Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies (2014)

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 Tennessee: AuTomATed InvenTory ProjecT And Tennessee roAdwAy InformATIon mAnAgemenT sysTem (TrIms) 1) Please briefly describe your program/effort/initiative. Tennessee has several data initiatives: Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (TRIMS)—TRIMS is a client/server application, Linear Ref- erence System Database (Oracle) that contains roadway inventory, structures, pavement, photolog, traffic, and crash data. It contains data for 95,492 miles of state maintained (13,877), additional classified roads (21,615), and local roads (60,000). TDOT GIS Mapping and Facilities Data Office updated existing local road inventory and collected GPS center lines on the local roads to complete the LRS spatial network used by the TRIMS database. The LRS spatial network is used for accurate mapping and reporting of HPMS data, crash data, bridge data, and asset management. TDOT collected 67,500 miles of local road inventory and GPS center line, which added to the existing 30,000 miles of Interstate, State Highway, and functional route roadway inventory and GPS centerline data. Information collected included linear refer- ence points, lane widths, shoulder widths, intersections, speed limits, etc. Data were collected using an instrumented vehicle. TDOT Safety Office identifies crash data on 30,000 miles of state and functionally classified routes. They are work- ing toward inputting the backlog of local road crash data into the newly obtained local road inventory data. Tennessee passed a new legislation bill that all police agencies shall submit crash reports electronically by 2015. TDOT provides roadway data to the locals. TDOT uses crash data to identify safety issues and works with locals on how to address. 2) What was the reasoning behind starting your program/effort/initiative? Safety—There are approx. 90,000 miles of roadway in Tennessee; the majority of fatal and incapacitating crashes were occurring on local/rural roads. They needed to have the data to determine how to improve safety on these roads. Stewardship—In order to be better stewards of the roadways in the state, needed to have data on entire roadway system. 3) Did you have a champion(s) for this effort? If so, in what department were they from? Yes, champions from GIS Mapping and Facilities Data Office, Safety, and HPMS all worked together on this effort. 4) Were you able to get support from leadership? If so, how? Safety is TDOT’s #1 priority; executives recognized the importance of being able to address safety issues on all road- ways in the state. 5) How long did it take to get it established? From 2007–2012 6) How much did it cost (approximately)? $11,900,000 APPendIX f overview of Interviews

68 7) How were you able to get funding? State Planning and Research (SPR) funds 8) How were you able to get cooperation/support from locals? Through the MPOs/RPOs, informed local agencies that they had access to roadway data. Through direct contact with local agencies, worked with them on the safety issues the state identified, also helped to address safety issues the local agency had identified. 9) What percentage of local agencies complies? N/A 10) What percentage of local roadways does this cover? The Automated Inventory Project covered 100% of local roads. 11) What are the benefits/advantages to the local agencies for participating? Local agencies do not always have the funding they need. By working with the state, the state is able to help provide funding to address safety issues. 12) What are the penalties to the local agencies for non-compliance? N/A 13) What benefits have been realized by the state? Local/rural road fatalities have decreased since the project was completed. Rural fatalities are down 49% since last year. 14) Did you develop the program/effort/initiative in-house, or did you seek support from contractors, universities, etc.? There were contractors involved in collecting data for the Automated Inventory Project and developing the TRIMS. 15) What were the biggest challenges? Funding and proving the value—showing how this was going to benefit and when the benefits were going to be real- ized, proving there was a “bang for the buck.” 16) How did you overcome them? A study was performed by the University of Tennessee Transportation Research Center on the existing method of col- lecting roadway inventory and GPS data collection compared to an automated method and it proved very beneficial. 17) What were the major lessons learned/what would you have done differently? There were several: • Do your homework and draft RFP to include all requirements • Test procedures in pilot county • Automation needed for QA/QC • Expect and be ready to address unforeseen hurdles

69 18) Is there any other information you think would be helpful for other agencies to know that may want to develop a similar program? Need support from the bottom-up and the top down. Both practitioners and leadership/executives need to understand the importance of addressing safety for local roads, and the importance of data in being able to do that. 19) Please provide any graphics/images that will help to demonstrate the program/effort/initiative. Contact: Brian Hurst Safety Manager Tennessee Department of Transportation E-mail: Brian.Hurst@tn.gov Phone: (615) 253-2433 wIsconsIn: wIsconsIn InformATIon sysTem for LocAL roAds (wIsLr) 1) Please briefly describe your program/effort/initiative. Wisconsin Information Systems for Local Roads (WISLR) is a web-based GIS application with a multi-tier implementation: Stage 1: comply with inventory and certification of local roads statute. WISLR data supports the distribution of approx- imately $400 million in general transportation aids (GTA) to local governments. Stage 2: provide local government with a tool that provides location-specific estimates of pavement needs that are prioritized and placed within a 5-year budget plan. The tool contains a mechanism to measure effectiveness of a budget plan by providing an assessment of system pavement condition before and after the plan’s proposed improvements, along with an estimate of the unmet backlog of needs associated with that budget. Stage 3: improve decision making for safety initiatives using WISLR’s statewide data and location network. Recent federal requirements, along with the need to more efficiently manage limited safety improvement resources, data driven approaches to supporting operations and planning decisions are key. The Wisconsin DOT has recently com- pleted a project to geocode multiple years of state and non-state crashes to a single statewide network. The crash map was subsequently leveraged to develop an automated approach to identifying a statewide list of high risk rural roads (HRRR) for potential HSIP projects. The Department of Transportation created the WISLR database in 2002 that offers local governments and the Depart- ment convenient access to statewide local roadway data and network to help enhance local transportation and related planning decision making. There are approximately 100,000 miles of local roads, streets, and county highways administered by over 1,920 units of government. WISLR offers users access to: • Statewide local road network • Physical and administrative local roadway data; e.g., surface type, surface condition, surface width, functional classification, owner, etc. – Tabular format – Mapped to location • Querying, analytical and spreadsheet tools to orga- nize and analyze data – 5-year pavement analysis tool – GIS querying tool The Vision

70 2) What was the reasoning behind starting your program/effort/initiative? Wisconsin Statute requires local agencies to submit local roadway changes annually. Wisconsin’s Local Roads and Streets Council (LRSC) recommended to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation that the former database needed redesign to improve: • Data quality • Methods to access local data • Efficiency • Timeliness of data • Reduce duplication of activities between local and state government 3) Did you have a champion(s) for this effort? If so, in what department were they from? Support from WisDOT Management, the WISLR Development Team and Local Roads and Streets Council comprised of local officials, Regional Planning Commissions, Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 4) Were you able to get support from leadership? If so, how? Strong partnership between the Department Secretary’s Office and the LRSC 5) How long did it take to get it established? Process and data modeling activities began in 1997 with a 2002 production implementation 6) How much did it cost (approximately)? Multi-year/multi-million dollar project 7) How were you able to get funding? Unknown at this time (contact came on board to the project after funding decisions had been made) 8) How were you able to get cooperation/support from locals? Outreach and education continues today. • Provide training, education, informational hand-outs, training CD early-on • Bi-annually offer five face-to-face training sessions statewide • Bi-annually offer Webinar training sessions on multiple topics • WISLR user group forum for outreach, solicit their input, and additional training • Provide locals access to Help Line 24/7 • Be present at local government annual conferences/meetings 9) What percentage of local agencies complies? 98% 10) What percentage of local roadways does this cover? WISLR has 100% coverage of reported roads 11) What are the benefits/advantages to the local agencies for participating? Many local agencies do not have the resources to maintain a roadway inventory; WISLR provides a repository for statewide local roadway data and a statewide local road network (GIS).

71 Provides locals ability to access statewide roadway inventory data 24/7; includes 5-year pavement analysis tool, inter- active mapping capabilities, various reports, maps, querying tools, etc. 12) What are the penalties to the local agencies for non-compliance? There are none 13) What benefits have been realized by the state? • Meet ongoing federal requirements; e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR), MAP-21, All Roads Network of Linear Referenced Data (ARNOLD). • WISLR network selected as the Incident Locator Tool map used in law enforcement vehicles. WISLR coverage contains statewide local road network and includes state highways for visual reference and continuous lines. 14) Did you develop the program/effort/initiative in-house, or did you seek support from contractors, universities, etc.? Initial WISLR design, development, and implementation were largely done in-house with a WisDOT staff and a small number of contractors. Recent safety initiatives leveraging WISLR’s coverage; e.g., Crash Mapping and HRRR are being built by a team of universities and WisDOT staff. 15) What were the biggest challenges? • Multi-year projects encounter software upgrades that have to be tested/incorporated into the final deliverables • Parallel conversion of former database while supporting current day production • Limited business experts and IT staff 16) How did you overcome them? A strong, dedicated, and knowledgeable team is key. Having good business experts, staff with the right technical skills, and using solid project management methods was critical. Keep the team focused through constant communication, identify core functions, deploy deliverables in stages, iden- tify high risk activities, etc., through the use of an implementation and test plan. 17) What were the major lessons learned/what would you have done differently? Several factors played a part in the successful development and continued success of the tool: • The outcomes from the WISLR development met a real need. • Identifying core stakeholders and communicating with them regularly on the status of the project helped to keep them engaged. • Having support from both the DOT management and the local agencies. • Being able to show progress. • Solid project management methods. This includes a Business Model Report from the user perspective that demon- strated how the design will fulfill the scope and objectives. 18) Is there any other information you think would be helpful for other agencies to know that may want to develop a similar program? It’s important to consider not only the initial data collection but also how to maintain the data in the long term. This includes considering what is the current structure of the relationship with local agencies, and developing something that not only benefits the state, but that benefits the local agencies so they will continue to use it and maintain their data in the future.

72 For more information please contact: Susie Forde Chief, Data Management Section Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bureau of State Highway Programs Phone: (608) 266-7140 E-mail: susie.forde@dot.wi.gov mIchIgAn: roAdsofT 1) Please briefly describe your program/effort/initiative. RoadSoft is a roadway asset management system for collecting, storing, and analyzing data associated with transportation infrastructure maintained by Michigan Technological University with funding from the Michigan DOT. It includes crash data, bridges, culverts, driveways, guardrails, intersections, linear pavement markings, point pavement markings, roads, sidewalks, signs, and traffic counts. It provides tools to conduct safety analysis, mobile data collection, maintenance management, pavement management strategy evaluation, asset management reporting to the DOT, and sign retroreflectivity management. It is a cooperative project with local agencies since 1992. It includes a unified map of the state. They are able to push data back and forth between the state and 412 Michigan agencies, these include: • 83 county road commissions • 175 cities • 52 villages • 22 townships • 23 planning organizations • 31 MDOT regional offices and transportation service centers • Four Native American tribes • Two federal agencies • 20 other (police agencies, GIS departments, etc.) Each of the agencies maintains their own version of the software. The state collects crashes on all local roads and provides this down to the locals through an annual export. The local agencies collect roadway data on local roads, use these data for their own purposes, and then uses the same data to meet reporting and planning requirements to regional and metro planning organizations in the state. Any data that are included in RoadSoft can be shared between local, regional, and state agencies through RoadSoft. Currently there are the following datasets that are routinely shared between Michigan local, regional, and state agencies: • crash data • pavement type and number of lanes • traffic counts • road map data including functional classification • culvert data including aquatic organism passage information • bridge data including inspections • planned construction projects • completed construction projects • aerial photography 2) What was the reasoning behind starting your program/effort/initiative? It was started in 1991 as a “proof of concept” when ISTEA legislation came out. There was a mandate that states had to have an asset management system. At that time the DOT had its own asset management system, but local agencies did not. RoadSoft was started as a tool to meet the requirement. The legislation was later rescinded but MDOT and the local agencies decided it was something they should have anyways.

73 They developed a fledgling asset management system. They needed to be able to locate roads so they used the crash LRS as the backbone. The tool slowly evolved from there adding more and more capabilities. 3) Did you have a champion(s) for this effort? If so, in what department were they from? Strong local agency support Strong DOT support from traffic, safety, and asset/pavement management 4) Were you able to get support from leadership? If so, how? They understand the value of the tool There are legislative requirements that high level executives need to meet on asset management and reporting Asset Management and Safety Management are closely related, specifically in the data and systems necessary. 5) How long did it take to get it established? Began in 1991, and has been continually evolving 6) How much did it cost (approximately)? Initial development costs were approximately $200. The current RoadSoft project has grown to include support activity necessary to allow users to gain the most benefit from the program. The majority of the annual budget for the project is dedicated to user support. The current total annual budget for RoadSoft is $699,000. User support activities include one-on-one software technical support for several hundred users, engineering technical assistance for using advanced features like pavement modeling, user data migration, user training, and development of tutorials and help files. 7) How were you able to get funding? Fed-aid money from the state of Michigan 8) How were you able to get cooperation/support from locals? By providing a service they find value in. It’s data they would have needed themselves anyway. It’s their tool, its user driven, local agencies tell the state needed revisions/upgrades. Hold user group meetings to get feedback from the locals—the local agencies define the functions. 9) What percentage of local agencies complies? Approx. 412 out of a total of 635 local agencies—72%. Users include use by nearly all of the “big 124” (83 counties, MDOT, and 40 largest transportation owning cities) agencies that own 91% of the total road mileage in Michigan. 10) What percentage of local roadways does this cover? Approx. 93% of the local road system. 11) What are the benefits/advantages to the local agencies for participating? Efficiency in daily operations.

74 Access to crash and other data in a format they can use. Tools that streamline safety analysis 12) What are the penalties to the local agencies for non-compliance? There are some penalties written into state laws on pavement data requirements; however, this has not been an issue, all of the major agencies participate. Use of RoadSoft is totally voluntary. 13) What benefits have been realized by the state? Ability to pass data back and forth from state to local agencies. Reduce data collection cost—collecting all of these data on local roads would be a huge cost for the state and con- versely the state has data that is of great benefit to the local and regional agencies. Having data on a vast majority of public roads—if you want to impact safety, have to have local data. 14) Did you develop the program/effort/initiative in-house, or did you seek support from contractors, universities, etc.? University—Michigan Tech was involved since the beginning 15) What were the biggest challenges? Keeping the software current and flexible enough to meet the needs of all agencies. The ability to react and develop features quickly. It has to fit into the business process of the local agencies, if it doesn’t they won’t use it 16) How did you overcome them? Developed the tool to be “one-stop shop” for local agency’s data needs, make it part of the process of the business they do. Locals drive development of the software through quarterly users’ group meetings to recommend changes. 17) What were the major lessons learned/what would you have done differently? • Local agencies need to feel they “own” the software and the data. • Tools, data, and training—need all three to be successful. • Get a strong, committed user base developed early. • Have continuous contact with the users. • The software is only part of the battle; the bigger issue is user support. Keeping users supplied with the knowledge, data, and tools they need leads to success. • Be able to react and add new features quickly. 18) Is there any other information you think would be helpful for other agencies to know that may want to develop a similar program? Functionality, tutorials, and more screenshots of the software at www.roadsoft.org 19) Please provide any graphics/images that will help to demonstrate the program/effort/initiative.

75 For more information please contact: Tim Colling, PhD, P.E. Director Center for Technology & Training Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI Phone: 906-487-2102 E-mail: tkcollin@mtu.edu mInnesoTA: counTy roAdwAy sAfeTy PLAns 1) Please briefly describe your program/effort/initiative. Minnesota’s County Roadway Safety Plans—The primary objective of the County Road Safety Plans is to identify a specific set of low cost systematic safety projects that are linked directly to the causation factors associated with the most severe crashes on the county’s system of highways. 2) What was the reasoning behind starting your program/effort/initiative? The idea was born out of necessity, during the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP), now Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The CHSP and SHSP highlighted the need to apply a greater share of state safety funds to local roadways in a data driven system-wide approach if we were truly committed to eliminating fatal crashes. Because of these findings, MnDOT began sharing its safety funding based on number of fatal and serious injury crashes. At the time (2004), the concept of low cost, data driven safety solutions funded with federal monies on the local system cut adjust nearly all practices for safety project development and funding. It quickly became apparent that additional resources, training, and education were needed to help implement this revolutionary approach to advance highway safety. MnDOT created a new position dedicated to traffic safety on the local system. This position was responsible for developing and delivering safety related training, meeting with the local units of government (LUG) on safety related issues and building a greater connection between MnDOT’s functional groups and the LUGs. This person received similar comments, concerns and requests during all HSIP outreach and training meetings. The LUGs felt the process for requesting funds was difficult, crashes were few in number, low cost project types were dif- ferent and federal monies required a lot of project administration compared to other funding sources. MnDOT used several different approaches to address these items including modification to the solicitation process to reduce paper work and consolidating multiple safety funds into one solicitation, streamlining environmental review and funding more than 30 Road Safety Audits. As these RSAs were being completed the need for something more advanced was realized; evolving into a “hybrid” RSA evaluating. This proof in concept focused on more intersections and segments (50+) in each county and crash data and research at a regional and/or state level. Next a pilot county was evaluated using the idea of risk factors based on crash data trends at the regional and state levels and applied to segments, curves, and intersections across the entire system of county roads. In addition to the risk based approach a larger group of stakeholders were involved in the plan. This group was composed of the “Four Safety Es,” enforcement, education, and emergency services in addition to the more traditional engineering. Finally, this concept [County Roadway Safety Plan (CRSP)] was then applied to the remaining 86 counties. 3) Did you have a champion(s) for this effort? If so, in what department were they from? Yes. There were multiple champions within state DOT and county engineers.

76 4) Were you able to get support from leadership? If so, how? Yes. Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is a flagship initiative for MnDOT and this project provided clear and concise direc- tion for increasing safety projects on local roadways, allowed for the prioritization and evaluation of safety invest- ments, and strengthened relationships with our local units of government and their understanding of crash data, crash modification factors, and the use and application of low cost systemic safety improvements. 5) How long did it take to get it established? 6.5 years: 3 years ground work prior to plan development, 3.5 years to develop CRSP for each county. 6) How much did it cost (approximately)? The project cost approximately $3.5 million. 7) How were you able to get funding? The project was funded using NHTSA 164 Funds. 8) How were you able to get cooperation/support from locals? MnDOT created a new position dedicated to traffic safety on the local systems. This person was responsible for devel- oping and delivering safety related training, meeting with the LUGs on safety related issues, and building a greater connection between MnDOT’s functional groups and the LUGs. The traffic safety engineer received similar comments, concerns, and requests during all HSIP outreach and training meetings. The LUGs felt the process for requesting funds was difficult, crashes were few in number, low cost project types were different, and federal monies required a lot of project administration compared to other funding sources. MnDOT used several different approaches to address these items including modification to the solicitation process to reduce paper work and consolidating multiple safety funds into one solicitation, streamlining environmental review, and funding more than 50 Road Safety Audits. As these RSAs were being completed the need for something different was realized; evolving into a “hybrid” RSA evaluat- ing. This proof in concept focused on more intersections and segments (50+) in each county and the use of more data and research at a regional or state level. Next a pilot county was evaluated using the idea of risk factors based on crash data trends at the regional and state level and applied to the segment, curve, or intersection level across the its entire system of roads. In addition to the risk based approach a larger group of state holders were involved in the plan. This group was composed of the “Four Safety Es,” enforcement, education, and emergency services in addition to the more traditional engineering. Final, this concept [County Roadway Safety Plan (CRSP)] was then applied to the remaining 86 counties. 9) What percentage of local agencies complies? 100% of counties (87) participated in this project. 10) What percentage of local roadways does this cover? The project evaluated all county roadways, which is 34% of local roadways. Unpaved roadways were evaluated, but the analysis determined that gravel roads make up approx. 42% of the system but fewer than 15% of all severe crashes occur on these roads. In addition, one-third of the counties have no severe crashes on their gravel roads. 11) What are the benefits/advantages to the local agencies for participating? This project gives the counties risk based assessments of their intersections, curves, and segments providing flexibility for prioritizing and implementing safety projects as they see fit. “Project Sheets” were also created, allowing for the direct submission of safety projects and greatly reducing time required to complete safety project applications.

77 12) What are the penalties to the local agencies for non-compliance? There were no direct penalties if a county did not participate, but future solicitations for safety funds utilize this methodology. 13) What benefits have been realized by the state? A complete list of benefits would be difficult to provide, but several key benefits that the state has realized are an increase in the quality and quantity of submitted and funded HSIP projects, a risk based assessment of all county road- ways allowing for the prioritization, and evaluation of safety investments. This project also strengthened relationships with our local units of government and their understanding of crash data, crash modification factors, and the use and application of low cost systemic safety improvements. 14) Did you develop the program/effort/initiative in-house, or did you seek support from contractors, universities, etc.? The idea and framework was developed in-house and tested and refined using consultants. The completion of the statewide effort was completed by a consultant team. 15) What were the biggest challenges? The statewide development required buy in from a vast majority of the counties prior to moving forward with the project; developing this critical mass was challenging. 16) How did you overcome them? We slowly worked with the safety champions at the county level to gather support, the agency “assured” there would be benefits to completing the plan (i.e., safety funds for implementation) and consistent messaging related to the plans and following through on agreed to obligations. 17) What were the major lessons learned/what would you have done differently? There is a need for technical support regarding safety at the local level, but not all of the counties need the same level or type of support; because of this, some counties have chosen not to implement their plan. Future efforts will include a cost participation requirement. 18) Is there any other information you think would be helpful for other agencies to know that may want to develop a similar program? Each state should consider its traffic safety culture, resources, partnerships, stakeholders, and construction project planning and delivery process. Our project was built around the in place strengths in Minnesota, strong partnerships between MnDOT and our local units of government, risk factors that could be explained in plain English or with a photo, and construction projects that could be planned, administered, and delivered by the local unit of government. For more information please contact: Mark E. Vizecky, P.E. State Aid Program Support Engineer Mn/DOT State Aid Division Phone: 651.366.3839 Email: Mark.Vizecky@state.mn.us Website: www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid