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.

SUMMARY Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, opera- tion, and safety of roadways. With the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) transportation legislation, the importance of safety data was further enhanced, particularly for local roads. For the purposes of this report, local roads are defined as non-state-owned public roads and represent more than 3 million miles of roadway. MAP-21 notes that “a state shall have in place a safety data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis” (MAP-21 § 1112). It defines safety data as roadway, traffic, and crash data. It further clarifies that this system includes all public roads. MAP-21 also includes requirements for the collection and maintenance of a subset of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE). FHWA has described this subset as the MIRE Funda- mental Data Elements (MIRE FDEs). The MIRE FDEs include segment, intersection, and ramp elements on all public roads. In addition to collecting the MIRE FDEs, states are also required to have a linear referencing system for all public roads. Many agencies lack the data or the data management systems needed to meet these requirements. Making safety decisions on local roads can be challenging, especially in rural areas. High crash locations can be difficult to isolate through the traditional site analysis because severe crashes can be spread out over a wide area. Additionally, collecting, storing, and maintaining data for non-state-maintained roads is a challenge for many states. As states move toward improving the quality of their roadway, traffic, and crash data for safety, they will be looking for examples from other agencies that have been able to do so. This synthesis provides an overview of the state of the practice regarding the interoperability between state and local safety data and highlights agency practices that support a data-driven safety program on all public roads. Interoperability is defined in this report as the ability of data, systems, or orga- nizations to work together. To compile resources for this synthesis, the project team conducted a literature review, reviewed the results of the FHWA Roadway Safety Data Capabilities Assessment and Peer Exchange proceedings, surveyed state and local transportation agencies, and conducted interviews with agencies that have been identified as having roadway safety data practices that support data-driven safety programs that incorporate both state-maintained and local roads. Forty-three of 51 states completed the survey; an 84% response rate (for the purpose of this project, Washington, D.C. is considered a state). The response rate from local agencies was not as robust as that from the states; 25 local agencies completed the survey. This synthesis found that in terms of interoperability between state and local agencies, agencies are more advanced for crash data than roadway or traffic data. When asked to rank themselves on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the least advanced and 10 being the most advanced in terms of interoperability with state and local data, states on average rated them- selves an 8.5 for crash data, but only 5.7 and 5.8 for roadway and traffic data, respectively. The results of the literature review support these assessments. This study found that many states are striving to obtain, maintain, and use safety data for local roadways to meet the new federal mandate to incorporate local roadway data into a ROADWAY SAFETY DATA INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES

2 statewide base map and support analysis of that data. Local agencies are collecting some of the roadway data elements that states are in most need of and most interested in collecting, including information regarding intersections, curves, and supplemental datasets, such as signs. Collaboration with local agencies may be a good opportunity to populate the states’ inventories for these elements. The costs of developing and maintaining statewide safety data systems could be significant. States will need information and assistance to build the budget justifications for the required projects. Some cost savings may be realized if states and local agencies can partner such that the local agencies provide the data to the state in exchange for analytic support. Some states have been able to obtain and make use of local safety data, and these states provide examples from which those states that are striving to improve can learn. There are generally two approaches states can take to obtain local safety data: (1) develop a mechanism for local agencies to provide the data, or (2) collect the data themselves. One benefit of the first approach is that it minimizes the state’s direct expenses. The challenges include getting cooperation from the local agencies and having confidence in the quality of the data. These challenges can be met by a concentrated effort to work directly with local agencies to provide the support needed in terms of outreach, training, and funding. Some states have enacted legislation that requires local agency cooperation. The states that have been able to achieve cooperation from local agencies have developed tools that not only meet the state’s needs but provide a benefit to the local agencies as well. The more benefits the local agencies perceive, the more likely they are to participate. The benefit of the second approach is that it eliminates the dependence on local agencies. The state has more control over what data are collected, how the data are collected, the format of the data, etc. They have more assurance over the quality of the data, as well; however, this approach can be costly. Safety decision making at the local level can be a challenge for states. For many states, particularly large states, the number of local agencies can be overwhelming. Also, it is often difficult for state departments of transportation to identify the correct person to work with at the local level. The majority of the local agencies surveyed engage in roadway safety; that is, they implement countermeasures and treatments on their roadways for the purpose of improving safety. In addition, many of the states engage in some type of safety decision making on local roadways, whether it is conducting analysis, installing improvements, or providing funding. Overall, a key lesson learned from this effort is the need for support of data improvement efforts from both the state department of transportation and the local agency leadership. Executives need to understand the value of investing in safety data and local agencies to believe there will be some benefit to them for participating. Agencies suggested that there should be more mechanisms in place to continue to learn from each other. One agency suggested a “safety data pooled fund” effort would be helpful so states can have more structured opportunities for collaboration and combine resources to move all of the states forward. The findings of this synthesis support the need for this type of structured collaboration. One of the key themes found is that state safety practitioners need to demonstrate the value of the data to executives/leadership to gain their support for data initiatives. The states that have been able to develop data-driven safety programs on all public roads have had leadership that understood the value of quality transportation data. Although conceptually quality data can help lead to better decisions, make more effective use of the available funding, and improve safety on the roadways, it has not yet been quantitatively proven. The FHWA Office of Safety has developed a guidebook that demonstrates a potential methodology for quantifying the value of safety data: Benefit-Cost Analysis of Investing in Data Systems and Processes for Data-Driven Safety Programs: Decision-Making Guidebook. However, further research is needed to explore this concept and provide concrete results to states in terms of tools and resources for communi- cating the value of investing in data to their leadership.