Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 A survey was distributed to all state DOT contacts through the AASHTO Subcommittee on Data and the members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP). A total of 46 DOTs (45 states and the District of Columbia) responded, for a state DOT survey response rate of 90%; of the responding DOTs, 44 provided fully complete survey responses. This chapter focuses primarily on the inputs of those 44 DOTs on state practices related to the integration of roadway safety data from state and local sources. The DOT survey questions and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix B. The information presented in this chapter reflects the state of the practice reported by the states at the time of the survey. The main objective of this chapter is to synthesize the survey results. Therefore, information reported by specific DOTs as detailed in this chapter should not be interpreted to imply that it is a sole practice, but rather denotes that the particular DOT provided further information. For the purposes of the survey, the term “local” was used to describe roads that are not owned by the state transportation agency; that is, “local roads” refers to roads and highways that are not owned by the state, such as those owned by a county, city, or township agency. Current and Planned Data Collection and Maintenance Efforts Figure 3 breaks out the 46 responding DOTs by the office or entity responsible for collecting and maintaining MIRE FDE information. The majority of the respondents (33 DOTs) identi- fied the planning and/or programming office as the division in which the majority of MIRE FDE collection and maintenance was occurring. Seventeen DOTs reported that these activities were being conducted by the safety office. The Ohio DOT reported that its staff in charge of populating and updating the HPMS were also responsible for maintaining MIRE FDEs. The data and/or information offices collecting and maintaining information at the Colorado, Washington, and District of Columbia DOTs were specifically identified as the responsibility of GIS staff. The University of Connecticut’s Safety Research Center was listed as assisting the Connecticut DOT in data collection. Table B1 in Appendix B lists the title of the office or staff member who oversees MIRE FDE collection and maintenance for 31 responding DOTs. The table also provides a link to each respective website. The data in the following sections are from the 44 DOTs that provided complete survey responses. There were 11 DOTs that reported the method(s) that they used to collect and maintain local road MIRE FDEs, as shown in Figure 4. Five of the 11 DOTs responded that local jurisdictions were responsible for both the data collection and maintenance of local road MIRE FDEs. The Alabama DOT specified that the only MIRE FDEs being collected and maintained were the common items required for the local route LRS. In Washington State, C H A P T E R 3 Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 21 1 DOT (8%) 2 DOTs (15%) 3 DOTs (23%) 3 DOTs (23%) 5 DOTs (38%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ad-hoc basis MPO/County Road Administration Board Consultant contracts State Local jurisdictions Number of DOTs: Figure 4. Methods of collecting and maintaining local road MIRE FDEs reported by DOTs (13 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. 3 DOTs (7%) 1 DOT (2%) 1 DOT (2%) 5 DOTs (11%) 6 DOTs (13%) 10 DOTs (24%) 12 DOTs (26%) 13 DOTs (28%) 17 DOTs (37%) 33 DOTs (72%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Other (i.e., project development, traffic engineering, maintenance etc.) University Research Center Design Research Data and/or Information Operations Contracted consultants Asset management Safety Planning and/or Programming Number of DOTs: Figure 3. DOT offices or departments collecting and maintaining MIRE FDE information, by category (46 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

22 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources some of the MIRE FDEs were collected and stored in the Mobility Database used by the County Road Administration Board (CRAB). In Florida, the DOT’s Safety Division derived MIRE FDEs from HERE data (HERE 2017; https://here.com/en/products-services/data/here- map-data). The North Carolina DOT collected linework and street name attributes for non-state- maintained roadways. The New Mexico DOT collected its own data in addition to receiving data from MPOs in the state. Data Collection Thirteen DOTs identified whether a future collection effort was being developed for MIRE FDEs on local roads, and eight DOTs responded that a program was already in development. Table 1 presents information from these eight states on the title of the program, the DOT office that manages the program, and some details related to the program. DOT Office to Manage Program Details of FDE Collection Efforts Arkansas System Information and Research Division In planning phase. Florida Unknown at this time The Florida DOT is redesigning the current roadway Information Management Data. Kansas (1) Transportation Planning (2) GIS Database (3) K-Hub (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/gran ts/projects/ks14.cfm) K-Hub is a project to comply with FHWA’s ARNOLD requirements for statewide LRSs for all public roads and received an Accelerated Innovation Deployment Grant for Geospatial Data Collaboration. The Kansas DOT will use NG911 roadway geometry and data along with transportation data sets to be incorporated into a statewide LRS system. Upon completion of the project, the Kansas DOT will make its transportation data on the LRS available to other state agencies, cities, counties, and MPOs. K-Hub is expected to be complete by fall 2018, which will facilitate data sharing with local government partners and encourage them to share their data with the Kansas DOT. The Kansas DOT was unable to offer incentives to local governments for sharing data with the DOT. Michigan Unknown at this time New Mexico Data Management Bureau Being coordinated with the Data Management Bureau and HSIP Program. Utah (1) Traffic & Safety Division (2) GIS group A majority of the data for safety analysis efforts were being collected through the United States Road Assessment Program. The data were being made available to local jurisdictions, who will update and maintain the data. Washington State Unknown at this time MIRE FDE elements were being collected on the state system and the local system to meet HPMS requirements, which are sample- based. Washington, D.C. Unknown at this time The program will build a detailed inventory of roadway lane characteristics such as width and directionality type. These additional attributes will be coupled with automated Python scripts to generate the MIRE FDEs that are not already captured from the HPMS. Table 1. Information on future data collection efforts being developed to collect MIRE FDEs on local roads.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 23 Thirty-one survey responses identified whether the DOT performed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) on the local data collected. Thirty DOTs reported that QA/QC was performed (to a certain degree) and identified the level(s) of QA/QC. Figure 5 shows the level of QA/QC identified and the number and percentage of DOTs performing each level of QA/QC on collected local data. Twenty-four DOTs reported performing QA/QC at a level of “reasonableness,” 21 reported spot checking, 13 reported field review, and 13 reported data range. The South Dakota, New York, Minnesota, Alaska, and Wisconsin DOTs reported validating data sets to verify their accurateness and completeness. Additionally, the South Dakota and Wisconsin DOTs request local officials to perform map reviews on an annual basis to confirm any changes that have occurred for roads within their jurisdiction. The Georgia and Colorado DOTs conduct business rule validations, and the Virginia DOT performs an aerial review. The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) reported performing QA/QC of management/monitoring systems for the HPMS. The Pennsylvania DOT reported conducting verification by the roadway man- agement system. Of the 30 DOTs that said they did perform QA/QC on collected local data, 14 said they did so only partially. Of these 14 DOTs, 12 provided information on the extent to which QA/QC was performed, as summarized in Table 2. It appears that all MIRE FDEs for non-local paved roads are collected by a number of DOTs, as determined by 44 survey responses for the Segment functional classification, 35 responses for the Intersection functional classification, and 41 responses for the Interchange/Ramp functional classification. Table 3 shows the number of DOTs that collect each element by the specific road- way functional classification, thus describing the collection activity but not the completeness of the data collection (i.e., 100% of data were collected). Table 4 shows the number of DOTs that collect each MIRE FDE for local paved roads by functional classification. Table 5 presents the number of DOTs that collect each MIRE FDE for unpaved roads. 1 DOT (3%) 1 DOT (3%) 2 DOTs (6%) 3 DOTs (6%) 5 DOTs (13%) 13 DOTs (42%) 13 DOTs (42%) 21 DOTs (68%) 24 DOTs (77%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Aerial review Map reviews Business rule validations Management/Monitoring Systems Data validations Data range Field review Spot checking Reasonableness Number of DOTs: Figure 5. DOT responses on the level of QA/QC performed on local data collected (31 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

24 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources DOT Details Provided on the Extent of QA/QC Performed Arkansas Random spot checking to look for glaring errors. Georgia Dependent on element and/or stored business rule validations. Illinois District personnel review data with locals. Maine Adjust as needed. Minnesota Scripts to check for validity. Nebraska Use aerials as a check. Ohio Combination of staff and consultant. Tennessee On trend data. Texas Spatial extent of roadway. Vermont Not all data exist for all local roads yet. West Virginia Questionnaire to locality. Wisconsin All administrative data and certified miles are validated annually; physical attributes are not subjected to QA/QC. Table 2. Details provided by DOTs on QA/QC performed for local data collected. MIRE FDE for Non-local Paved Roads Number of DOTs Segment Route Number 44 Federal Aid/Route Type 44 Functional Class 44 Type of Governmental Ownership 44 Route/Street Name 43 Rural/Urban Designation 43 Segment Length 43 Surface Type 42 Begin Point Segment Descriptor 42 End Point Segment Descriptor 42 One/Two-Way Operations 42 Number of Through Lanes 42 AADT 42 AADT Year 42 Access Control 41 Direction of Inventory 39 Segment Identifier 38 Median Type 36 Intersection AADT [for each intersecting road] 29 AADT Year [for each intersecting road] 29 Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point 25 Unique Junction Identifier 24 Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point 24 Intersection/Junction Geometry 23 Intersection/Junction Traffic Control 21 Unique Approach Identifier 18 Table 3. Number of DOTs that collect each MIRE FDE for nonlocal paved roads, by functional classification.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 25 MIRE FDE for Local Paved Roads Number of DOTs Functional Class 41 Rural/Urban Designation 40 Type of Governmental Ownership 39 Begin Point Segment Descriptor 37 End Point Segment Descriptor 37 Segment Identifier 36 Surface Type 32 Annual Average Daily Traffic 31 Number of Through Lanes 30 Table 4. Number of DOTs that collect each MIRE FDE for local paved roads. MIRE FDE for Unpaved Roads Number of DOTs Functional Class 40 Type of Governmental Ownership 38 Begin Point Segment Descriptor 36 End Point Segment Descriptor 36 Segment Identifier 35 Table 5. Number of DOTs that collect each MIRE FDE for unpaved roads. MIRE FDE for Non-local Paved Roads Number of DOTs Interchange/Ramp Functional Class 41 Type of Governmental Ownership 40 Ramp Length 38 Ramp AADT 35 Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal 34 Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal 33 Year of Ramp AADT 33 Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal 27 Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal 27 Unique Interchange Identifier 26 Interchange Type 22 Note: AADT = annual average daily traffic. Table 3. (Continued). Tables 3, 4, and 5 represent collected MIRE FDEs for each roadway facility type; Table 6 summarizes the data collection completion status reported by each DOT. All 44 respondents provided the percentage completion of the state roadway system for which data had already been collected, and 41 respondents provided the percentage of local roads for which data had been collected. The responses indicated that 23 DOTs collected MIRE FDEs for 100% of the state roadway system and that 11 DOTs collected MIRE FDEs for 100% of the local road systems.

26 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources Data Maintenance and Updates Forty DOTs responded that MIRE FDEs were updated and/or maintained. Four of these 40 DOTs noted specific details about the extent of data maintenance: California, performed partially; Connecticut, performed on an annual basis; Arkansas, performed on an as-needed basis; and Arizona, performed for the purpose of entering data into the HPMS. The Alabama and Rhode Island DOTs did not update or maintain these data at the time of the survey, but both reported that they were developing plans to do so. Figure 6 presents information on the frequency of MIRE FDE updates. Twenty-five DOTs indicated that the updating of MIRE FDEs was ongoing, while nine DOTs reported that a dif- ferent data update schedule existed for state and local road systems. For instance, the Colorado DOT’s state data were updated on an ongoing basis, but the local data were updated annually. The survey received 36 responses identifying the DOT office(s) responsible for updating MIRE FDEs. Figure 7 presents a summary of DOT offices responsible for updating MIRE FDEs. This updating was the responsibility of the planning and/or programming office in 28 DOTs and of the safety and operations office in nine DOTs. Completion Status (%) for Local Roadway System Total Number of DOTs 0–19 20–39 40–59 60–79 80–99 100 Completion Status (%) for State-Owned Roadway System 0–19 — North Dakota — — Arizona, California, Missouri Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah 10 20–39 — Alabama — — Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington — 5 40–59 — — — Alaska — New York, Texas 3 60–79 — — — D.C. Georgia, Michigan — 3 80–99 — — — Vermont Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, South Carolina Massachusetts, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia 9 100 — — — — — Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin 11 Total Number of DOTs 0 3* (includes Virginia) 1* (includes Maryland) 3 14* (includes Mississippi) 23 Note: Local roadway systems in this context are non-state-owned roads. * State provided MIRE FDE status for only the state roadway system. Table 6. Completion status of MIRE FDE collection efforts for state and local roadway systems.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 27 Current and Planned Data Integration and Maintenance Various DOT Databases Thirty-seven of 44 DOTs indicated that there were various DOT databases such as plan- ning, operations, and/or safety that contained FDEs. Figure 8 summarizes the distribution of responses regarding the compatibility of various databases. Of the 37 DOTs, 19 indicated that the various DOT databases were compatible, while 6 stated that the databases were compatible with each other but only to a certain extent. The Arkansas DOT specified that the databases were only compatible when used with a GIS or LRS. The Mississippi DOT responded that the 2 DOTs (6%) 8 DOTs (22%) 9 DOTs (25%) 25 DOTs (69%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Needs to be updated but no formal plan for update Periodically but at least once a year State data is updated on a different schedule (or frequency) Ongoing Number of DOTs: Figure 6. Frequency of MIRE FDE updates (36 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. 2 DOTs (6%) 4 DOTs (11%) 5 DOTs (14%) 8 DOTs (22%) 9 DOTs (25%) 9 DOTs (25%) 28 DOTs (78%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Maintenance Contracted consultants Data and information Asset management Operations Safety Planning and/or Programming Number of DOTs: Figure 7. DOT offices responsible for updating MIRE FDEs (36 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

28 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources compatible databases were all in the system software Oracle. The New Mexico DOT indicated that the ARNOLD Phase 3 project would focus on data integration between databases. A summary of the details provided by 22 of the DOTs in which databases are being integrated into MIRE FDEs is provided in Appendix B. Data Integration Figure 9 provides the distribution of DOTs with regard to integrating local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs into the DOT roadway inventory system. Twenty-four DOTs indicated that they were not currently integrating MIRE FDEs for non-state-owned roads into the DOT system(s). Of these 24 DOTs, 14 specified that the reason the agency was not integrating MIRE FDEs for non-state-owned roads into the DOT system(s) was because the agency already maintained those data as part of the DOT database. The 24 DOTs that were not integrating local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs into the state MIRE FDE system(s) indicated the reason(s) shown in Figure 10. Besides the MIRE FDE information on non-state-owned roads already being a part of the state database, a lack of 6 DOTs Other 6 DOTs No 19 DOTs Yes 6 DOTs To a certain extent Figure 8. Compatibility of various DOT databases (37 responses). 20 DOTs Yes 10 DOTs No, agency is not integrating the local roadway MIRE FDE data info 14 DOTs No, MIRE FDE is part of DOT system Figure 9. Status of integration of local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs into the state DOT MIRE FDE system(s) (44 responses).

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 29 database commonality, resources, and stakeholder commitment were also identified as reasons for not integrating MIRE FDEs from local (non-state-owned) roadways into the state system(s). Twenty-four DOTs provided responses on whether a future program was being developed, as the DOT did not yet integrate MIRE FDEs on local roads (non-state-owned) roads. Of the 24 DOTs that did not yet integrate MIRE FDEs on local or tribal nation roads, 15 stated that no future program was being developed to integrate MIRE FDEs from these roads. Table 7 provides details from eight of the nine remaining DOTs on planned programs to integrate MIRE FDEs on local or tribal nation roads. Twenty DOTs reported the various tools they were using that improved the integration of state and local (non-state-owned) roadway safety data (Figure 11). The most common tools being used by DOTs included GIS and LRS, each of which was being used by 19 DOTs. GPS was another common tool, reported by 12 DOTs, as was video data, which was mentioned by 1 DOT (4%) 1 DOT (4%) 2 DOTs (8%) 2 DOTs (8%) 2 DOTs (8%) 6 DOTs (25%) 9 DOTs (38%) 10 DOTs (42%) 14 DOTs (58%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Data security Local data are not currently managed on LRS Under development Lack of state leadership Inability to coordinate with local jurisdictions Lack of stakeholder commitment Lack of resources (staffing, funding, technical expertise, etc.) Lack of commonality of databases Local roadway MIRE FDE data are already maintained as part of the state database Number of DOTs: Figure 10. Summary of reason(s) why DOTs do not integrate roadway safety MIRE FDE information on non-state-owned roads (24 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. DOT Response Arkansas MIRE FDE program. There is no title at this point. It is still too early in the planning stage. California Future system that will replace the Transportation System Network (TSN). New Mexico ARNOLD Phase 3 project implementation in December 2019. New York System of engagement. Pennsylvania Evaluation of MIRE requirements has begun. Some type of program most likely will be needed; however, it may not all be housed in one MIRE system but rather involve sharing data through appropriate integrated systems. Virginia Integration of Urban Maintenance Inventory System (UMIS) and Roadway Inventory Management System (RIMS). Washington GIS tools used to obtain information from local GIS sources. Wisconsin ARNOLD Phase 2 Table 7. Programs planned to integrate MIRE FDEs on local roads.

30 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources 11 DOTs. The Maryland DOT elaborated that Esri’s Roads and Highways was being used as a tool to integrate local jurisdiction data. The Michigan DOT reported using the custom application Roadsoft, a system maintained at the Michigan Technological University (MTU). The District of Columbia DOT was the only agency that noted that street-level imagery was being used as a tool, and VTrans was the only agency that reported using an enterprise data hub [used in a stan- dard query language (SQL) server]. Figure 12 shows the 20 DOTs that perform QA/QC on integrated local data. Of the 15 DOTs that indicated that they perform QA/QC on integrated local data, eight reported that they do so on only a portion of the data. The 15 DOTs that perform QA/QC on integrated local data also specified the level(s) of QA/QC, as shown in Figure 13. All 15 DOTs indicated that they perform a level of reasonableness 1 DOT (5%) 1 DOT (5%) 2 DOTs (10%) 3 DOTs (15%) 11 DOTs (55%) 12 DOTs (60%) 19 DOTs (95%) 19 DOTs (95%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Enterprise data hub Street-level imagery Custom application Content Management Systems Video Data GPS GIS Linear Referencing System (LRS) Number of DOTs: Figure 11. Number of DOTs that utilize each type of tool for facilitating integration of state and local (non-state-owned) roadway safety data (20 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. 5 DOTs, No QA performed on local road data 8 DOTs, YES, on SOME of the integrated local data 7 DOTs, YES, on ALL of the integrated road data Figure 12. DOT performance of QA/QC on integrated local road data (30 responses).

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 31 1 DOT (7%) 6 DOTs (40%) 10 DOTs (67%) 13 DOTs (87%) 15 DOTs (100%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Map review Field review Data range Spot checking Reasonableness Number of DOTs Figure 13. DOT responses on the level of QA/QC performed on integrated local data (15 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. analysis and conduct spot checking; fewer DOTs also follow the data range method. The South Dakota DOT requests that local officials review maps on an annual basis, in order to identify roadway-related changes that have occurred in their jurisdictions. The District of Columbia DOT is currently designing automated QA/QC levels of spot-checking, reasonableness, and data range. Training Figure 14 presents the responses from 20 DOTs about whether training developed by the DOT is made available to local agencies. This would be training that explains the criteria and process for formatting, collecting, integrating, and maintaining local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs. Ten DOTs reported that training they had developed either was not made available to local agencies or did not explain the criteria and process for formatting, collecting, integrating, and maintaining local roadway safety MIRE FDEs. 5 DOTs, Yes - training developed and available for LPAs 5 DOTs, In the process of developing training, but does not yet have it in place 10 DOTs, No training developed/available for LPAs Figure 14. Number of DOTs reporting on whether training developed by the agency was made available to local agencies (20 responses).

32 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources The five DOTs that said they did make training available to local agencies were asked to specify the type of training as well as how often the training was available. Both the Nevada and Massachusetts DOTs reported holding the training onsite and making the training available upon request from local agencies. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) also reported making training available on an as-needed basis. The training made available by the Michigan DOT was provided through MTU in support of the university’s Roadsoft system. The Roadsoft tool contains almost all of the data elements identified in the FDEs. The New Hampshire DOT stated that training was provided to support the use of data for local planning. The same five DOTs also indicated specific entities that provide training and technical support to local agencies. The Nevada, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire DOTs all indicated that the state DOT provided training and technical support to local agencies. This training and technical support is specifically provided by the various DOTs through the Data Management Branch of the Division of Planning (Kentucky), the Office of Transportation Planning (Massachusetts), and both the Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance and the RPCs (New Hampshire). Additionally, the New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan DOTs reported that the LTAP/TTAP provided this training and technical support. Implementation of Data Integration Twenty DOTs reported that they had experienced challenges in the implementation process for integrating local roadway safety data; of these 20 DOTs, 19 provided details on their observa- tions. Figure 15 presents a summary of the number of DOTs that observed each of the various issues in implementing the integration of local roadway safety data. Of the 20 DOTs reporting, 15 had observed issues associated with the lack of state resources, such as staffing, funding, and turnover. The lack of local resources, data completeness, and technical expertise were identified as the main challenges observed. The South Dakota DOT reported that the observed issues 5 DOTs (25%) 5 DOTs (25%) 7 DOTs (35%) 8 DOTs (40%) 9 DOTs (45%) 9 DOTs (45%) 10 DOTs (50%) 14 DOTs (70%) 15 DOTs (75%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Unrealistic federal deadlines/data request in order to accomplish integration of the full data set Data accessibility Data accuracy Data format consistency Data timeliness Data completeness (contents) Technical expertise Local resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) State resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Number of DOTs: Figure 15. Issues observed in implementing the integration of local (non-state-owned) roadway safety data (20 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 33 Rating* Number of DOTs Choosing Rating 1 0 2 0 3 4 (Nevada, Michigan, Ohio, and Rhode Island) 4 4 (Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Dakota, and Vermont) 5 4 (New Hampshire, Illinois, Iowa, and Louisiana) *Rating was on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = least effective and 5 = very effective. Table 8. State DOT rating of the effectiveness of MIRE FDE integration efforts. had been minimal because most MIRE FDE requirements were already being collected and maintained. One state reported that one challenge with data collection was the tendency of local agencies to interpret the costs as an unfunded mandate. Twelve of the 20 DOTs stated that their agency had a successful program for integrating roadway safety MIRE FDEs from both local and state sources and that it was working well. Additionally, 12 respondents rated their experience, in terms of effectiveness, with the inte- gration of information on local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs into the DOT system. The ratings were provided as an integer between 1 and 5, where a rating of 1 represented “least effective” and a rating of 5 represented “very effective.” Table 8 summarizes the findings. Table 9 describes the information gathered from 11 of the 12 respondents who rated their expe- rience about the details of the program that integrates roadway safety MIRE FDE information from both state and local sources. State Program Details Iowa “Using an LRS we have it all in our Roadway Asset Management System (RAMS) based on Esri Roads and Highways System.” Illinois “MIRE FDE is part of the base requirements within the roadway inventory system.” Kentucky “KYTC contracts with Area Development Districts (similar to an RPO [regional planning organization]) to work with local government agencies to collect non-state road locations, surface type, ownership, street name, and one-/two-way operation. State DOT requires the data collection to fit into the DOT’s system using a well-established data dictionary.” [See Appendix E.] Louisiana http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Data_Collection/Pages/default.aspx Michigan “We have been working with Roadsoft (www.roadsoft.org) and our local agencies to develop and maintain a single LRS, as well as consistency in the delivery of technical capabilities. This has allowed MI [Michigan] to integrate the state’s crash data, and to also comply relatively easily to HPMS reporting requirements. These efforts have been ongoing for well over a decade. Geographic Framework (http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,4548,7-158--30811--,00.html).” Nevada “NDOT has no written identifiable program. They continuously work with the local governments and RTCs [Regional Transportation Commissions] to deliver data and work together. Train as requested and request data as needed.” New Hampshire “NH DOT collects and maintains the state and local FDE information.” Ohio “ODOT has a few counties that do not want to participate because they feel their data are good. It is difficult to have them maintain their data and submit it to the state for updates.” [Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP), http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ProjectsInitiatives/LBRS.aspx.] Rhode Island “RIDOT obtains through a vendor selected data collection contract, collected the majority of MIRE elements (180 of 202) on all public roads. RI will be working with the locals in the upcoming months to assist RIDOT with updating/maintaining this data.” South Dakota “An action plan was developed that identified missing MIRE FDE.” Vermont “There are several programs, including HPMS, Highway Mapping System, and Traffic Monitoring System that collect MIRE FDE. Integration of the data are possible, but not yet pulled into a central MIRE FDE roadway inventory.” Table 9. Details about the program that integrates roadway safety MIRE FDE information from both state and local sources.

34 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources The same 12 DOTs also specified the key attributes and factors that led to the success of the data integration and data maintenance efforts at their agency (Figure 16). The two most common attributes and factors were (1) a consistent data format between the state and local sources of data and (2) adequate state resources in terms of staff and/or funding, each of which was reported by seven DOTs. A factor that led to the success of the South Dakota DOT’s data integration effort was the ongoing collection and maintenance of MIRE FDE requirements for state and local road inventories. In Louisiana, a factor contributing to the agency’s success was the effort to collect all state and local data regardless of road ownership. Six DOTs stated that a consistent data format between the state and local sources of data was a key attribute and factor that led to the success of the data maintenance effort at the DOT. For example, in Vermont, success was attributed to the necessity for and use of data by existing systems. Twenty DOTs rated how well their process was functioning to accomplish the integration of MIRE FDEs (Figure 17). The same 20 DOTs also indicated the method(s) used to facilitate the integration of roadway safety MIRE FDEs on non-state-owned roads. Table 10 shows the 1 DOT (8%) 1 DOT (8%) 1 DOT (8%) 2 DOTs (17%) 2 DOTs (17%) 3 DOTs (25%) 5 DOTs (42%) 5 DOTs (42%) 7 DOTs (58%) 7 DOTs (58%) 1 DOT (8%) 1 DOT (8%) 2 DOTs (17%) 1 DOT (8%) 1 DOT (8%) 2 DOTs (17%) 0 DOTs (0%) 3 DOTs (25%) 4 DOTs (33%) 5 DOTs (42%) 5 DOTs (42%) 6 DOTs (50%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 State is small in size Data is needed and used by existing systems Establishment and distribution of a clear integration plan that is shared with all practitioners DOT collects all state and local data Most data had already been obtained Provision of relevant training for practitioners (state, local, tribal nations, planning organizations, etc.) Agency motivated by necessity of success Holding peer exchanges for practitioners (state, local, tribal nations, planning organizations, etc.) Consensus from stakeholders regarding the importance of the initiative Cooperation from local agencies in the state Adequate state resources (in terms of staff and/or funding) Consistent data format between the state and local sources of data Data maintenance effort Data integration effort Number of DOTs: Figure 16. Key attributes identified by 12 respondents as having led to the success of the data integration and data maintenance efforts. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 35 2 DOTs No integration efforts underway 6 DOTs Initial efforts underway but process not fully coordinated 2 DOTs Process newly in place and data routinely integrated 6 DOTs Process in place for multiple years and data routinely integrated 4 DOTs Process in place for multiple years, data routinely integrated, and performance of system and data quality being monitored Figure 17. Rating of data integration process by 20 DOTs. Method Used Number of DOTs Joint funding for data collection and maintenance efforts 5 Use of local universities to assist in managing safety data 5 Involvement of the FHWA Division office or other FHWA assistance 4 Frequent coordination meetings of stakeholders 3 Committee established to oversee and contribute to safety data integration initiative 3 Workshops developed and delivered to practitioners (through LTAP or TTAP) 3 Peer exchanges held with other states 2 HPMS 2 Management by DOT 2 Highway safety grant for initial build-out 1 No methods yet, as integration was in early stages 1 Outreach to municipalities 1 Completed Roadway Data Improvement Program evaluation 1 Coordinating GIS resources with state governments (i.e., State of Utah’s Automated Geographic Reference Center, https://gis.utah.gov/) 1 Process incorporated in the roadway inventory process 1 Conversion to Esri’s Roads and Highways system 1 Note: Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 10. Methods used to facilitate the integration of roadway safety MIRE FDEs on non-state-owned roadways.

36 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources number of DOTs that reported using each method to facilitate the integration of roadway safety MIRE FDEs on non-state-owned roads. Access to State MIRE FDEs Of the 44 DOTs that responded to the survey, 29 reported that local agencies or other practitioners, such as tribal nations, had access to the state DOT roadway safety MIRE FDEs within the roadway inventory (Table 11). These 29 DOTs provided further details about the level of access to MIRE FDEs within the roadway inventory of local agencies and other practitioners. The responses were primarily in two categories: (1) publicly available through a data portal or website and (2) access granted upon request. Some DOTs reported access in more than one category and some reported that local agencies had the capability of editing the data. The North Carolina DOT reported that while the MIRE FDEs were publicly available through a website, the local agencies did not have direct access to edit the data. The Pennsylvania DOT reported that the local agencies’ access to data depended on the data features. Some state DOTs reported access restrictions to the MIRE FDEs within the roadway inventory. The details on access restriction are summarized in Table 12. Forty-two states provided input about the comparison and compliance of MIRE FDE versus HPMS data requirements. All of the DOTs indicated that the federal requirement of maintaining the HPMS did help with the MIRE FDEs because of the many overlapping elements and the shared databases. The Connecticut DOT is currently assessing the data gaps that exist between the MIRE and the HPMS that need to be addressed. For instance, the Connecticut Transportation Safety Research Center (CTSRC) at the University of Connecticut has been tasked with develop- ing tools and techniques to perform advanced safety analysis (Project 170–3360). As a part of that initiative, CTSRC has been included in discussions for developing, collecting, maintaining, and integrating a data set on state and local (non-state-owned) roads that would be compliant with MIRE and the Highway Safety Manual and would allow CTSRC to further its project efforts. Also, an early-stage discussion about the development of a field data capture tool that could be utilized by local agencies to support local roadway data collection has begun. In Minnesota, the same database is used for both the HPMS and MIRE FDEs; however, the HPMS is the priority when conflicts in definitions occur. In Rhode Island, HPMS integration was conducted up front with the MIRE data collection, and additional elements collected will be used to update the HPMS. Impacts of Data Integration and Maintenance Costs The survey asked for information about the cost of implementing each roadway safety MIRE FDE program. Of the 44 DOTs that submitted complete survey responses, 21 stated that there was no information available about the cost of implementing each roadway safety MIRE FDE program (Figure 18). Rhode Island reported that the cost of implementing its roadway safety MIRE FDE program was a minor portion of funding from the HSIP. New Mexico said the cost was a minor portion of the funding from the State Planning and Research Program (SP&R) and the HSIP. The New Mexico DOT Roadway Inventory System Upgrade was 90% funded by the SP&R and 10% funded by the HSIP, while the DOT Traffic Monitoring System was 30% funded by the SP&R and 70% funded by the HSIP. Ohio reported that the cost of implementing the roadway safety MIRE FDE program was a major portion of combined funding from the HSIP, the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, and the SP&R. In Kansas, the unknown cost stems from a major portion of funding from the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee.

State Response Data Portal/Website Upon Request Alabama At the time of the survey, there were no specific MIRE FDEs within the roadway inventory. The common features collected thru HPMS and LRS were made available to local entities upon request. X Arkansas Directly from the web under System Information and Research Division’s web page, for traffic and inventory data; no restrictions to local agencies. X Colorado The MIRE FDE elements collected are a part of the state’s current roadway data sets. The data are published on a public-facing portal that allows for downloading of shapefiles or tables. X Connecticut State DOT has developed web-based GIS mapping for a limited set of attributes that will be expanded. X District of Columbia After the initial inventory, the intent is to publish all inventories (MIRE FDEs plus all other roadway attributions) via the District’s Open Data portal. X Florida Roadway data from the DOT’s Roadway Characteristics Inventory is available to anyone upon request. X Georgia All of the data the department stores, maintains, and collects is available for public inspection and made available to the general public as part of standard business process. The database and official records are posted at least annually and coincide with the state’s official federal and state mileage and statistics reporting obligations. X Iowa The state is currently working to give the public a view into its database and the ability to perform their own edits. X Illinois State DOT provides a year-end GIS file on its Internet site for anyone to access. X Louisiana Local agencies have access to the data upon request. X Maine Anyone can ask for data extracts; the department will provide them with whatever context (metadata) is necessary. X Massachusetts Available online. X Michigan To the extent data are available, they may be obtained through the Michigan Geographic Framework (MGF) or from HPMS reports. X Missouri MPOs and planning partners are able to access the department's Transportation Management Systems (applications and tables). X Minnesota All data published free of charge. X Montana Most general roadway elements are available to the public; other elements are available upon request. X X New Hampshire (1) GRANIT (state GIS data clearinghouse); (2) Web map viewers; (3) paper maps. X New York State DOT GIS clearinghouse, data exports, web-based GIS application. X North Carolina Data are publicly available through a website, but local agencies do not have access to the database to enter data. X X Ohio Data are publicly available at http://gis3.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/lbrs.aspx. X Pennsylvania Some of the components are publicly available while others can be accessed through restricted access to certain systems by the state’s business partners. This access is limited though based on the data that are currently integrated. X South Carolina Currently only shapefiles are available for download. The shapefiles contain some attributes, but not all that are available within the state’s Road Inventory Database. DOT will provide other data as requested. X Tennessee To have their data added to the Enhanced Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (E-TRIMS), local agencies request the E-TRIMS application. The granting of access to the safety database is dependent on each agency’s relationship to the DOT and the agency’s needs for the data. X Texas Public website. X Utah Much of the data are directly available through various online applications. The public does not have direct access to all MIRE FDEs, but the state provides anything that is requested on an as-needed basis. X X Vermont MIRE FDEs can be pulled from multiple databases. No single database exists yet. ArcGIS services exist in REST and ArcGIS Online, and at Vermont Center for Geographic Information portal. X Washington All data are made available to customers on request. X West Virginia Generally unrestricted access to Esri ArcGIS Spatial Database Engine (SDE) web service. X Wisconsin The Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads (WISLR) has more than 4,000 external users from local agencies with view privileges. User IDs are granted upon request. Of those, more than 3,000 have edit privileges. Edit privileges are granted upon request. X* X *For viewing. Table 11. Details on the access level of local agencies and other practitioners to MIRE FDEs.

38 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources Additionally, the 44 DOTs provided estimates of what the apportionment would be from each funding source for the collection, integration, and maintenance of the state roadway safety MIRE FDE program. All 44 DOTs estimated that the funding sources would be from federal, state, or local sources, as shown in Table 13. Two DOTs estimated that 100% of the funding costs would be apportioned by federal funding sources. Twenty-nine DOTs estimated federal sources to account for more than 80% of the funds apportioned, with the most commonly observed (22 DOTs) funding split being 80% federal and 20% state. Two DOTs estimated that 100% of the funding costs would be apportioned by DOT funding sources. Thirty-five DOTs estimated that none of the funding would be apportioned by local sources. Five DOTs stated that there was no funding from any of the three sources. Program Details State Response Data Security and Complexity Program Under Development Other Alaska Currently available by request or through Alaska DOT Intranet. X Arizona Local agencies can request HPMS-related data from the Multimodal Planning Division of the Arizona DOT. X (request) California Plan is still being developed. At the time of the survey, the agency did not have much info to share. However, data security was cited as one of the reasons. X X Kansas Local agencies or other practitioners will have ability to edit data elements in their jurisdiction when K-Hub project is implemented. X Kentucky Local agencies do not have direct access to the database because of data security, database license costs, and database complexity. However, local agencies do have access to weekly extracts of database information via public websites. X X (license cost) Maryland Access would be implemented as part of the data integration along with Esri’s Roads and Highways. X Mississippi There has not been a need. X (no necessity) North Dakota Data security. X Nebraska Current data are stored in mainframe DB2 tables and no public access is allowed. Advanced knowledge of the table structure would be required to query useful data. X New Jersey Resources and data security. X X (limited resources) New Mexico Working to develop databases that will be accessible to local agencies and practitioners. X Nevada Server safety, other data stored in same location, not all local governments staffed with trained individuals, knowledge of the department’s systems, DOT systems lock out all except internal users. X Rhode Island Access was not available at the time of the survey as the Esri Roads and Highways database to house the data has not been completed. This effort was expected to be completed in 2017. X South Dakota Available through an interactive web application where dynamic data can be viewed and downloaded. X Virginia Data security. X Table 12. Details of MIRE FDE access restrictions.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 39 21 DOTs No information available 11 DOTs A small portion (0%–20%) of the State Planning and Research (SPR) funds 7 DOTs A moderate portion (20%–60%) of the SPR funds 1 DOT A significant portion (over 60%) of the SPR funds 2 DOTs A minor portion of funding from another program (state safety program, etc.) 2 DOTs A major portion of funding from another program (state safety program, etc.) Figure 18. Cost of implementation of roadway safety MIRE FDE program (44 responses). Number of DOTs, by Funding Source Estimated Share of Funding (%) Federal State Local 0–19 9 15 41 20–39 3 23 2 40–59 2 1 1 60–79 1 1 0 80–99 27 1 0 100 2 3 0 Table 13. Distribution of funding source for state roadway safety MIRE FDE programs. All 44 DOTs reported both whether they required a funding match from local agencies and the size of the match required (Figure 19). Thirty-five DOTs stated that no match was required. Five states (California, Michigan, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia) stated that no information regarding the local match funding requirement was available. The Arkansas DOT specified that the required funding match was 20% for use of SP&R funds. The Ohio DOT stated the required funding match was 20%. Benefits The respondents reported the various benefits that their agencies had observed with the integration of DOT roadway safety data (Table 14). Twenty-five DOTs stated that they observed the following benefits: improved project identification and priority-setting with a more informed

40 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources 1 DOT 10% or less 3 DOTs 25% or less 5 DOTs Unknown 35 DOTs No match required Figure 19. DOTs requiring a local agency funding match (44 responses). Observed Benefit Number of DOTs Improved project identification and priority setting with a more informed decision-making approach (informed and defensible decisions). 25 Improved levels of roadway safety through the application of a data-driven approach. 25 Implementation of various safety analysis tools (e.g., Safety Analyst, Highway Safety Manual) and enhanced program development. 23 Improved accuracy and integrity of roadway data. 22 Improved cooperation between DOT departments or divisions and reduction in duplication of efforts. 18 Consensus on common databases that improve data sharing and facilitate data integrity, consistency, and clarity. 15 More accurate updates on DOT-specific safety performance functions and crash modification factors. 15 Improved performance measures in other roadway divisions such as asset management or maintenance office (e.g., sign inventory, pavement inspection process). 15 Improved funding allocations or greater fiscal accountability. 14 Improved cooperation between key practitioners (e.g., local agencies, tribal nations) or other stakeholders that results in data completeness. 11 Improved or enhanced crash site treatments (by allowing dispatchers and emergency medical services to locate exact crash locations). 9 Improved project delivery times (including faster processing and turnaround times for data elements). 5 Decreased costs for project data collection (e.g., lower data acquisition and storage costs). 5 Benefits not yet observed. 6 Note: Forty-four DOTs responded. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 14. Benefits of integration of state roadway safety data reported by DOTs.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 41 decision-making approach and improved levels of roadway safety through the application of a data-driven approach. Implementation of various safety analysis tools, enhanced program development, and improved accuracy and integrity of roadway data were also identified as benefits of data integration. Six DOTs had not yet observed any benefits as they were still integrating the data. VTrans reported observing the following benefits: time savings, aid in identification of safety issues when coupled with crash data, and the ability to work with partners to mitigate issues. The 44 DOTs also specified the observed benefits of having local roadway data integrated and maintained within the state system (Table 15). Twenty-four DOTs observed the benefits of improved project identification and priority setting. The reduction in duplication of efforts and the reduction in issues with data accuracy and/or reliability (through the use of common database) were also both identified as benefits. Nine DOTs have not yet observed benefits, due to the fact that many DOTs are still in the early stages of integrating the data. Some reported benefits of having local (non-state-owned) roadway data integrated and maintained in the DOT system have been the ability to identify potentially hazardous locations on roads in North Carolina, improved crash locating in Ohio, and more efficient HPMS reporting in Washington. Challenges The survey sought to identify what agencies had observed as some of the difficulties in the integration and maintenance of roadway safety data (Table 16). Thirty-four DOTs observed the difficulty of limited resources, such as staffing, in relation to the integration and maintenance of roadway safety data. Lack of data completeness, lack of funding, problems with data accuracy, and incompatible databases were also identified as major challenges. One state reported a lack of data understanding and maturity and said that all data should exist on a common LRS. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (Louisiana DOTD) noted that although there were currently no observed difficulties, it was expected that a challenge would exist in having local agencies update their own data in the future. In South Dakota, minimal issues were experienced because most MIRE FDE requirements were already being collected and maintained. The challenges or lessons learned that agencies reported in achieving successful integration of local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs are reported in Table 17. Thirty-four DOTs reported limitations with respect to DOT staffing, such as the number of staff or the technical capability of staff. In addition, several DOTs reported limitations with respect to LPA staff and resources. Inconsistent funding levels and sources for ongoing maintenance of integrated data were reported by 24 DOTs. Many DOTs also noted as lessons learned the importance of Observed Benefit Number of DOTs Improved project identification and priority setting. 24 Common database reduces duplication of effort and issues with data accuracy or reliability. 23 Improved cooperation with DOT on joint projects. 16 Improved access to DOT’s MIRE FDEs within roadway inventory. 16 Improved funding allocation. 13 Benefits not yet observed. 9 Improved identification of potentially hazardous locations on roads. 1 Improved crash locating. 1 More efficient HPMS reporting. 1 Note: Forty-four DOTs responded. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 15. Benefits of integration and maintenance of local roadway data in the state DOT system.

42 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources consistent information technology support and the need for clear accountability for data main- tenance once the data are integrated. The Louisiana DOT reported that although it had not yet encountered challenges or lessons learned, it anticipated a challenge in having local agencies update their data in the future. One state DOT noted that some local government leaders were not convinced about the value to all stakeholders in terms of achieving successful integration of local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs. Figure 20 shows the approaches of the 34 DOTs that reported they were developing plans or initiatives to overcome observed challenges. Coordinated collaboration with stakeholders and local agencies was one of the primary successful practices reported for addressing challenges. A request for technical assistance to FHWA, establishment of data governance through committee, and securing additional resources were also reported as tools. The California DOT (Caltrans) conducted a study focusing on MIRE FDE gap analysis and recommended actions that include developing a strategic plan for coordination with stakeholders Observed Difficulty Number of DOTs Limited resources (e.g., number of staff dedicated to data integration or maintenance efforts). 34 Lack of data completeness. 32 Lack of funding for data integration effort, maintenance updates, or staff training. 22 Lack of data accuracy. 19 Lack of compatible databases. 17 Inconsistencies in terms of the status of latest data uploads (e.g., timeframe in which data are collected). 14 Inconsistencies in data referencing system (e.g., different projections and coordinated system). 14 Data security issues (e.g., protected server, access by consultants or other agencies). 10 Lack of leadership support, in terms of understanding the importance of data integration and maintenance. 8 No difficulties or minimal difficulties have been observed. 3 Lack of data understanding and maturity. 1 Note: Forty-four DOTs responded. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 16. Observed difficulties related to the integration and maintenance of roadway safety data. Challenge or Lesson Learned Number of DOTs Limitations of DOT staff (in terms of number of staff, technical capabilities of staff). 34 Limitations of local agency resources (e.g., staff, funding, technical capabilities of staff). 30 Funding limitations for the integration of the data, or inconsistent funding for the ongoing maintenance of the data once it is integrated. 24 Importance of information technology (e.g., relationships with agency, vision, architecture). 20 Accountability for maintaining the data once it is integrated. 18 State agency staff turnover. 15 Local agency staff turnover. 10 Support from DOT leadership in terms of mandating emphasis on moving data integration forward. 10 Note: Forty-four DOTs responded. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Table 17. Challenges and lessons learned in terms of achieving successful integration of local roadway safety MIRE FDEs.

Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 43 and local agencies, exploring mechanisms for data collection, creating a standardized data file format and structure, and developing a data management inventory system to address the identified gaps. Compliance with Traffic Records Coordinating Committee requirements was referenced by both the Pennsylvania DOT and VTrans. In Nebraska, the process of creating a business intelligence competency center that will house all data in a data warehouse and be available to all customers was discussed. The Utah DOT reported that it was preparing to provide initial data collection on all public roads with the intent that local agencies would then maintain it. The Kansas DOT reported that it was implementing its K-Hub project (see Appendix E), which received an Accelerated Innovation Deployment Grant for Geospatial Data Collaboration. Though in the early stages, the Michigan DOT has begun discussing collabora- tion with the Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council about performing the data collection activity for use. The Minnesota DOT is developing the Shared Centerlines project for LRS centerlines and cooperative local safety plans and is the working with the Tribes and Transportation Advocacy Council. Summary The survey results indicated that the majority of states are collecting and maintaining MIRE FDEs, primarily through their planning and programming, safety, or asset management offices. More than half of the state DOTs collect and maintain at least some of the MIRE FDEs on both state and local (non-state-owned) roadways. There were 23 state DOTs that reported that MIRE FDEs were collected on 100% of their state-owned roadways; however, only 11 of the DOTs further noted that roadway safety MIRE FDEs were also collected on 100% of the non-state- owned roadways. The majority of state DOTs reported that local agencies and other practitioners (e.g., tribal nations) had access to the state DOT roadway safety MIRE FDEs within their roadway inventory. A great deal of variability was reported in terms of both the extent of maintenance of MIRE FDEs and the frequency of MIRE FDE updates. Of the DOTs that stated that their agency had a 2 DOTs (10%) 3 DOTs (15%) 3 DOTs (15%) 4 DOTs (20%) 5 DOTs (25%) 7 DOTs (35%) 13 DOTs (65%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Educate data importance Secure additional resources FHWA technical assistance Use of advanced technology Additional data collection Project under development Stakeholders and local agencies coordination Number of DOTs: Figure 20. Approaches reported by DOTs for addressing challenges (34 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

44 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources successful program in place to integrate roadway safety MIRE FDEs from both local and state sources, the common elements reported were (1) a consistent data format between the state and local sources of data and (2) adequate state resources (e.g., staff, funding). Many agencies estimated the apportionment of funding sources for the collection, integration, and maintenance of state roadway safety MIRE FDEs to be most commonly split as 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. The survey respondents are also relying on universities and planning organizations to serve as resources to support data integration and maintenance efforts; the respondents mentioned the effective practice of providing joint funding for data collection and maintenance efforts. While the collection of MIRE FDEs has been initiated as a standard practice in a number of agencies, its wider implementation appears to be dependent on addressing the challenges of agency staff limitations and the technical expertise of agency staff at both the state and local levels. Issues with inconsistent funding levels and providing sources for the ongoing mainte- nance of integrated data were also reported to be barriers to the implementation of safety data integration from state and local sources. However, the main benefits of integrating state and local (non-state-owned) roadway safety data were reported to be improved project identification and prioritization along with improved efficiency through a common database and more reliable and accurate data.