nchrp synthesis 458: roadway safety data interoperability between local and state agencies presented...
TRANSCRIPT
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