow for a
more effective comparison of the horizontal accuracy of the mapped features from the initial
aerial survey and the secondary LiDAR survey. Ideally, those sections would be located along
the length of the corridor in areas where more relief is present. The presence of ditches or slope
limits in these areas would provide additional opportunities to compare linear roadway features
to the field cross sections. The use of these sections would also help in confirming that a shift in
the mapping is not present. A north/south shift may not be detected on a tangent section of
roadway that runs north/south.

Another method of comparing the accuracy of the planimetric features was attempted. The
initial control file for the aerial photography contained a couple points that were described as
“edge of asphalt pavement.” The offsets from the mapped features from the surveys to these
control points were measured in Microsation (see Figure 42 and 43)

Figure 42 Point 520

 
Page 53
 
Figure 43 Point 562

The horizontal offsets for the mapped features to Control Point 520 were 1.14’ and 0.45’ for the
photogrammetric (purple) and LiDAR (green) survey, respectively. The horizontal offsets for
the mapped features to Control Point 562 were 0.53’ and 0.59’ for the photogrammetric (purple)
and LiDAR (green) survey, respectively. The accuracy of the planimetric features at both of
these locations is dependent on many factors, but the offsets seem to fall within an acceptable
range in order to be able to advance to the design phase of a project.

 
Page 54
 
Cost Analysis Matrix

Below is an estimate of cost impacts based on the technologies evaluated. Data processing and
feature extraction is based on the road, vegetation, poles and buildings as per sample data
provided for a sample 7 mile corridor.
Traditional Survey Design Cost
Task Persons Hours Hourly Cost Labor Cost Person $/Mile NOTES
Days

Administration Surveying Manager,

PLS 16 $145 $2,320 2.0 $331

Courthouse Research Survey Technician 32 $75 $2,400 4.0 $343

Utility Research Survey Technician 24 $75 $1,800 3.0 $257

Establish Horizontal and Vertical Survey Crew Chief GPS

Control 60 $130 $7,800 7.5 $1,114
Survey Technician $0

Topographic Survey of Roadway Survey Crew Chief GPS

550 $130 $71,500 68.8 $10,214
Survey Technician $0

Drafting Mapping Survey Technician 543 $75 $40,725 67.9 $5,818

Survey Computations Project Designer 32 $90 $2,880 4.0 $411

QC/QA Surveying Manager,

PLS 24 $90 $2,160 3.0 $309

TOTAL SURVEYING 1281 $131,585 160.1 $18,798

Table 7 Cost Analysis Matrix - Traditional Survey Design

 
Page 55
 
 Aerial Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Hourly Cost Labor Cost Person $/Mile NOTES
Days

Planning Project Manager 8 $120 $960 1.0 $137

Survey - Planning Survey Manager PLS 8 $145 $1,160 1.0 $166

Establish - Base Station Survey Crew 3 Base Stations
Chief/Technician 16 $130 $2,080 2.0 $297
Locate Check Points Survey Crew 60 Check Points -
Chief/Technician 40 $130 $5,200 5.0 $743 No Panels
Survey Computations /QA Survey Manager PLS 20 $90 $1,800 2.5 $257

Field Collection Pilot 6 $122 $731 0.8 $104

Data Acq Technician 6 $69 $417 0.8 $60

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 8 $194 $1,554 1.0 $222

Point Cloud Creation/Editing Lidar Tech I 120 $68 $8,214 15.0 $1,173

Feature Extraction Lidar Tech I 40 $68 $2,738 5.0 $391

Compiler 80 $71 $5,680 10.0 $811

QC Sr Lidar Analyst 60 $194 $11,658 7.5 $1,665

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 20 $85 $1,693 2.5 $242

Aircraft 6 $963 $5,780 0.8 $826

Aerial Lidar 6 $1,431 $8,586 0.8 $1,227

TOTAL AERIAL LIDAR 444 $58,250 55.5 $8,321

Table 8 Cost Analysis Matrix - Aerial LiDAR

 
Page 56
 
 Mobile Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Hourly Cost Labor Cost Person $/Mile NOTES
Days

Planning Project Manager 8 $120 $960 1.0 $137

Survey - Planning Survey Manager PLS 8 $145 $1,160 1.0 $166

Establish - Base Station Survey Crew 3 Base Stations
Chief/Technician 16 $130 $2,080 2.0 $297
Locate Check Points Survey Crew 60 Check Points
Chief/Technician 40 $130 $5,200 5.0 $743 No Panels
Survey Computations /QA Survey Manager PLS 20 $90 $1,800 2.5 $257

Field Collection Sr Lidar Analyst 4 $194 $776 0.5 $111

Lidar Tech 1 4 $68 $272 0.5 $39

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 60 $194 $11,640 7.5 $1,663

Point Cloud Creation/Editing Lidar Tech 1 300 $68 $20,400 37.5 $2,914

Feature Extraction/CADD Lidar Tech 1 50 $68 $3,400 6.3 $486

Compiler 80 $71 $5,680 10.0 $811

QC Sr Lidar Analyst 80 $194 $15,520 10.0 $2,217

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 40 $85 $3,400 5.0 $486

Vehicle 8 $25 $200 1.0 $29

Mobile Laser System 8 $1,150 $9,200 1.0 $1,314

TOTAL MOBILE LIDAR 726 $81,688 90.8 $11,670

Table 9 Cost Analysis Matrix - Mobile LiDAR

 
Page 57
 
 Static Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Hourly Cost Labor Cost Person $/Mile NOTES
Days

Planning Project Manager 20 $51 $1,011 2.5 $144

Survey - Planning Survey Manager PLS 8 $145 $1,160 1.0 $166

Establish Horizontal Vertical Survey Crew 4 GPS Monument -
Control Chief/Technician 60 $130 $7,800 7.5 $1,114 Base Stations
0 $0 0.0 $0
Survey Computations /QA Survey Manager PLS 32 $90 $2,880 4.0 $411

Field Collection - Static Scanner Survey Crew

Chief/Technician 274 $130 $35,620 34.3 $5,089
Approx 183 Setups @ 1.5 hrs $28 $0 0.0 $0

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 183 $194 $35,502 22.9 $5,072

Point Cloud Creation/Editing Lidar Tech I 549 $68 $37,332 68.6 $5,333

Feature Extraction/CADD Lidar Tech II 140 $68 $9,520 17.5 $1,360

CADD/GIS 60 $71 $4,260 7.5 $609

QC Sr Lidar Analyst 80 $194 $15,520 10.0 $2,217

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 40 $85 $3,400 5.0 $486

System 254 $200 $50,800

TOTAL STATIC LIDAR 1700 $204,805 212.5 $29,258

Table 10 Cost Analysis Matrix - Static LiDAR

 
Page 58
 
 Conventional Aerial Mapping
Task Persons Hrs Hourly Cost Labor Cost Person $/Mile Notes
Days

Planning Project Manager 8 $120 $957 1.0 $137

Survey - Planning Survey Manager PLS 8 $145 $1,160 1.0 $166

Establish Horizontal Vertical Survey Crew 4 GPS Monments
Control Chief/Technician 60 $130 $7,800 7.5 $1,114 + 85 Check Points
Locate Panel Points Survey Crew 52 Panel Points
Chief/Technician 130 $130 $16,900 16.3 $2,414
Survey Computations /QA Survey Manager PLS 44 $90 $3,960 5.5 $566

Aerial Collection Pilot 4 $92 $367 0.5 $52 82 Exp -DMC

Photographer 4 $68 $270 0.5 $39

Image Processing Image Processing

Technician 12 $55 $658 1.5 $94

Aerial Triangulation Sr Photogrammetrist 20 $94 $1,884 2.5 $269

Compilation Stereo Compiler 120 $71 $8,488 15.0 $1,213

GIS/CADD CADD Technician 80 $73 $5,854 10.0 $836

OrthoRectification Ortho Technician 40 $50 $2,008 5.0 $287

QC Project Manager 8 $120 $957 1.0 $137

Aircraft 6 $392 $2,351 0.8 $336

Analog Camera 4 $405 $1,620 0.5 $231

TOTAL CONVENTIONAL
MAPPING 548 $55,234 68.5 $7,891

Table 11 Cost Analysis Matrix - Conventional Mapping

 
Page 59
 
 Summary Hrs Labor Person Days $/Mile
Cost
Traditional Survey Design 1281 $131,585 160.1 $18,798
Aerial Lidar 444 $58,250 55.5 $8,321
Mobile Lidar 726 $81,688 90.8 $9,933
Static Lidar 1700 $204,805 212.5 $29,258
Conventional Aerial Mapping 548 $55,234 68.5 $7,891

****Cost Estimated on 7 Mile corridor ‐ Mobilization cost and ODC's not included 

Table 12 Cost Analysis Summary

The above summary of costs is based on estimates of the level of effort and costs associated with
equipment and personnel. Costs will vary based on final scope of work, level of detail, approach
to the tasks, technology employed, location of personnel and equipment and other variable
market factors.

 
Page 60
 
Schedule Comparison
The comparison is based on 7 mile project for MODOT Operations and listed as equivalent
person days based on a standard 8 hour day. Collection times are for “on-line” times and not
mobilization to project site.
Traditional Survey
Design Cost
Task Persons Hours Person Staff Schedule
Days Available

Administration Surveying
Manager, PLS 16 2.0 1.0 2.0

Courthouse Research Survey

Technician 32 4.0 1.0 4.0

Utility Research Survey

Technician 24 3.0 1.0 3.0

Establish Horizontal and Survey Crew

Vertical Control Chief 60 7.5 2.0 3.8
Survey
Technician

Topographic Survey of Survey Crew

Roadway Chief 550 68.8 6.0 11.5
Survey
Technician

Drafting Mapping Survey

Technician 543 67.9 4.0 17.0

Survey Computations Project Designer 32 4.0 1.0 4.0

QC/QA Surveying
Manager, PLS 24 3.0 1.0 3.0

TOTAL SURVEYING 1281 160.1 48.2

Table 13 Schedule Traditional Survey

 
Page 61
 
 Aerial Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Person Staff Schedule
Days Available

Planning Project Manager 8 1.0 1.0 1.0

Survey - Planning Survey Manager

PLS 8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Establish - Base Station Survey Crew
Chief/Technician
16 2.0 2.0 1.0
Locate Check Points Survey Crew
Chief/Technician
40 5.0 2.0 2.5
Survey Computations Survey Manager
/QA PLS 20 2.5 1.0 2.5

Field Collection Pilot 6 0.8 1.0 0.8

Data Acq
Technician 6 0.8 1.0 0.8

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 8 1.0 1.0 1.0

Point Cloud Lidar Tech I

Creation/Editing 120 15.0 3.0 5.0

Feature Extraction Lidar Tech I 40 5.0 1.0 5.0

Compiler 80 10.0 1.0 10.0

QC Sr Lidar Analyst 60 7.5 1.0 7.5

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 20 2.5 1.0 2.5

Aircraft 6 0.8
Aerial Lidar 6 0.8

TOTAL AERIAL
LIDAR 444 55.5 40.5

Table 14 Schedule Aerial LiDAR

 
Page 62
 
 Mobile Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Person Staff Schedule
Days Available

Planning Project Manager 8 1.0 1.0 1.0

Survey - Planning Survey Manager

PLS 8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Establish - Base Station Survey Crew
Chief/Technician
16 2.0 2.0 1.0
Locate Check Points Survey Crew
Chief/Technician
40 5.0 2.0 2.5
Survey Computations Survey Manager
/QA PLS 20 2.5 1.0 2.5

Field Collection Sr Lidar Analyst 4 0.5 1.0 0.5

Lidar Tech 1 4 0.5 1.0 0.5

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 60 7.5 1.0 7.5

Point Cloud Lidar Tech 1

Creation/Editing 300 37.5 3.0 12.5

Feature Lidar Tech 1

Extraction/CADD 50 6.3 2.0 3.1
Compiler 80 10.0 1.0 10.0

QC Sr Lidar
Aanalyst 80 10.0 1.0 10.0

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 40 5.0 1.0 5.0

Vehicle 8 1.0
Mobile Laser System 8 1.0

TOTAL MOBILE
LIDAR 726 90.8 57.1

Table 15 Schedule Mobile LiDAR

 
Page 63
 
 Static Lidar
Task Persons Hrs Person Staff Schedule
Days Available

Planning Project Manager 20 2.5 1.0 2.5

Survey - Planning Survey Manager

PLS 8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Establish Horizontal Survey Crew
Vertical Control Chief/Technician
60 7.5 2.0 3.8
0 0.0
Survey Computations Survey Manager
/QA PLS 32 4.0 1.0 4.0

Field Collection - Static Survey Crew

Scanner Chief/Technician
274 34.3 6.0 5.7
Approx 183 Setups @
1.5 hrs 0.0

Calibration Sr Lidar Analyst 183 22.9 1.0 22.9

Point Cloud Lidar Tech I

Creation/Editing 549 68.6 3.0 22.9

Feature Lidar Tech II

Extraction/CADD 140 17.5 2.0 8.8
CADD/GIS 60 7.5 1.0 7.5

QC Sr Lidar Analyst 80 10.0 1.0 10.0

Product Generation Lidar Tech II 40 5.0 1.0 5.0

System 254

TOTAL STATIC
LIDAR 1700 212.5 94.0
Table 16 Schedule Static LiDAR

 
Page 64
 
 Conventional Aerial
Mapping
Task Persons Hrs Person Staff Schedule
Days Available

Planning Project Manager 8 1.0 1.0 1.0

Survey - Planning Survey Manager

PLS 8 1.0 1.0 1.0
Establish Horizontal Survey Crew
Vertical Control Chief/Technician
60 7.5 2.0 3.8
Locate Panel Points Survey Crew
Chief/Technician
130 16.3 2.0 8.1
Survey Computations Survey Manager
/QA PLS 44 5.5 1.0 5.5

Aerial Collection Pilot 4 0.5 1.0 0.5

Photographer 4 0.5 1.0 0.5

Image Processing Image

Processing
Technician 12 1.5 1.0 1.5

Aerial Triangulation Sr
Photogrammetris
t 20 2.5 1.0 2.5

Compilation Stereo Compiler 120 15.0 2.0 7.5

GIS/CADD CADD
Technician 80 10.0 2.0 5.0

OrthoRectification Ortho
Technician 40 5.0 1.0 5.0

QC Project Manager 8 1.0 1.0 1.0

Aircraft 6 0.8
Analog Camera 4 0.5

TOTAL
CONVENTIONAL
MAPPING 548 68.5 42.9
Table 17 Schedule Conventional Mapping

 
Page 65
 
 Summary Person Hrs Schedule
Traditional Survey
Design 1281 48.2
Aerial Lidar 444 40.5
Mobile Lidar 726 57.1
Static Lidar 1700 94.0
Conventional Aerial
Mapping 548 42.9

****Schedule is based on staff assigned for concurrent activties
Table 18 Schedule Summary

Traditional Survey Deliverables Aerial/Mobile and Static LiDAR Conventional Aerial Mapping
Additional Deliverables Additional Deliverables
Utility services, both above and
below ground Raw Point Clouds AT Files - Stereo Imagery, Orthos
Classified Point Clouds - Bare Earth,
Parcel lines Buidlings, Vegetation,
Right of way lines -(both to be based
on field survey control and record
title information)

DGN FILE FEATURES DGN FILE FEATURES DGN FILE FEATURES

Buildings, Culverts, Drain Lines,

Buildings, Culverts, Drain Lines, Buildings, Culverts, Drain Lines, Gravel Gravel Road (edge), Road Paved
Gravel Road (edge), Road Paved Road (edge), Road Paved (Edge of (Edge of Pavement) Ground
(Edge of Pavement) Ground Mount Pavement) Ground Mount Signs, Mount Signs, Power Poles, Tree,
Signs, Power Poles, Tree, Curb, Drop Power Poles, Tree, Curb, Drop Inlet, Curb, Drop Inlet, Fence, High
Inlet, Fence, High Voltage Power Fence, High Voltage Power Poles, Voltage Power Poles, Impounded
Poles, Impounded or Standing Impounded or Standing Water, Light or Standing Water, Light
Water, Light Poles,Sidewalk Poles,Sidewalk (edge),Sign Poles,Sidewalk (edge),Sign
(edge),Sign Boards,Stockpiles, Boards,Stockpiles, Boards,Stockpiles,

DTM - GeoPAK Format DTM - GeoPAK Format DTM - GeoPAK Format

Table 19 Feature Assumptions for Costs and Schedule

There are a number variables for each project including available staff and equipment, location
from home office that affect schedule durations and assumptions of available staff and
equipment are listed by task in tables above.

 
Page 66
 
Matrix of Safety Impacts
A sample of potential safety impacts and benefits of the various technology approaches

TASK Aerial Comments Mobile Comments

LiDAR LiDAR
Planning Low Office Low Office
Ground Survey- Low Remote or Low Remote or
base Stations controlled location Controlled
Location

Ground Survey Med Check point Med 1 or 2 survey

–Control collection points/mile
Data Collection NA Low- Aerial Low Collected in traffic
Traffic Control NA NA- Aerial NA Collected at posted
speed
Road Access NA NA- Aerial Low Collect on any
accessible
road/track/trail

TASK Static LiDAR Comments Traditional Comments

Survey
Planning Low Office Low Office
Ground Survey- Med Near project – road Med Near Road Project
base Stations area
Ground Survey High Near project – road High Near project – road
–Control area area
Data Collection High Edge of road /on High Edge of road /on
road road
Traffic Control High Required for safety- High Required for safety-
shoulder/lane shoulder/lane
closures closures
Road Access High Speed and cone High Speed and cone
zones zones

TASK Conventional Comments

Aerial
Planning Low Office
Ground Survey- Low Remote or
base Stations controlled location
Ground Survey Med Check point
–Control collection
Data Collection NA Low- Aerial
Traffic Control NA NA- Aerial
Road Access NA NA- Aerial

Table 20 Matrix of Safety Impacts

 
Page 67
 
Additional Information and Feature Matrix

Below is a sampling of potential features that can be “mapped” using the various technologies.

Feature Aerial Mobile Static Traditonal

LiDAR LiDAR LiDAR Aerial
Curb Restricted YES YES Y ES
Gutter/Drain Yes YES YES YES
Traffic signal NO YES YES NO
Traffic poles NO YES YES YES
Road and Local Terrain
Information YES YES YES YES
Parking Meters NO YES YES NO
Walls YES YES YES YES
Obstruction in the right of way
YES YES YES Restricted
Manholes N O YES YES YES
Sidewalks YES YES YES YES
Overhead Clearance NO YES YES NO
Lights Restricted YES YES Restricted
Utility Wires and C onnections
Restricted YES YES Restricted
Garbage Cans NO YES YES NO
Benches NO YES YES NO
Fences NO YES YES Restricted
Guardrails/Barriers NO YES YES YES
Retaining Walls Restricted YES YES YES
Vegetation -Line of Site
obstructions Restricted YES YES Restricted
**Restricted - Limited complete feature capture
Table 21 Additional Features Matrix

 
Page 68
 
Current State of the Industry

Currently there are two professional organizations that are working to create “standards” for the
practice of LiDAR data collection to support geo-spatial requirements:

1. ASPRS – American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing- Working with

Government, Academic and commercial company representation they have formed
working committees to develop Guidelines and Standards for LiDAR Based
technologies. Publications include Digital Elevation Model Technologies & Applications
1st and 2nd Editions, LAS Data format standards. ASPRS formed a new sub-committee
for Mobile Mapping Technologies at their Spring 2010 conference to address this new
6
technology.
2. ASTM -American Society for Testing and Materials – Technical Committee E57 on 3D
Imaging System ASTM – E2641. This committee addresses issues related to 3D imaging
systems, which include, but are not limited to laser scanners (also known as LADAR or
laser radars) and optical range cameras (also known as flash LADAR or 3D range
cameras). Members include manufacturers, federal agencies, design professionals,
professional societies, and trade associations. The committee released in March 2010 the
Safe Application of Three Dimensional Imaging Technology guideline document.

In addition The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) has released guidance for use of Aerial LiDAR in the publication: Guideline and
Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix A: Guidance for Aerial Mapping
and Surveying (April 2003). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has released a
document for aerial LiDAR Mapping: US Geological Survey National Geospatial Program
LiDAR Guidelines and Base Specification Version 13 ILMF 2010, February 22, 2010.

6
Graham L. Mobile Mapping Systems Overview PE&RS March 2010

 
Page 69
 
Data Accuracy

The bare earth LiDAR and mobile data sets were tested against supplied control data (full results
Appendix A) with results for the mobile bare earth surface. (Units: US Survey Feet, dz =
difference in elevation)

MOBILE DATA Aerial Data
US Feet cm US Feet cm
Average dz ‐0.002  +0.06 ‐0.019  ‐0.57
Minimum dz ‐0.196  ‐5.97 ‐0.472  ‐14.39
Maximum dz +0.338  +10.3 +0.318  +9.69
Average magnitude +0.104  +3.17  +0.135  +4.11
Root mean square +0.0126  +3.84  +0.173  +5.27
Std deviation +0.128  +3.90  +0.173  +5.27
Table 22 Mobile and Aerial Data Accuracy

Based on other research it is anticipated that the mobile system should meet a vertical accuracy
of 0.03m7, . The manufacturer specifications indicate a vertical accuracy of (+/- 5cm)8. The
sensor and survey has performed within the expected accuracy range for the survey.

The aerial surface accuracy is within expectations for aerial LiDAR.

Both surfaces meet the requirement for 1 foot contour accuracy of NSSDA RMSEz of 0.30ft
(9.25 cm). 9

Both surfaces meet the requirement for photogrammetric mapping accuracy for 1 foot contours
in accordance with Table 238.1.5.1 MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide.10

7
Barber D,Mills J, Smith-Voysey S –Geometric Validation of a ground-based mobile laser scanning system, ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
8
Optech Canada, Lynx System Specification
9
ASPRS Guidelines Vertical Accuracy reporting for LiDAR Data V11.0 May 24,2004
10
MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide 238.1
http://epg.modot.mo.gov/index.php?title=238.1_Photogrammetric_Surveying#238.1.15_Accuracy

 
Page 70
 
Conclusion

Mobile Laser Mapping technology offers new methods to collect immense amounts of accurate
information in the field, reducing field survey time and minimizing the potential safety risks to
ground crews traditionally collecting this type of data. As this technology is relatively new in the
marketplace there are many hurdles in terms of execution, software and information content to
be developed. The ability to collect the data at highway speeds and moving the “survey” from
the field to the office will reduce the return to field costs for additional or missed features.

Additional benefits to MoDOT includes potential overall MoDOT project cost savings if data
and cost sharing agreements are in place to distribute and share the data with other State, County
and City organizations. This would allow the “collect once use many” model for other agencies
that could benefit from access to the information content of other roadway features related to
their needs for example:

LiDAR Data Collect

Emergency
Dam & Reservoir Department of Clean Water
Response Budget & Planning Tourism
Saftey Highways Commission
Commissioon

3D Models for Dam Mapping Water 3D Virtual

3D Building E911 Traffic Signs Land Use/Zoneing
Study Sheds FlyThrough
Database

New or WEB Based 3D

Aerial Mapping of Mapping Potential
Route Analyis Highway Assets Development Storm Attractions and
Risk Areas Pollution Sources
Water Planning Mapping

Vegetation &
Obstruction
Mapping

Other potential data sharing opportunities without additional field costs

a. Highway and traffic control signs,

b. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters
c. Parking meters and signs
d. Fire hydrants, manholes, drains
e. Standing water locations;
f. Vegetation for obstruction mapping and urban planning
g. utility organizations can extract/ create inventory:
a. transformers,

 
Page 71
 
 b. poles,
c. wires,

The collection times for the mobile LiDAR is twice aerial but less than 25% of static surveying,
while collecting more than 6 times as much data and potential information content as the aerial
LiDAR.

A key observation that is clearly significant is the additional amount of processing time and
investment in hardware and software required for the mobile datasets. Estimates for this
investment are as high as an additional $250,000 11 or companies that invest in the hardware and
software for post processing mobile mapping. This is \above the capital cost of the system itself
which can run greater than $750,000. There is a clear indication that although the hardware
continues to collect massive amounts of high information content; the software is significantly
behind the curve with respect to managing, manipulating and extracting useful information for
the point cloud.

Aerial LiDAR has the limitation of obscuration from overhead obstructions, trees, building
overhangs, under bridges, and tunnels and the resolution does limit its application with respect to
high detail feature requirements. However, it can map areas that the mobile or static scanners
may have difficulty with access, such as residential backyards, private or restricted access
property or wooded, remote areas with limited road or trail access. The post processing
workflow and software tools are fairly mature and robust.

In comparison, static scanners can collect data densities on par or greater than the mobile
sensors but the time and risk for the field collection adds cost and schedule with a point cloud the
initial output source. These scanners are best suited for high accuracy and high detail in limited
area project environments. For example deformation studies of bridge decks, individual scanning
of joints, bolts, connections on bridges for engineering structural analysis.

The additional information content from the mobile platform is the “collect once use many
times” model for data, extending use across multiple practitioners and organizations leveraging
the “virtual survey” or “office survey” aspect for information extraction.

All the LiDAR systems can also be used at night limiting impact due to traffic congestion
reducing “artifacts” in the data sets. This allows a potential compressed collection schedule due
to the potential for 24 hr collection.

The static, mobile, and aerial LiDAR platforms will have areas where they seem to be the most
appropriate choice. The appropriate usage of the three types of surveying techniques will also
overlap based on various factors including cost, schedule, and the data required by potential end
users of the survey. The potential use of the data that is collected during LiDAR surveys is wide
ranging. Several examples are listed below:

 Flood Risk Mapping

11
Graham L. Mobile Mapping Systems Overview PE&RS March 2010

 
Page 72
 
  Utility Corridor Mapping/Planning
 Creek Bank Monitoring / Erosion Control
 Wetlands Mapping
 Disaster Response
 Airport/Airspace Mapping
 Roadway Corridor Mapping / EIS
 Roadway Improvement Projects
 Bridge Inspections / Replacements
 Intersection Enhancements
 Subsidence / Settlement Monitoring

Aerial LiDAR is usually most appropriate for Floodway mapping, utility and corridor mapping,
and some disaster responses. Mobile LiDAR is usually most appropriate for high traffic areas,
downtown urban environments, and corridor improvement projects. Static systems are generally
suited towards the smaller enhancement projects.

There are more possible uses of the data that is collected depending on whether the information
is shared across various agencies. The selection of the LiDAR method is not always a straight
forward process. One important issue in selecting a LiDAR technique is to evaluate the future
potential uses of the data. For example, if a corridor is in the planning phase for future
improvements, you may want to use the Mobile LiDAR to scan the existing structures for use
during inspections and scan the existing intersections to accommodate the survey needs for
pedestrian enhancements or signal upgrades that are planned in the future.

The successful usage of LiDAR data collection techniques has been accomplished on previous
projects. HDR utilized a static survey on the Rte. 61 bridge replacement over Establishment
Creek in District 10. This technique was chosen in order to accurately depict a 50’ tall rock face
that existed at the southern abutment location. The LiDAR data was also used to delineate a
forested wetland that existed on the northwest quadrant of the project. HDR also selected a static
LiDAR survey for two bridge replacement projects in Franklin County. This method provided a
very accurate bridge survey and creek channel mapping. A mobile LiDAR scan was performed
on the Tucker Avenue Bridge Replacement project in downtown St. Louis. A scan of the
existing tunnel section under the bridge provided detailed information on existing utility
conduits, retaining walls, loading docks, and building foundations.

On a recent Interstate 55 contract in Jefferson County, median lane widening and bridge
replacements were planned. This project is one of three projects in this corridor. This is a
heavily traveled route, with a significant amount of trucks, and is fairly congested. The contract
was funded with ARRA monies and was on a fast track schedule. A standard aerial survey was
conducted on the project. This was a fairly lengthy process and was impacting the project
schedule. A subsequent project was advertised for design and installation of an additional 10
miles of ITS infrastructure.

In reviewing the sequence of events along this corridor, a mobile LiDAR scan was probably
warranted. Four separate projects could have been scanned at the same time. These
improvements ranged from lane widening, roundabout, structure replacements, interchange

 
Page 73
 
ramps, and ITS infrastructure. Even though the timelines are several years in length, the survey
would have been completed just once. This is the type of forward thinking that will help to
lower the overall cost of the surveying tasks on projects. .

Sources of Error

Each step in any of the mapping or survey processes have the potential for human or instrument
error to bias or corrupt the results of the project.
Key risk components include sensor calibration (ensure that all technologies) are maintained and
calibrated in accordance with industry or manufacturer specifications as well as on-site or in-situ
filed calibrations. Having independent checks for observations and calculations and outputs from
automated processes must be built in each step of the process to minimize cost and schedule
impacts. Something as simple as ensuring that all of the drawings contain the same working units
and that the units.def file for all users of the data is in the same format. The units.def file is
located on the local drive after Microstation is installed on a computer. The default layout of this
file places international feet/inches ahead of survey feet/inches in the priority list. Problems
arise when one end user is referring to a units.def file that is different than another user.

Aerial, Mobile and Static Lidar all meet or exceed the current accuracy requirements employed
by traditional Aerial mapping, with advantages in data content potential, “virtual “ office
surveys, and collection of information currently collected using traditional field methods.
However as the technology is evolving there are challenges in processing, and potential sources
of error as noted above that must be planned for and designed into a processes to minimize errors
in final data analysis.

Cost Comparison

As indicated in Table 10 Aerial and Mobile LiDAR has cost and information content advantages
over conventional ground or static LiDAR surveys, but may not be the most cost effective
method over traditional aerial surveys.

The key is to remember that the LiDAR collection technique is a potential tool that can be used
and designers and project managers should consider it, even when the cost savings may be
realized on a future project

 
Page 74
 
Recommendations

The accuracy of the LiDAR data and the speed at which it can be collected is a major benefit to
the end user. The keys to maximizing the value of this process lie within the MoDOT staff who
will be working with these types of data sets on a regular basis. There are several
recommendations that should be taken into consideration at the conclusion of this study.

1. MoDOT should develop individuals who are leaders in the area of LiDAR collection
techniques. Due to the rapidly changing technology, it is essential to have staff dedicated
to maintaining the high level of technical excellence that is demonstrated in other areas of
operations.

2. MoDOT should develop procedures and deliverable standards for working with LiDAR
survey data sets. This may include file types, file sizes, point codes, best practice,
frequently asked questions, and typical issues that have arisen with this type of data. It is
important that some standardization of the data sets take place in order to allow the
process to become familiar to the end users, without limiting their ability to manipulate
the data and tailor it to specific project needs.

3. MoDOT should consider upgrading to the current Microstation XM (08.09.04.88) and

Geopak XM (08.09.07.28) in order to access the tools that have been developed to work
in conjunction with LiDAR survey data sets.

4. MoDOT should seek out additional opportunities to implement LiDAR surveying

techniques on projects. While not the best solution for all surveying needs, LiDAR
surveys do provide benefits to the end user in terms of data and to the public in terms of
reduction in traffic disruption during field work. These additional projects would also
provide additional opportunities to expose MoDOT staff to this technology.

 
Page 75
 
Implementation Plan

The method of implementing LiDAR collection techniques and training staff is critical in the
overall success of this process. Significant enhancements to the capabilities of the MoDOT staff
and considerable cost benefits can be realized through the use of this data. Listed below are the
recommended methods for implementing the recommendations of this study.

1. MoDOT should develop individuals who are leaders in the area of LiDAR collection
techniques. Staff development can take place via many different methods. Large scale
training seminars, such as the TEAM conference, provide an opportunity to introduce the
benefits of LiDAR surveys to a broad range of users. Lunch time seminars can provide a
more detailed example of LiDAR surveying to a smaller group of individuals.
Personalized training sessions can be attended for those staff members who are
designated as individuals who will be leading MoDOT’s efforts in the area of LiDAR
surveying techniques.

2. MoDOT should develop procedures and deliverable standards for working with LiDAR
survey data sets. A working group / steering committee should be established to direct
the overall goals and objectives of the Department as it relates to implementing the usage
of these data sets. This standardization would follow along the same paths as the
Microstation and Geopak guidelines that are already published. This committee would
also provide guidance and recommendations to project managers when determining the
feasibility of utilizing LiDAR. This committee should also be tasked with evaluating the
current MoDOT hardware and software standards and recommend areas where upgrades
are applicable.

3. MoDOT should seek out additional opportunities to implement LiDAR surveying

techniques on projects. MoDOT is currently in a state of tightening project budgets and
maintaining the infrastructure that is in place. That has led to less large scale corridor
development projects. Those projects remain in the planning phase and are scheduled for
construction, but are dependent on future sources of funding. LiDAR surveying may
help to provide some savings to projects that are currently in the planning phase. By
using LiDAR techniques to survey current “maintenance” level projects, the higher
accuracy data could be pulled from the database once a later “expansion” level project is
funded. For example, if a future lane widening is planned along a corridor and ITS
enhancement project is scheduled for surveying, it may be a cost savings to use LiDAR
techniques in the ITS contract and pull that data from the shelf once the lane widening
contract is funded.

Another example of a project where enhanced collections efforts may be warranted is

when Districts plan to workshare projects across District boundaries. A design team in
District 2 working on a small bridge replacement project in District 10, could use the
LiDAR data to limit trips to the field and save resources that could be dedicated to other
uses.

 
Page 76
 
 Implementation Objective

The objectives of implementing LiDAR surveying techniques will focus on providing higher
quality projects in a shorter amount of time, while utilizing less resources. Listed below are
some of the benefits that can be realized through the implementation of the recommendations of
this study.

1. Safety enhancements: LiDAR surveying techniques can provide a safer method of

surveying a project corridor. Surveyors, motorists, and designers all will see an
improvement in safety throughout the project corridor, during surveying operations and
through the reduction in site visits and design field checks.

2. Accuracy: The accuracy and detail of the LiDAR survey allows for increased efficiency
in the design phase of the project. The LiDAR survey allows for more accurate
development of project profiles and for generation of more precise earthwork quantities.
Another benefit of the LiDAR survey is that the end user has the ability to filter the data
in order to best suit their needs. A highly, detailed survey has already been collected in
the field. This level of accuracy can be tailored to meet the needs of the project via post
processing. That process is not available through traditional methods of survey
collection.

3. Speed: The speed of collection, especially mobile LiDAR, cannot be matched via
traditional methods. The enhancement in speed of collection allows surveying tasks to be
completed around constraints that restrict when certain activities may take place. For
instance, the closure of a tunnel on a high volume route may not be possible. A mobile
LiDAR survey could be conducted without disrupting traffic or a static LiDAR survey
could be quickly completed with a minimal roadway closure time frame.

4. Cost: The reduction of costs is a key element in the implementation of any new
technology. LiDAR surveys can help reduce construction change orders in earthwork
quantities by providing a more accurate existing ground model. They can help to limit
costs associated with design tasks by allowing existing sign surveys to be conducted from
the office and assist in utility coordination by providing overhead clearances without
having to conduct a separate field visit. The reduction of field work also saves user costs
associated with traffic control and lane drops that are required to safely conduct field
operations. Finally, as the LiDAR technology is utilized more frequently and by a wider
range of companies, the overall cost to MoDOT will be lowered as the industry becomes
more competitive.

5. Knowledge: The final benefit to the staff at MoDOT is the knowledge and expertise that
comes with implementing these techniques. Staff members take pride in knowing that
advanced technology and operations are being utilized in the completion of their design.

 
Page 77
 
Bibliography
,

1. S. Gandolfi , M. Barbarella , E. Ronci , Burchi CLOSE PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND

LASER SCANNING USING A MOBILE MAPPING SYSTEM FOR THE HIGH
DETAILED SURVEY OF A HIGH DENSITY URBAN AREA The International Archives
of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Vol. XXXVII.
Part B5. Beijing 200.
2. Ussyshkin V. Mobile Laser Scanning Technology for Surveying Application: From Data
Collection to End-Products, FIG Working Week 2009.
3. Barber D,Mills J, Smith-Voysey S –Geometric Validation of a ground-based mobile laser
scanning system, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Volume 63,
Issue 1, January 2008.
4. Graham L. Mobile Mapping Systems Overview PE&RS March 2010.
5. EIJ Earth Imaging Journal, January 2010 State of the Industry.
6. Graham L. Mobile Mapping Systems Overview PE&RS March 2010.
7. Optech Canada, Lynx System Specification,
http://www.optech.ca/pdf/Lynx_Spec_Sheet_web_100614.pdf
8. ASPRS Guidelines Vertical Accuracy reporting for LiDAR Data V11.0 May 24,2004
9. Kada M, McKinley L; 3D Reconstruction for Lidar Based on Cell Decompostion
Aprroach, University of Stuttgart, Germany, International Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing,Volume XXXVIII Part 3/W4 CMRT09 Object Extraction for 3D
City Models, Sept 3-4, 2009.
10. Hammoudi K,Dornaika F; Extracting Building Footprints from 3D Point Clouds using
Terrestrial Laser Scanning at Street Level, Institut Geographic National, France,
International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,Volume XXXVIII , Inst
3/W4 CMRT09 Object Extraction for 3D City Models, Sept 3-4, 2009.
11. Becker S. Haala N, Grammer Supported Façade Reconstruction from Mobile Lidar
Mapping, University of Stuttgart, Germany, International Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing,Volume XXXVIII , Inst 3/W4 CMRT09 Object Extraction for 3D
City Models, Sept 3-4, 2009

 
Page 78
 
Appendix A Control Report - Mobile Data

A total of 139 points were provided, 84 points were beyond the range of the mobile scanner and
outside the area that was mapped (300 foot wide corridor from centerline of road. )
C:\Projects\MoDOT\MoDOT_Adjust_Control_28_June.pts
Number Easting Northing Known Z Laser Z dz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
100 675819.843 956830.290 589.937 590.080 +0.143
101 672594.330 959419.902 730.758 730.590 -0.168
102 672229.392 959886.600 739.758 739.580 -0.178
103 669360.917 963103.603 749.989 750.040 +0.051
104 668586.001 963356.133 746.529 746.500 -0.029
105 664512.056 964719.789 810.718 810.820 +0.102
106 664564.789 965658.647 801.845 801.950 +0.105
107 664048.014 970484.107 766.045 766.070 +0.025
108 663948.924 975720.992 761.436 761.750 +0.314
109 664470.975 976252.550 745.678 745.600 -0.078
110 670220.247 981057.825 675.429 675.490 +0.061
111 670439.937 981659.389 664.509 664.430 -0.079
112 671398.930 983895.342 644.127 644.190 +0.063
113 671692.053 984459.349 650.662 650.590 -0.072
114 663456.120 970499.958 748.731 outside *
115 666592.348 978984.694 726.046 726.260 +0.214
116 666395.943 977593.561 706.947 706.830 -0.117
142 675906.275 956259.162 586.818 outside *
300 677309.683 957516.223 581.487 outside *
301 677141.577 956005.942 543.269 outside *
302 676374.273 956993.638 564.863 564.810 -0.053
303 675691.964 957757.726 583.480 outside *
304 675156.991 956847.522 626.337 626.250 -0.087
305 674620.217 957729.222 672.569 outside *
306 674074.489 957064.723 649.747 649.850 +0.103
307 673818.059 955842.064 667.640 outside *
308 672448.907 956368.863 602.900 outside *
309 673470.524 957164.647 698.809 698.780 -0.029
310 672742.146 957992.525 627.001 outside *
311 673345.149 960037.735 671.230 outside *
312 671335.243 960083.866 689.568 outside *
313 671531.866 961812.187 694.567 outside *
314 670813.886 962401.602 755.699 755.810 +0.111
315 671364.696 963237.761 773.830 outside *
316 670460.591 963229.993 768.341 768.350 +0.009
317 670786.776 964174.576 744.950 outside *
318 669360.917 963103.603 750.190 750.040 -0.150
319 668919.660 964245.323 690.317 outside *
320 667530.940 963079.758 715.593 outside *
321 666370.368 964861.177 744.701 outside *
322 665264.946 963589.796 735.536 outside *

 
Appendix A Page 1
 
 323 664766.784 964419.895 785.906 786.180 +0.274
324 663967.094 963687.741 783.614 outside *
325 664221.855 965337.774 784.241 outside *
326 665394.855 966673.475 795.498 outside *
327 663962.764 968026.046 789.434 outside *
328 665182.761 969074.632 735.273 outside *
329 663568.034 970127.709 758.815 outside *
330 664811.072 971439.667 704.417 outside *
331 663327.347 972103.039 763.185 outside *
332 664813.637 973284.809 772.698 outside *
333 664218.060 974517.220 757.299 757.360 +0.061
334 663137.236 975835.862 742.457 outside *
335 664095.476 975822.876 754.598 754.650 +0.052
336 664470.975 976252.550 745.668 745.600 -0.068
337 663298.631 977167.272 701.004 outside *
338 664744.756 977405.227 690.624 outside *
339 666746.710 977113.277 689.126 outside *
340 666677.161 978940.356 722.564 722.680 +0.116
341 668673.841 978875.590 695.440 outside *
342 668615.121 979618.291 672.772 outside *
343 667737.606 979823.856 693.854 outside *
344 669636.814 980012.394 698.960 699.020 +0.060
345 668374.933 980925.526 666.609 outside *
346 668973.679 981615.713 674.617 outside *
347 671065.416 981894.355 617.419 outside *
348 670557.023 983418.776 604.646 outside *
349 671291.654 983839.529 643.984 644.180 +0.196
350 672495.353 983916.044 591.437 outside *
351 671135.421 984715.332 584.529 outside *
500 671775.766 984556.324 652.282 652.250 -0.032
501 670671.174 982696.837 649.162 649.140 -0.022
502 669614.117 982302.138 629.278 outside *
503 669897.726 981471.236 616.513 outside *
504 667735.745 978964.684 717.749 717.780 +0.031
505 672271.866 983479.810 573.964 outside *
506 671331.216 983452.122 654.441 654.390 -0.051
507 670109.964 983304.918 583.125 outside *
508 669775.443 980173.814 693.705 693.650 -0.055
509 669287.861 980782.086 628.900 outside *
510 668177.043 980630.801 698.808 outside *
511 668475.655 979614.444 664.877 outside *
512 668638.021 979161.125 710.611 710.500 -0.111
513 666585.716 979062.732 733.353 733.520 +0.167
514 666556.502 978060.198 676.394 676.570 +0.176
515 666744.366 977091.960 692.951 outside *
516 665838.636 976991.811 734.931 734.820 -0.111
517 664666.108 977419.912 689.041 outside *
518 663203.968 977230.986 700.713 outside *
519 662876.081 975730.756 744.500 outside *
520 664088.890 975826.410 756.061 755.970 -0.091

 
Appendix A Page 2
 
 521 665192.204 975947.270 701.389 outside *
522 664128.058 974924.102 765.835 765.780 -0.055
523 664929.920 974004.131 733.182 outside *
524 663403.297 973550.902 772.469 outside *
525 664175.594 972812.110 781.362 781.260 -0.102
526 663330.143 972098.004 763.617 outside *
527 665217.096 971468.960 723.113 outside *
528 664222.329 970598.397 762.022 762.360 +0.338
529 663466.488 970209.396 751.439 outside *
530 664189.654 969750.119 767.311 767.230 -0.081
531 665172.790 969091.843 737.046 outside *
532 664599.540 968558.619 771.172 771.030 -0.142
533 664258.701 968044.579 794.019 outside *
534 664767.520 967300.751 784.280 784.170 -0.110
535 663769.202 966774.291 787.874 outside *
536 665487.890 966677.877 792.051 outside *
537 664660.020 966036.048 798.228 798.270 +0.042
538 663968.704 965369.586 759.765 outside *
539 665090.504 965075.540 797.330 outside *
540 664689.471 964432.725 795.156 795.160 +0.004
541 664039.918 963938.617 784.852 outside *
542 665174.025 963504.821 739.827 outside *
543 665765.844 965021.929 770.072 outside *
544 666667.076 964891.724 731.378 outside *
545 666945.639 963731.860 751.883 outside *
546 667546.036 962934.784 706.163 outside *
547 668480.085 964425.116 707.739 outside *
548 669482.916 963082.494 753.565 753.500 -0.065
549 670413.792 961635.243 707.433 outside *
550 670499.593 963166.655 766.433 766.390 -0.043
551 670785.847 964250.398 742.244 outside *
552 671373.706 963343.437 776.577 outside *
553 670850.046 962370.619 758.194 758.040 -0.154
554 671970.278 961967.726 677.621 outside *
555 670748.817 960977.133 726.912 outside *
556 671914.563 960648.199 756.893 outside *
557 671370.411 959811.148 663.860 outside *
558 672261.475 959851.527 738.686 738.510 -0.176
559 673435.160 959892.273 655.287 outside *
560 672783.734 959242.455 727.662 727.530 -0.132
561 672501.797 958151.883 636.394 outside *
562 673474.543 957222.723 700.526 700.450 -0.076
563 674282.464 956772.808 631.740 outside *
564 674580.217 958099.087 685.905 outside *
565 673767.278 955776.833 674.521 outside *
566 675540.481 956828.730 603.556 603.360 -0.196
567 676373.422 956027.223 572.222 outside *
568 677144.181 957486.755 592.614 outside *

Average dz -0.002

 
Appendix A Page 3
 
 Minimum dz -0.196
Maximum dz +0.338
Average magnitude 0.104
Root mean square 0.126
Std deviation 0.128

Figure 44 Points outside of coverage (blue)

The points in blue were outside of the aerial or mobile data coverage’s at time of collection

Figure 45 Point 345

 
Appendix A Page 4
 
Figure 46 Point 347

Figure 47 Point 351

Figure 48 Point 503

 
Appendix A Page 5
 
Appendix A Control Report - Aerial Data
A total of 139 points were provided, 73 points were outside the area that was mapped ( 300 foot
wide corridor from centerline of road)

C:\Projects\MoDOT\MoDOT_Adjust_Control_28_June.pts
Number Easting Northing Known Z Laser Z dz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
100 675819.843 956830.290 589.937 590.180 +0.243
101 672594.330 959419.902 730.758 730.640 -0.118
102 672229.392 959886.600 739.758 739.790 +0.032
103 669360.917 963103.603 749.989 750.040 +0.051
104 668586.001 963356.133 746.529 746.370 -0.159
105 664512.056 964719.789 810.718 810.740 +0.022
106 664564.789 965658.647 801.845 801.960 +0.115
107 664048.014 970484.107 766.045 766.050 +0.005
108 663948.924 975720.992 761.436 761.610 +0.174
109 664470.975 976252.550 745.678 745.560 -0.118
110 670220.247 981057.825 675.429 675.420 -0.009
111 670439.937 981659.389 664.509 664.500 -0.009
112 671398.930 983895.342 644.127 644.160 +0.033
113 671692.053 984459.349 650.662 650.660 -0.002
114 663456.120 970499.958 748.731 outside *
115 666592.348 978984.694 726.046 726.150 +0.104
116 666395.943 977593.561 706.947 706.920 -0.027
142 675906.275 956259.162 586.818 outside *
300 677309.683 957516.223 581.487 outside *
301 677141.577 956005.942 543.269 outside *
302 676374.273 956993.638 564.863 outside *
303 675691.964 957757.726 583.480 outside *
304 675156.991 956847.522 626.337 626.410 +0.073
305 674620.217 957729.222 672.569 outside *
306 674074.489 957064.723 649.747 649.820 +0.073
307 673818.059 955842.064 667.640 outside *
308 672448.907 956368.863 602.900 outside *
309 673470.524 957164.647 698.809 698.940 +0.131
310 672742.146 957992.525 627.001 outside *
311 673345.149 960037.735 671.230 outside *
312 671335.243 960083.866 689.568 outside *
313 671531.866 961812.187 694.567 outside *
314 670813.886 962401.602 755.699 755.820 +0.121
315 671364.696 963237.761 773.830 outside *
316 670460.591 963229.993 768.341 768.290 -0.051
317 670786.776 964174.576 744.950 outside *
318 669360.917 963103.603 750.190 750.040 -0.150
319 668919.660 964245.323 690.317 outside *
320 667530.940 963079.758 715.593 outside *
321 666370.368 964861.177 744.701 outside *
322 665264.946 963589.796 735.536 735.220 -0.316
323 664766.784 964419.895 785.906 786.150 +0.244
324 663967.094 963687.741 783.614 outside *
325 664221.855 965337.774 784.241 784.260 +0.019
326 665394.855 966673.475 795.498 outside *
327 663962.764 968026.046 789.434 outside *
328 665182.761 969074.632 735.273 outside *

 
Appendix A Page 6
 
329 663568.034 970127.709 758.815 outside *
330 664811.072 971439.667 704.417 outside *
331 663327.347 972103.039 763.185 outside *
332 664813.637 973284.809 772.698 outside *
333 664218.060 974517.220 757.299 757.410 +0.111
334 663137.236 975835.862 742.457 outside *
335 664095.476 975822.876 754.598 754.810 +0.212
336 664470.975 976252.550 745.668 745.560 -0.108
337 663298.631 977167.272 701.004 outside *
338 664744.756 977405.227 690.624 outside *
339 666746.710 977113.277 689.126 689.280 +0.154
340 666677.161 978940.356 722.564 722.620 +0.056
341 668673.841 978875.590 695.440 695.560 +0.120
342 668615.121 979618.291 672.772 672.720 -0.052
343 667737.606 979823.856 693.854 outside *
344 669636.814 980012.394 698.960 699.050 +0.090
345 668374.933 980925.526 666.609 outside *
346 668973.679 981615.713 674.617 outside *
347 671065.416 981894.355 617.419 617.220 -0.199
348 670557.023 983418.776 604.646 outside *
349 671291.654 983839.529 643.984 644.160 +0.176
350 672495.353 983916.044 591.437 outside *
351 671135.421 984715.332 584.529 outside *
500 671775.766 984556.324 652.282 652.310 +0.028
501 670671.174 982696.837 649.162 648.690 -0.472
502 669614.117 982302.138 629.278 outside *
503 669897.726 981471.236 616.513 outside *
504 667735.745 978964.684 717.749 717.610 -0.139
505 672271.866 983479.810 573.964 outside *
506 671331.216 983452.122 654.441 654.050 -0.391
507 670109.964 983304.918 583.125 outside *
508 669775.443 980173.814 693.705 693.690 -0.015
509 669287.861 980782.086 628.900 outside *
510 668177.043 980630.801 698.808 outside *
511 668475.655 979614.444 664.877 664.670 -0.207
512 668638.021 979161.125 710.611 710.700 +0.089
513 666585.716 979062.732 733.353 733.180 -0.173
514 666556.502 978060.198 676.394 676.470 +0.076
515 666744.366 977091.960 692.951 693.100 +0.149
516 665838.636 976991.811 734.931 734.820 -0.111
517 664666.108 977419.912 689.041 outside *
518 663203.968 977230.986 700.713 outside *
519 662876.081 975730.756 744.500 outside *
520 664088.890 975826.410 756.061 755.790 -0.271
521 665192.204 975947.270 701.389 outside *
522 664128.058 974924.102 765.835 765.930 +0.095
523 664929.920 974004.131 733.182 outside *
524 663403.297 973550.902 772.469 outside *
525 664175.594 972812.110 781.362 781.430 +0.068
526 663330.143 972098.004 763.617 outside *
527 665217.096 971468.960 723.113 outside *
528 664222.329 970598.397 762.022 762.340 +0.318
529 663466.488 970209.396 751.439 outside *
530 664189.654 969750.119 767.311 767.320 +0.009
531 665172.790 969091.843 737.046 outside *
532 664599.540 968558.619 771.172 771.090 -0.082

 
Appendix A Page 7
 
533 664258.701 968044.579 794.019 793.580 -0.439
534 664767.520 967300.751 784.280 784.200 -0.080
535 663769.202 966774.291 787.874 outside *
536 665487.890 966677.877 792.051 outside *
537 664660.020 966036.048 798.228 798.360 +0.132
538 663968.704 965369.586 759.765 outside *
539 665090.504 965075.540 797.330 outside *
540 664689.471 964432.725 795.156 795.310 +0.154
541 664039.918 963938.617 784.852 outside *
542 665174.025 963504.821 739.827 outside *
543 665765.844 965021.929 770.072 outside *
544 666667.076 964891.724 731.378 outside *
545 666945.639 963731.860 751.883 751.660 -0.223
546 667546.036 962934.784 706.163 outside *
547 668480.085 964425.116 707.739 outside *
548 669482.916 963082.494 753.565 753.630 +0.065
549 670413.792 961635.243 707.433 outside *
550 670499.593 963166.655 766.433 766.320 -0.113
551 670785.847 964250.398 742.244 outside *
552 671373.706 963343.437 776.577 outside *
553 670850.046 962370.619 758.194 757.830 -0.364
554 671970.278 961967.726 677.621 outside *
555 670748.817 960977.133 726.912 outside *
556 671914.563 960648.199 756.893 757.110 +0.217
557 671370.411 959811.148 663.860 outside *
558 672261.475 959851.527 738.686 738.560 -0.126
559 673435.160 959892.273 655.287 outside *
560 672783.734 959242.455 727.662 727.710 +0.048
561 672501.797 958151.883 636.394 outside *
562 673474.543 957222.723 700.526 700.560 +0.034
563 674282.464 956772.808 631.740 631.420 -0.320
564 674580.217 958099.087 685.905 outside *
565 673767.278 955776.833 674.521 outside *
566 675540.481 956828.730 603.556 603.320 -0.236
567 676373.422 956027.223 572.222 outside *
568 677144.181 957486.755 592.614 outside *

Average dz -0.019
Minimum dz -0.472
Maximum dz +0.318
Average magnitude 0.135
Root mean square 0.173
Std deviation 0.173

 
Appendix A Page 8
 
Common Missing Points
MoDOT Poi nt 568 ‐Ground Shot‐ wel l  outs i de of both Mobi l e  a nd a eri a l  covera ge s cope i ncl udi ng Centerl i ne 
a nd Buffer Fi l e.
MoDOT Poi nt 567 ‐As pha l t‐ wel l  outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 565 ‐As pha l t‐ wel l  outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 564 ‐Cul ‐de Sa c‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 563 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 561 ‐Corner concrete‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 559 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 557 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 556 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 555 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 554 ‐Corner concrete‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 552 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 551 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 549 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 547 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 546 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 545 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Mobi l e  Obs cura ti on.
MoDOT Poi nt 544 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 543 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 542 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 541 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 539 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 538 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 536 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 535 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 533 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 531 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 529 ‐Corner concrete‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 527 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 526 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 524 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 523 ‐CL Rod‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 521 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 519 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 518 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 517 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 515 ‐Ground Shot‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 511 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 510 ‐Edge of Pa vement‐ Outs i de  of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 509 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.

 
Appendix A Page 9
 
 MoDOT Poi nt 507 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 505 ‐Corner concrete‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 503 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 502 ‐CL Gra vel ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 351 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e s ca n da ta
MoDOT Poi nt 350 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 348 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  s ca n da ta
MoDOT Poi nt 347 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 345 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 343 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 342 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 341 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 339 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 338 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 337 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 334 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 332 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 331 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 330 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 329 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 328 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 327 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 326 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 325 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 322 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 321 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 320 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 319 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 317 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 315 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 313 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  s ca n da ta
MoDOT Poi nt 312 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  s ca n da ta
MoDOT Poi nt 311 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 310 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 308 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 307 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 305 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 303 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 301 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.
MoDOT Poi nt 300 ‐Pa nel  Poi nt‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer a nd Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n.
MoDOT Poi nt 142 ‐Mon FR‐25a ‐ Outs i de of Mobi l e  da ta  s ca n
MoDOT Poi nt 114 ‐Mon FR‐23a ‐ Outs i de of Project s cope centerl i ne a nd buffer.

  Appendix A Page 
  10
  Appendix A Page 
  11
APPENDIX B SURVEY REPORT

 
Appendix B Page 1
 
 
Appendix B Page 2
 
 
Appendix B Page 3
 
 
Appendix B Page 4
 
 
Appendix B Page 5
 
 
Appendix B Page 6
 
 
Appendix B Page 7
 


Missouri Department of Transportation 573.526.4335

Organizational Results 1.888.ASK.MODOT
P. O. Box 270 innovation@modot.mo.gov
Jefferson City, MO 65102