NCHRP Synthesis 458:Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies

Presented toATSIP TRF 2014

Presented byNancy Lefler Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Agenda

• Background• Objective • Methodology• Results • Conclusions• Future Research • Feedback/Questions

BACKGROUND

Background

• Approx. 40 percent of fatal crashes occur on local roads• Safety on local roads can be challenging • Mileage (3M miles) and diversity of authority

MAP-21

• Recognized importance of data in safety decision-making • Legislation states that “a state shall have in place a

safety data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis” (MAP 21 § 1112). ‐

• MAP-21 further clarifies that this system should include all public roads.

Challenges

• Lack of data or the data management systems needed to meet these requirements. • Collecting, storing, and maintaining data for non-state

maintained roads

OBJECTIVE

Objective • Summarize current safety data practices among state

and local agencies • Emphasis on interoperability of local and state data

sets and the current practices for merging data between local and state agencies.

Objective continued • Several other topics explored:o Systemic safety improvements using risk-based and

other methods.o Resource and staffing availability.o Assistance to local agencies with analysis and

countermeasure application.o Legal and liability concerns.

METHODOLOGY

Methodology

• Literature Review • Roadway Safety Data Program (RSDP) Capabilities

Assessment and Peer Exchanges • Survey• Interviews

Survey

• 2 Surveys – States and local Agencies • Obtained information on current practices among

local and State agencies regarding their collection, management, and use of safety data

State Survey – Response Rate

Local Survey – Response Rate

Interviews

• Tennessee: Automated Inventory Project and Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (TRIMS).• Wisconsin: Wisconsin Information Systems for Local

Roads (WISLR).• Michigan: RoadSoft.• Minnesota: County Roadway Safety Plans.

RESULTS

Organization of Synthesis

• Data Collection• Data Interoperability• Safety Decision Making• Data Management • Conclusions and Future Research

Data Collection

Roadway Segment Data on Local

Roads

State maintains at least some data

32

State collects data on local roads

30

State provides data to locals

21

Locals provide data to State

17

State reviews data, sends revisions to

locals10

State does not maintain any data

9

Data Collection - Documented Practices

• Iowa – Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) application software used for electronic crash data capture. • Ohio - Location Based Response System (LBRS), establishes

partnerships between state and local government agencies for sharing street centerline data with address ranges• Wisconsin - developed the web-based GIS products - WISLR

to collect, store, and share data on local roads. • Tennessee – Collected local road inventory and GPS center

lines on the local roads to complete the LRS spatial network. • Minnesota - conducted a study on traffic counting practices

on local roads.

Data Interoperability – Overall System

Meet Are close to meeting

Meet somewhat Do not meet Do not maintain any data for local

roads

0

5

10

15

20

25

4

9

22

6

2

Level of Compliance with MAP-21 Requirements

Num

ber o

f Sta

te R

espo

nses

Data Interoperability – Crash Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2

0 0 01 1

4

10 10

14

Interoperability Rating

Num

ber o

f Sta

te R

espo

nses

Data Interoperability – Roadway Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3

1

4

3

8

6

5

8

2

1

Interoperability Rating

Num

ber o

f Sta

te R

espo

nses

Data Interoperability – Traffic Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3 3 3

0

6

8

6

8

3

1

Interoperability Rating

Num

ber o

f Sta

te R

espo

nses

Data Interoperability – Documented Practices

• Maryland - Enterprise GIS web services allowed them to consolidate data into a single dataset by sharing geometry and addresses across the system• Michigan - RoadSoft asset management system for

collecting, storing, and analyzing data associated with transportation infrastructure on state and local roads• Wyoming - Coordinates with the MPOs to collect data

for the statewide basemap, which includes local roads.

Safety Decision Making

Level of State SupportLocation/ Project

Identification

Project Prioritization

Countermeasure Selection

Countermeasure Evaluation

State conducts and provides results 2 0 0 0

State provides assistance to our agency 5 4 3 5

We conduct our own analysis and would like to continue doing so

19 18 19 15

We conduct our own analysis but would like assistance from the state

5 5 4 7

Level of state support provided to locals for safety analysis.

Safety Decision Making - Documented Practices

• Alabama - Alabama requires counties to participate in roadway safety training to be eligible for Federal funds• Minnesota – Developed County-level Road Safety Plans for

each of the 87 counties in the state to encourage low-cost countermeasures and creates funding targets for local agencies to use HSIP funding.• Illinois - Provides HSIP funds to local agencies to collect

and geo-locate crash data and conducts safety workshops that highlight the application process for safety funds

Data Management

Yes No0

5

10

15

20

25

30

15

25

Have Adequate Resources

Num

ber o

f Sta

te R

espo

nses

Data Management - Documented Practices

• Charlotte, NC - Has a GIS Enterprise Team that coordinates GIS efforts among the various departments within the City. • New York State - Implemented the New York State

GIS Cooperative Data Sharing Agreement, which promotes data sharing and helps reduce GIS data maintenance of the costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

• Two general approaches to obtaining local road datao State develops mechanism for locals to provide data

o Benefits: Minimizes cost for the state o Challenges: Getting cooperation from locals and

confidence in quality of the data o State collects data

o Benefits: Eliminates dependence on local agencies, improved confidence in data quality

o Challenges: Costly, long-term maintenance of the data

Conclusions continued

• Lack of coordination and potential duplication of efforts between the local and state agencies. o Survey questions where conflicting response from state and

local agencies in the same state o Survey questions where state and local agency in same state

conducted the same activity for local roads – i.e. data collection or safety analysis

Conclusions continued

• Cost of developing statewide safety data systems could be significant • Potential cost savings in state and local agency

coordination/partnerships• Several states have been able do so – provide

examples for other states

Conclusions continued

• Need for support of data improvement efforts from both the local agencies and the state DOT leadership: o Executives need to understand the value of

investing in safety data o Local agencies need to feel there will be some

benefit to them for participating.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future Research

• Guidance, tools, and resources practitioners can use to demonstrate the value of safety data • RNS stemming from this Synthesis has been

developed and provided to AASHTO Subcommittee for review

Synthesis Report

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/170578.aspx

FEEDBACK/QUESTIONS

Thank you!

Nancy Lefler

nlefler@vhb.com

919-334-5604