1. Advancing Local Road Safety Data Analysis
Local Roads Safety Data Analysis Approaches - Peer Exchange
2017 Traffic Records Meeting
New Orleans
Stuart Thompson & Mary Stringfellow, FHWA

2. State Safety Data System
All Public Roads
Common Base Map
Crash Data System
MIRE FDE
Road Data System
Analysis and Evaluation
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Traffic Data System

3. Why Should We Care about Safety on Local Roads?
All the traffic is on State owned roads……Right??
Example:
LA has 61,000 miles of public roads
LA DOTD owns 17,000 miles of these roads
44,000 owned by local agencies, tribes and federal
In 2016 in LA, 20 % of fatalities and 38% of serious injuries happened OFF the state owned system
Should we ignore this??
What data is available??

4. Safety Data Analysis Approaches - Peer Exchange
Effective and efficient data collection and management is a challenge that every State faces when developing data-driven local safety programs.
The source, methodology and tools of safety data varies widely across different States.
The concept of data is one which is not well understood or accepted at the local level
Effective and efficient data collection and management is a challenge that every State faces when developing data-driven local safety programs. The source of safety data varies widely across different States. Michigan and Wisconsin are examples where the local agencies collect their own data and provide it to the State. In Michigan’s case, locals are encouraged to make use of the safety data they collect beyond simply reporting up to the State. Wisconsin strongly incentivizes accurate and prompt data collection by tying transportation funding to data and requiring an annual report to the State DOT.
Other States take a more centralized approach. In Indiana, roadway data sets are collected by the State DOT, MPOs, local agencies, and the Indiana Geographic Information Council, with the Indiana LTAP serving as a central repository for crash data. A more State-centric model is present in Louisiana, New Jersey, and Ohio. Louisiana, through the LTAP, directly collects road data and Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements (FDE), and Ohio has an established practice of data collection for both the State owned system (on a 3-year cycle) and locally owned roads (on a longer, 6+ year rotation).

5. Safety Data Analysis Approaches - Peer Exchange
PURPOSE:
Exchange of information on the methods, practices and tools surrounding local roadway safety data collection, analysis, and application.
Making data more approachable to locals
Sponsored by: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety’s Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building Program.
Louisiana and Washington DOTs requested the peer exchange to learn what other states were doing to advance safety data collection, analysis and application. How were they using safety data to inform safety management systems and save lives on local roads

6. Safety Data Analysis Approaches - Peer Exchange
The two-day peer exchange in Seattle Aug included
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin
Federal, State and Local Practitioners
Presentations from peer States
Roundtable discussions on major topic areas
Break out session where each State considered the implications of lessons learned for their programs

7. Safety Data Analysis Approaches - Peer Exchange
Focus Topics:
Data collection approaches
Analysis tools and methodologies
Coordination between State and local agencies
Technical expertise and support mechanisms
Program and funding requirements and models

8. Federal Requirements FAST ACT:
Requires States to have a safety data system
Applies to the collection of data on all public roads,
The legislation does not specify who should collect the data
FAST Act requires State to have a safety data system that can be used to perform analysis supporting strategic and performance-based goals in State SHSP and HSIP
Applies to the collection of data on all public roads, and includes geolocated crash, roadway, and traffic data; it is also a requirement that hazardous locations, sections, and elements be identified.
The legislation does not specify who should collect the data. Some states collect the data themselves whereas others rely on local agencies or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).

9. Challenges
Effective and efficient data collection and management for data-driven local safety programs.
Sources of local road safety data
Accuracy and timeliness of safety data is a significant obstacle for Statewide systems
Sheer quantity of data makes central quality assurance difficult
Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements (FDE)
roadway and traffic data that needs to be incorporated into safety analyses

10. Challenges
Data elements may be encoded using different systems which may not directly align.
Convincing local officials and agencies to begin or continue collecting data can be difficult – who is going to pay for it?
The number and diversity of local agencies and organizations within States
Lack of data analysis expertise
Lack of or limited funding
Regardless of collection approach, there are systemic challenges for maintaining comprehensive safety data databases. The accuracy and timeliness of safety data is a significant obstacle for Statewide systems. The sheer quantity of data makes central quality assurance difficult; to address this issue some States have robust systems for county and local officials to review data relevant to their jurisdiction and report errors and updates. This can remove the burden of collection from the resource-strapped local agencies while allowing them to have oversight of their region and reap the benefits of robust data sets. Another challenge is that crash data, roadway characteristics, and other safety and spatial data may be encoded using different systems which may not directly align. Ohio reported on this issue; many recorded crashes could not be accurately mapped onto a road segment due to a base map alignment problem. Significant effort was required to correct crash data coordinates in order to link safety information to the roadway for spatial analysis.

11. Noteworthy Practices
In Michigan and Wisconsin local agencies collect their own data and provide it to the State.
Michigan – locals are encouraged to make use of the safety data they collect beyond simply reporting up to the State.
Wisconsin – strongly incentivizes accurate and prompt data collection by tying funding to data and requiring an annual report to the State DOT.

12. Noteworthy Practices Other States take a more centralized approach.
Indiana, roadway data sets are collected by the State DOT, MPOs, local agencies, and the Indiana Geographic Information Council, with the Indiana LTAP serving as a central repository for crash data.
A more State-centric model is present in Louisiana & Ohio.
Louisiana has directly collected road data and Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements (FDE) (for the 1st time)
Ohio has an established practice of data collection for locally owned roads on a 6+ year rotation.

13. Noteworthy Practices Encourage active engagement from local agencies
Local agencies review data relevant to their jurisdiction and report errors and updates to State.
Correct crash data coordinates manually in order to link safety information to the roadway for spatial analysis.
Conduct data collection continually to ensure reliable data for understanding of safety concerns.
Institutionalize the use of data in agencies safety initiatives and the value of updating the data becomes clearer.
to address this issue some States have robust systems for county and local officials to review data relevant to their jurisdiction and report errors and updates. This can remove the burden of collection from the resource-strapped local agencies while allowing them to have oversight of their region and reap the benefits of robust data sets.
Ohio reported on this issue; many recorded crashes could not be accurately mapped onto a road segment due to a base map alignment problem. Significant effort was required to correct crash data coordinates in order to link safety information to the roadway for spatial analysis.
Data collection processes are not a “one and done” procedure and must be maintained continually to ensure regular and reliable data for long term understanding of safety concerns. It is important to ensure that the use of data becomes institutionalized in agencies and the value of updating the data is clear to both the State and local agencies.

14. Noteworthy Practices
Engage MPOs and LTAPs – build relationships and bridge the gap between local needs and State priorities – in person meetings
States allocate funds specifically for local road safety projects to ease competition for resources
New Jersey
Louisiana
Successful strategies for engaging local agencies were brought forward by peer States focusing largely on enhancing coordination between State and local governments or local government partnerships. Regional entities such as metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP) can build strong relationships between agencies and bridge the gap between local needs and State priorities. Simply getting local agencies in the same room with the State Department of Transportation (DOT) can provide an important opportunity for developing safety projects. In-person meetings, workshops, and exchanges between States and local officials can be used to introduce or reinforce the importance of safety and safety data.
On the funding side, several States allocate funding for local road safety projects in an effort to ease competition for resources. Cities, MPOs, or counties/parishes in those States are not forced to compete against State-level projects, making application more attractive for time- and funding-sensitive local officials. In the case of New Jersey, such set-asides of HSIP funding and strong promotion by the State DOT have increased the total resources spent on local road safety considerably in the past several years.
Michigan is also helping its constituent local agencies develop robust plans in order to institutionalize the use of varied funding sources for safety. The State pays for local road safety plans (LRSPs) which incorporate data-driven approaches to safety and a mechanism for LRSP-identified projects to get priority in HSIP funding. The hope is that an initial investment in local road safety planning from the State will develop into a strong locally-driven program into the future.

15. Noteworthy Practices
In Wisconsin and Louisiana, the LTAP provides technical support for counties and parishes
The Louisiana LTAP organizes conferences and workshops to help local officials.
In Ohio, the LTAP provides training for the State’s GIS crash analysis tool which local agencies are encouraged to use.
In Wisconsin and Louisiana, the LTAP provides technical support for counties and parishes including preparing project applications, coordinating data collection and analysis, and providing training and insight so that local officials can make informed and effective decisions.
The Louisiana LTAP organizes conferences and workshops to help local officials work through the project development process. In Ohio, the LTAP provides training for the State’s Geographic Information System (GIS) crash analysis tool which local agencies are encouraged to use.

16. Noteworthy Practices
Washington – provides counties, MPOs, and cities with summary information to help prioritize safety spending
Michigan has a Local Safety Initiative
New Jersey - MPOs take the lead in performing HSM analysis and providing easily digestible safety information to their constituent cities and counties.
Many States are providing counties, MPOs, and cities with summary information based on network screening techniques to help locals prioritize safety spending. “5% Reports” identify segments which experience the most issues and/or additional screening statistics which can contextualize each county’s performance relative to the State and surrounding peer counties. Washington State DOT provides these reports to their counties but still rely on local officials and engineers to apply their best judgement on what priorities should be incorporated into projects.
Several State DOTs take the lead for their local agencies and provide direct technical support. Washington DOT provides trainings and organizes workshops on data analysis, systemic safety approaches, and the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and SafetyAnalyst tools. Similarly, Michigan has a Local Safety Initiative which provides free technical support for locals and helps coordinate safety projects with the state.
In other States, the MPOs act as the technical support mechanism. In New Jersey, three MPOs cover the State and take the lead in performing HSM analysis and providing easily digestible safety information to their constituent cities and counties, which eases the burden of identifying likely safety project locations. Coalitions of local agencies such as the County Road Association of Michigan’s Data Driven Safety

17. Noteworthy Practices
Coalitions of local agencies can help transfer knowledge and expertise for cooperation between multiple smaller agencies to improve the ability to plan and execute safety projects.
County Road Association of Michigan’s Data Driven Safety Subcomittee
Traffic Safety Commissions in Wisconsin
University of Kentucky
Coalitions of local agencies such as the County Road Association of Michigan’s Data Driven Safety Subcomittee or the Traffic Safety Commissions in Wisconsin, can help transfer knowledge and expertise across county or parish boundaries and provide a mechanism for cooperation between multiple smaller agencies to improve the ability to plan and execute safety projects.

18. Advanced Safety Data Tools
Esri’s ArcMap
39° North
Think GIS
QGIS
Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
NJ Data Voyager
AASHTOWare Safety Analyst
usRAP
Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse

19. Advanced Safety Analysis Tools
Customized application
Wisconsin’s “WisTransPortal
Michigan Roadsoft
Ohio’s GCAT
NOTE: Some visualization and mapping tools can be daunting to the local practitioners
Most states represented at the peer exchange were excited at the visualization and mapping tools which were presented during the session. Yet the high data cost for initiating some of these systems, particularly usRAP, was daunting to some. The University of Kentucky, which has been intimately involved in working on usRAP, pointed out that road networks which do not change rapidly see the cost of the system diminish over time as updates become more regularized . Additionally, some automated systems can help speed the initial data collection process and cut down on the maintenance load in the long run.
After getting such systems off the ground, extending their use out to local officials was also seen as a major hurdle. Some tools require a high level of sophistication to use, while others have software licensing or integration issues which local officials must face. Several states are opting to provide simplified user interfaces to their county-level officials to improve ease-of-use. These efforts are mostly in their infancy.  Do not understand what this means
additional data linkages are being developed between SafetyAnalyst and Roadsoft, as well as with Michigan’s asset management systems

20. Key Takeaways – for Peer Exchange Attendees
Communication on Safety Data
Translating the importance of data
Making the process less intense and more approachable
Recruit local governments to use safety data and incorporate safety data into projects
Build relationships between State and local officials to share knowledge
Seek to sustain a strong data program; building a sustainable program
Collecting data– collecting quality data continually

21. Key Takeaways Training and Technical Assistance
Provide improved training to local officials on data collection and analysis, how to use results for safety programs - Need to do more coaching and mentoring
Provide simple data analysis tools to ease the expertise requirements for local officials
Develop institutions to retain knowledge of best practices over the long term
Exchange of information between counties and states
Provide local agencies the information from data analysis

22. Key Takeaways Local agencies and institutional knowledge Prioritize
Educated assumptions
Pre – populated data sets
Collection tools
Analysis selection

23. Technical Assistance Data Business Planning
FHWA is offering Technical Assistance for this - lead is Stuart Thompson
Integration of State and Local safety data
Data management and governance

24. Safety Data Integration

25. Data Management and Governance

26. Louisiana Data Integration Business Plan
A result of discussions at the Seattle Peer Exchange
Technical assistance from FHWA Office of Safety & contractor (VHB) began in early 2017
Will Include:
Gap Analysis
Data Governance
Data Integration Plan
Training Needs
Overall Business Plan

27. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building Program Roadway Safety Data Program