NCHRP Synthesis 458: Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies Presented to ATSIP TRF 2014 Presented by Nancy 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 locals 10 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

Data Interoperability – Crash Data

Data Interoperability – Roadway Data

Data Interoperability – Traffic Data

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 Support Location/ Project Identification Project Prioritization Countermeasure Selection Countermeasure Evaluation State conducts and provides results 2000 State provides assistance to our agency 5435 We conduct our own analysis and would like to continue doing so We conduct our own analysis but would like assistance from the state 5547 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

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 data o 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

FEEDBACK/QUESTIONS

Thank you! Nancy Lefler