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.

67 The responses provided by 45 state DOTs and the District of Columbia DOT offered valuable insight on state practices related to the integration of roadway safety data from state and local sources. The case example interviews conducted with state DOTs, FHWA, and other agencies provided more details on concerns about and effective practices for addressing the collection, integration, and maintenance of roadway safety data from state and local sources. On the basis of work carried out in this synthesis, several general conclusions can be made. Summary • Various FHWA initiatives (e.g., safety data business plan, state pilot projects) have been identified to promote the importance of MIRE FDEs and to help state DOTs and LPAs better accomplish the HSIP requirement (i.e., to collect data on all public roadways). • Twenty-three state DOTs reported that MIRE FDEs are collected on 100% of their state- owned roadways; 11 DOTs further noted that these data are also collected on 100% of their non-state-owned roadways. • Advancements in technologies (e.g., GPS and lidar) and data process/visualization software (e.g., GIS) were reported to have helped streamline data collection and integration efforts and to have allowed for better-coordinated QA efforts. The most commonly used tools reported by DOTs were GIS and LRS. • The survey results indicated that the vast 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 both the local (non-state-owned) road and state MIRE FDEs. Also, the majority of state DOTs reported that the local agencies and other practitioners (e.g., tribal nations and planning organizations) have access to state DOT roadway safety MIRE FDEs within roadway inventory. • Common elements reported to enhance the integration of roadway safety MIRE FDEs from local and state sources were (1) 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, integra- tion, and maintenance of state roadway safety MIRE FDEs to be most commonly split as 80% federal funds and 20% state funds. Additionally, in most cases, the DOTs estimated that no funding for these activities was available from local sources. • The benefits of data integration generally were reported to include more-integrated decision making, improved safety analysis, reduced duplication, quicker processing, enhanced devel- opment, and greater accountability. More than half of the agencies observed the benefits of improved project identification and priority setting and improved levels of roadway safety through the application of a data-driven approach. Coordinated collaboration with stakeholders C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions and Knowledge Gaps

68 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources and local agencies was found to be one of the most successful approaches to addressing challenges with the integration of roadway safety data. Requests for technical assistance to FHWA, establishment of data governance through committee, and securing further resources (e.g., staff, funding) were also reported as effective methods of overcoming challenges. • A communicative relationship between the state DOT and LPA staff is a key factor in facilitat- ing a successful and coordinated data collection and maintenance effort. A concentrated and consistent approach on the part of the state DOT to demonstrating the mutual benefits of data integration to the LPAs, facilitates the collection and provision of MIRE FDEs. • It was reported that there are benefits to engaging academic partners—for example, through state University Transportation Centers and through TTAP and LTAP offices—to coordinate and collaborate with state DOTs and local governments in facilitating and managing data collection efforts. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research On the basis of the work carried out in this synthesis, several information gaps were identified and some ideas for future research activities were generated. Information Gaps • The majority of DOTs indicated that no information was available about the cost of imple- menting various aspects of the roadway safety MIRE FDE program. However, the FHWA MIRE FDE Cost–Benefit Estimation did capture estimated costs of data collection. Because many states may not be aware of the report, an emphasis on more outreach efforts may be beneficial. In addition, the development of an economic analysis process based on agency size, agreement types, data-sharing method, and frequency could advance knowledge related to benefits and costs to an agency. • A consistent challenge with the integration of local (non-state-owned) roadway safety MIRE FDEs reported by agencies was the limited number of state or local agency staff. • Another information gap focused on the inconsistent or lacking technical capabilities of state and local agency staff to integrate data that support MIRE FDEs and more outreach and training are necessary for addressing this challenge. • Relatively little information was available regarding roadway safety MIRE FDEs for tribal nation roads. It may be beneficial for future efforts to expand data collection and integration from tribal nation roads to consider those underway in North Dakota, where the Three Affili- ated Tribes are currently in the initial phase of using the same crash and citation reporting system (Traffic and Criminal Software) used by state agencies and several counties. Future Research • Agencies in every state indicated that they have a system for collecting roadway safety data from non-state-owned roads. Most commonly, this data collection is done by the state DOT or the state’s public safety databases. As a result, research is needed to identify successful state- wide practices in the integration of state DOT and public safety databases (e.g., the Montana Safety Information Management System, which is linked with the state’s SmartCop system; state DOT programs that integrate crash data with health records). • Information gathered as part of this synthesis indicated that the level of effort to maintain and integrate MIRE FDEs varies among state and local agencies, owing to the technology avail- ability (e.g., GIS, lidar), the type of data storage system, and so forth. Research may be needed to develop a recommended practice that can assist agencies in streamlining the level of effort for efficiently collecting and updating roadway safety data from multiple sources.

Conclusions and Knowledge Gaps 69 • Because the approaches used to collect roadway safety data from different sources vary, research that identifies how these different data collection processes could be merged into the same platform could provide many benefits. • Investigation and synthesis of the constraints or challenges that are contributing to why agencies are not engaging in the sharing of roadway safety or operations data would be helpful. The reasons may include the release of inaccurate data and the possible repercus- sions; legal issues and liability; technical issues such as data reliability, different data formats, data incompatibility, or a lack of user-friendly interfaces for sharing data; the difficulty in integrating data from multiple sources that have different standards; and, finally, agency data ownership. • It would be useful to identify and explore state programs that have been successful in the collection and integration of all public road MIRE FDEs and to provide federal funding for pilot studies in several states, either individually or through a safety pooled fund study, to fully implement these programs. Caltrans has contracted with the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, to identify data needs for successful development of Type I and Type II Safety Performance functions. Another example is the Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan Tracking Tool (https://shsp. berkeley.edu/), which is a user-friendly, low-cost, easily maintained resource that allows multiple stakeholders to update it dynamically. • To identify well-defined performance measures (accepted by agencies) that have the potential to improve data quality, state agencies can pursue a coordinated effort through joint state initiatives to develop standard procedures for the collection, integration, maintenance, and updating of roadway safety data. This could be achieved through research in the form of NCHRP projects in which multiple states jointly support this initiative. • Research to identify more mechanisms to help states develop more structured opportunities for collaboration, such as a safety data pooled fund, would be helpful, as would combining resources. • It would be beneficial to examine agencies’ practices for expanded and better ways to deploy and market MIRE with all transportation agencies that are responsible for public roads. In closing, there appears to be no one template for successfully integrating roadway safety data from multiple sources. Each responding state DOT has employed a variety of tools or approaches to traversing the process of planning, collecting, updating, integrating, and maintaining roadway safety data. One value of this synthesis will be to give all state transportation agencies and LPAs the opportunity to consider new approaches and adapt them to their existing programs.