Roadway Safety Data Program
Integrating State and Local Safety Data
1
Integration of State and Local Safety Data
Map 21
• Requires States to maintain a database to
support analysis of the safety of all public
roadways.
FHWA
• Requires States to maintain an all-publicroads linear referencing system and allpublic-roads basemap.
States must undertake projects to
collect and integrate local roadway
inventory data into a statewide
database.
2
Capabilities Assessment - Peer Exchanges
• Four regional State peer exchanges
• Local data integration identified as a challenge
• Data Collection rated 2.6 on 5 point scale,
Roadway Data Completeness Element:
“Many States attributed their identification
of a lower capability due to a lack of
complete roadway inventories on locally
maintained roadways and fewer roadway
inventory elements collected.”
3
What is Transportation Data Integration?
• Defined as the art and science of taking data from
various sources and combining it all together to
provide a unified database
• It is a key ingredient for overall information
management in transportation organizations
• Data integration is essential to transform data into
information that is used to support decision
making at the various management levels
III-4
Objective
• The objective of this project is to build on the
results of the RSDPCA to develop guidance based
on research, case studies, and pilot studies, to
help agencies improve the integration of local
road data into State systems.
Task
•
•
•
•
Develop Data Integration Case Studies
Conduct Local and State Data Integration Pilot Studies
Develop a Guide for Integration of Local and State Data
Develop strategic plan for further expansion of
integration of local data
6
Case Studies
Real-world examples:
• Challenges
• Benefits
• Reasons for
success/lessons learned
• Applicability to other
agencies
Case studies:
Michigan Roadsoft System
for Local Roadway Data and
Analysis
Ohio Location Based
Response System
Wisconsin information
System for Local Roads
Tennessee Roadway
Information Management
System
7
Michigan’s Integration of State and Local Data
8
Michigan’s Data Integration Challenges
• Varied capabilities among local agencies.
• Interest in preserving local ownership and
control.
• Lack of consistency in data structures and
data definitions.
9
Solution: Michigan Roadsoft System for
Local Roadway Data and Analysis
• Local agencies maintain separate
databases.
• CTT provides updates/support.
• Similar structure and data definitions.
10
Results
• Meets most – not all – local analysis
needs.
• No software cost for local agencies.
• Improves data quality and consistency.
11
Key Findings
• Long-term support is key.
• Increased functionality increased the
user base.
• Rapid prototyping is important for this
user base.
12
Ohio’s Integration of State and Local Data
13
Ohio’s Data Integration Challenges
• No single standard for creating local road maps.
• No consistent linear referencing system.
• No local address ranges in State road database.
14
Solution: Ohio Location Based Response
System
•
•
•
•
State assigned route numbers and mileposts.
Local agencies collected data.
Information is available immediately.
Digital maps are available within six months.
15
Results
•
•
•
•
•
Road centerline and milepost data improvement.
Crash location accuracy.
Mapping and data standards consistency.
Data collection streamlining.
911 services routing improvement.
16
Key Findings
• It is possible to integrate local road addressing
and mile posting into a State system.
• Good communication is key.
17
Wisconsin’s Integration of State and Local Data
18
Wisconsin’s Data Integration Challenges
•
•
•
•
Multiple maps.
Duplicate/incompatible systems.
No linear referencing system for local roads.
Lack of local support.
19
Solution: Wisconsin Information System for
Local Roads (WISLR)
“On/at/towards” linear referencing system.
• Local agencies collect/own data.
• Centralized system available to all authorized users.
20
Results
•
•
•
•
Statewide local roadway data consistency.
Redundancy reduction.
Expanded use.
Safety analysis efficiency.
21
Key Findings
•
•
•
•
Local ownership is key.
WisDOT continually invests.
Cost-avoidance helps local agencies.
Continuous expansion builds the user base.
22
Tennessee’s Integration of State and Local Data
23
Tennessee’s Data Integration Challenges
• Majority of serious crashes occurred on local
roads.
• Lack of/unavailable local data.
• Data consistency.
24
Solution: Tennessee Roadway Information
Management System
• Contractor inventoried local roads and
integrated data into TRIMS database.
• TDOT developed web-based eTRIMS.
25
Results
•
•
•
•
Data accuracy.
Roadway information access.
Data analysis availability.
Location data accuracy.
26
Key Findings
•
•
•
•
Data should be “real time.”
Data standards ensure quality.
State system updates may be necessary.
Data collection efforts should be improved
continuously.
27
Pilot Studies
•
•
•
•
•
Navajo Nation: Enterprise GIS Integration & Analysis
Rhode Island: Safety Data Integration Assistance
Arizona: Safety Data Integration for Safety Analysis
Indiana Local Technical Assistance Program
Northern Planes Tribal Technical Assistance Program
Navajo Nation
• Top-Level Objective Integrate safety and roadway
data through the creation of an enterprise GIS database
in support of transportation safety analysis.
• Key Feature Incorporate a web-based system to share
data and potentially collect future data.
• Expected Outcome Geo-located data to aid in
resource management and safety analysis and increased
data sharing among stakeholders and neighboring
jurisdictions (e.g., internal Navajo enterprises, local
agencies, State DOTs, and USDOT).
Rhode Island State
• Top-Level Objective Integrate safety and roadway data
in support of using HSM methodologies to support
RIDOT’s reporting to the Highway Safety Improvement
Program.
• Key Feature Integrate MIRE elements into a format
usable for advanced analytical methods.
• Expected Outcome A tested protocol for the
integration, governance, use, and continued
maintenance of safety data for both the State and local
agencies.
Arizona State
• Top-Level Objective Integrate safety and roadway data
in support of using HSM methodologies to support
RIDOT’s reporting to the Highway Safety Improvement
Program.
• Key Feature Integrate MIRE elements into a format
usable for advanced analytical methods.
• Expected Outcome A tested protocol for the
integration, governance, use, and continued
maintenance of safety data for both the State and local
agencies.
Indiana and Montana Pilot Studies
• Under Development
Next Steps
• Development of an informational guide
– Introduction
– Data Management, Governance, Stewardship,
Maintenance
– Data Integration
– Data Collection
– Data Analysis and Reporting
– Promoting Data Integration
• Develop strategic plan for further expansion of
integration of local data
• Technical Assistance
For More Information
Contact:
Stuart Thompson
Federal Highway Administration
(202) 366-8090
stuart.thompson@dot.gov
State and Local Data Integration
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/data_activities_state.aspx
34