Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 20-44
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 20... ...
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)
|
From page 21... ...
Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 21 1 DOT (8%)
|
From page 22... ...
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)
|
From page 23... ...
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.
|
From page 24... ...
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.
|
From page 25... ...
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.
|
From page 26... ...
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.
|
From page 27... ...
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 planning, operations, and/or safety that contained FDEs. Figure 8 summarizes the distribution of responses regarding the compatibility of various databases.
|
From page 28... ...
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.
|
From page 29... ...
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)
|
From page 30... ...
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.
|
From page 31... ...
Survey of State Practices on Data Integration and Maintenance 31 1 DOT (7%)
|
From page 32... ...
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.
|
From page 33... ...
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)
|
From page 34... ...
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)
|
From page 35... ...
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.
|
From page 36... ...
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)
|
From page 37... ...
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.
|
From page 38... ...
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.
|
From page 39... ...
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)
|
From page 40... ...
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)
|
From page 41... ...
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.
|
From page 42... ...
42 Integration of Roadway Safety Data from State and Local Sources consistent information technology support and the need for clear accountability for data maintenance 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.
|
From page 43... ...
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.
|
From page 44... ...
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)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.