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.

3 BACKGROUND The NHTSA estimates that 34,080 people died in motor vehi- cle traffic crashes in the United states in 2012 (1). Furthermore, approximately 40% of all fatal crashes on the nation’s high- ways occurred on local roads (2). Locally owned roadways in the United States are operated by more than 30,000 local jurisdictions and cover approximately 3 million miles of road- way. For the purposes of this report, local roads are defined as non-state-owned public roads. The amount of local roadway mileage and diversity of authority over local roadways cre- ate challenges for federal, state, and local safety stakeholders to effectively direct funding and resources to mitigate safety issues on these roadways. This diversity can affect the ability of transportation to effectively allocate funding and resources to mitigate safety issues on these roadways. Safety improve- ments at the local road level must be addressed methodically along with those efforts at the state level in order to signifi- cantly reduce the number of roadway related crashes on the nation’s network. However, in many states local road safety still remains an afterthought owing to a lack of communication and/or resources, including adequate data (2). There are several federal agencies and associated pro- grams that provide guidance and resources to help states improve their data for safety decision making, including FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA. FHWA administers the High- way Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a core federal-aid program whose purpose is to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, includ- ing non-state-owned public roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP focuses on performance and employs a data- driven strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads (3). NHTSA administers several data pro- grams, including the Traffic Records program, which provides resources, guidance, and funding to states on the collection, management, and analysis of data used to inform highway and traffic safety decision making (4). FMCSA conducts activities geared toward commercial motor vehicle safety (5). NHTSA also plans to develop an Integrated Highway Safety Program Office with FMCSA, the purpose of which will be to maximize the overall quality of safety data and analysis based on state traffic records at departments of trans- portation (DOTs) (6). These federal programs are primarily aimed at state DOTs; it is the responsibility of the state to coordinate with local agencies. One exception is the Local Technical Assistance and Tribal Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP/TTAP). LTAP/TTAP provides assistance directly to local agencies and tribal lands for a variety of transportation issues, including safety (7). Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of road- ways. With the development of more advanced safety analysis tools, such as the Highway Safety Manual (8), SafetyAnalyst (9), Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (10), and the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (11), many agencies are realizing the value of better roadway data. Theoretically, the more an agency knows about its roadways, the better it can use its resources to effectively and efficiently identify problem locations, diagnose the issues, prescribe appropriate countermeasures, and then evaluate the effectiveness of those countermeasures. With the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) transportation legislation, the role of data was recognized as critical for safety decision making. In particular, the legislation highlights the need for data on local roads. The legislation 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. Crash data refer to data contained in the crash reports sub- mitted following an accident (e.g., date, time, location, crash type, and severity). Roadway data refer to information per- taining to the physical and locational attributes of a roadway; general categories include segments, curves, intersections, and interchanges and ramps. Traffic data refer to informa- tion on the traffic volume and operations of roadways and intersections. MAP-21 further clarifies that this system should include all public roads. In addition, MAP-21 requires the DOT Secre- tary to establish a subset of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety data and ensure that states adopt and use the subset to improve data collection (MAP-21 § 1112) (3). MIRE is a recommended listing of roadway and traffic elements critical to safety management. FHWA developed MIRE as a guide to help transportation agencies improve their roadway and traf- fic data inventories (12). chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 • The diversity in organizational structure and capabilities of local jurisdictions. • The limited training and expertise in roadway safety practices at the local level. • The shortage of funding and sometimes relative low priority for a local roadway safety program. • Management structure that cannot adequately accom- modate the delivery of a local road safety program. • Federal requirements that may increase the cost and time to implement effective safety improvements. • The cost and maintenance of supporting the infrastruc- ture to house the data/data system itself. To capitalize on the advanced safety analysis tools and methodologies to more efficiently and effectively address overall roadway safety issues and meet the MAP-21 data requirements, agencies will need to improve their safety data— particularly roadway, traffic, and crash data—on all public roads. The greatest challenge will be the collection, storage, maintenance, and integration of safety data for locally owned roadways. As states move toward improving the quality of their roadway, traffic, and crash data for safety on all public roads, they will be looking for examples from other agen- cies with such previous experience. This synthesis provides an overview of the state of the practice regarding the inter- operability between state and local safety data and highlights practices of agencies that are moving toward a safety data management system to support a data-driven safety program. Interoperability is defined in this report as the ability of data, systems, or organizations to work together. OBJECTIVES The objective of this synthesis is to summarize current prac- tices among local and state agencies that use reliable and cur- rent data for effective and accurate safety analysis. There is an emphasis on the interoperability of local and state datasets and the current practices for merging data between local and state agencies. There are several other topics regarding state and local safety explored in this study, including: • Local and state agencies that are programming systemic safety improvements using risk-based and other methods to improve safety on rural roads; • Resource and staffing availability related to managing and maintaining databases; • Assistance to local agencies with analysis and counter- measure application; and • Availability and use of safety data for legal and liability concerns. This synthesis also includes suggestions for future research based on existing gaps identified through the literature review, survey, and agency interviews. It provides a reference to trans- portation agencies regarding existing practices in safety data management on all public roads. To meet the requirements of MAP-21, FHWA released the MAP-21: Guidance on State Safety Data Systems (3). This guidance provides information on the set of roadway and traf- fic data elements that states need to collect on all public roads because they are fundamental to supporting a state’s HSIP. This set of elements is referred to as the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements (MIRE FDEs). The MIRE FDEs are divided into a full set of MIRE FDEs for roads with an annual aver- age daily traffic (AADT) greater than or equal to 400 vehicles and a reduced set of MIRE FDEs for roads with an AADT of fewer less than 400 vehicles. The MIRE FDEs include seg- ment, intersection, and ramp data elements and are determined to be the basic set of data elements that an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses to support a state’s HSIP. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the MIRE FDEs (3). FHWA also requires that states have a linear referencing system (LRS) for all public roads. A LRS is a system that identifies a specific location with respect to a known point and allows for procedures to store, manage, and retrieve infor- mation about roadway location data. An LRS allows road- way data inventories to be logically linked with other traffic records systems, with this linkage most likely occurring based on location (13).The FHWA Office of Highway Policy Infor- mation and Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty issued the “Memorandum on Geospatial Network for All Public Roads” on August 7, 2012, which identified a High- way Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) requirement for states to update their LRS to include all public roadways within the state by June 15, 2014 (14). This LRS will enable states to locate high crash locations on all public roads in the state. As states expand their inventories, additional data, such as roadway and traffic data, should be linkable by LRS geolocation (14). The FHWA Office of Safety conducted an economic analysis of the cost of collecting the MIRE FDE on all public roadways and developing a statewide linear referencing system; costs per state range from $908,471 to $40,318,314; with an average of $4,325,400 (15). However, many agencies lack the data or the data manage- ment systems needed to meet these requirements. Collecting, storing, and maintaining data for non-state-maintained roads is a challenge for many states (16). In addition, local agencies face similar problems as the states in collecting these data for their own jurisdictions. A number of issues inhibit the effec- tive implementation of comprehensive and meaningful local road safety practices. Based on the results of a 2012 FHWA Peer Exchange on safety data, challenges to effective road- way safety practices include the following (17): • The extent of the local roadway network. • The financial impacts based on how the responsibilities of maintenance are allocated. • The variety of agencies involved in local roadway safety activities throughout each state. • The lack of complete, accurate crash data and analysis tools.

5 TABLE 1 MIRE FDEs FOR ALL PUBLIC ROADS WITH AADT ≥ 400 VEHICLES PER DAY FDE (MIRE Number)a Definition Roadway Segment Segment Identifier (12) Unique segment identifier Route Number (8) Signed numeric value for the roadway segment Route/Street Name (9) Route or street name, where different from route number Federal-aid/Route Type (21)c Federal-aid/National Highway System (NHS) route type Rural/Urban Designation (20)c Rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary andpopulation Surface Type (23) Surface type of the segment Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) Location of the starting point of the roadway segment End Point Segment Descriptor (11) Location of the ending point of the roadway segment Segment Length (13) Length of the segment Direction of Inventory (18) Direction of inventory if divided roads are inventoried in each direction Functional Class (19)c Functional class of the segment Median Type (54) Type of median present on the segment Access Control (22)d Degree of access control One/Two-Way Operations (91)c Indication of whether the segment operates as a one- or two-way roadway Number of Through Lanes (31)c Total number of through lanes on the segment; excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (79)c Average number of vehicles passing through a segment from both directions of the mainline route for all days of a specified year AADT Year (80) Year of AADT Type of Government Ownership (4)c Type of governmental ownership Intersection Unique Junction Identifier (120) A unique junction identifier Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122) Location of the center of the junction on the first intersecting route (e.g., route-milepost) Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123) Location of the center of the junction on the second intersecting route (e.g., route-milepost). Not applicable if intersecting route is not an inventoried road (i.e., a railroad or bicycle path). Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) Type of geometric configuration that best describes the intersection/junction Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131) Traffic control present at intersection/junction AADT (79) (for each intersecting road) AADT on the approach leg of the intersection/junction AADT Year (80) (for each intersecting road) Year of the AADT on the approach leg of the intersection/junction Unique Approach Identifier (139) A unique identifier for each approach of an intersection Interchange/Ramp Unique Interchange Identifier (178) A unique identifier for each interchange Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197) Location on the roadway at the beginning ramp terminal (e.g., route- milepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a roadway at that point Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201) Location on the roadway at the ending ramp terminal (e.g., route- milepost for that roadway) if the ramp connects with a roadway at that point Ramp Length (187) Length of ramp (continued on next page)

6 FDE (MIRE Number)a Definition Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal (195) A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the direction of ramp traffic flow or the direction of inventory. This element describes the type of roadway intersecting with the ramp at the beginning terminal. Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal (199) A ramp is described by a beginning and ending ramp terminal in the direction of inventory. This element describes the type of roadway intersecting with the ramp at the ending terminal. Interchange Type (182) Type of interchange Ramp AADT (191)c AADT on ramp Year of Ramp AADT (192) Year of AADT on ramp Functional Class (19)c Functional class of the segment Type of Government Ownership (4)c Type of governmental ownership aModel Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0 (12). HPMS element required on all NHS, interstates, freeways and expressways, principal arterials, and minor arterials. cHPMS full extent elements required on all federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade separated interchanges; i.e., NHS and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals. dHPMS element required on all NHS, interstates, freeways and expressways, and principal arterials. TABLE 1 (continued) FDE (MIRE Number)a Definition Roadway Segment Segment Identifier (12) Unique segment identifier Functional Class (19)b Functional class of the segment Surface Type (23) Surface type of the segment Type of Government Ownership (4)b Type of governmental ownership Number of Through Lanes (31)b Total number of through lanes on the segment. This excludes turn lanes and auxiliary lanes Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) (79)b Average number of vehicles passing through a segment from both directions of the mainline route for all days of a specified year Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) Location of the starting point of the roadway segment End Point Segment Descriptor (11) Location of the ending point of the roadway segment Rural/Urban Designation (20)b Rural or urban designation based on Census urban boundary and population Intersection Unique Junction Identifier (120) A unique junction identifier Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122) Location of the center of the junction on the first intersecting route (e.g., route-milepost) Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123) Location of the center of the junction on the second intersecting route (e.g., route-milepost). Not applicable if intersecting route is not an inventoried road (i.e., a railroad or bicycle path) Intersection/Junction Geometry (126) Type of geometric configuration that best describes the intersection/junction Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131) Traffic control present at intersection/junction aModel Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0 (12). bHPMS full extent elements required on all federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade separated interchanges; i.e., NHS and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals. TABLE 2 MIRE FDEs FOR ALL PUBLIC ROADS WITH AADT < 400 VEHICLES PER DAY

7 the four Peer Exchanges. The RSDPCA and Peer Exchanges provided information directly relevant to this synthesis. Survey The survey obtained information on current practices among local and state agencies regarding their collection, manage- ment, and use of safety data (roadway, traffic, and crash). The project team developed two separate questionnaires, one for state agencies (see Appendix A) and one for local agencies (see Appendix B). The state questionnaire was distributed through the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety, Subcommittee on Safety Management. Specific contacts were provided in each state. This allowed the project team to directly follow up with individuals to solicit their participation in this study. Forty-two of 50 states fully completed the survey (plus Washington, D.C.), an 84% response rate. Three states, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin, partially completed the survey; how- ever, for consistency, their responses are not included in this report. Figure 1 is a map of the states that fully completed the survey. The list of state respondents is provided in Appendix C. The local agency questionnaire was distributed through several avenues targeted at reaching local agency representa- tives who may be responsible for safety and/or roadway data. These include: • ITE Public Agency Council • National Association of County Engineers (NACE) • American Public Works Association (APWA) • LTAPs/TTAPs. Owing to the large number of local agencies throughout the country, it was not feasible to follow up with individual contacts. The response from local agencies was not as robust as from the states. Twenty-five local agencies completed the STUDY APPROACH A multifaceted approach was taken for this study that included a literature review, review of a recent safety data assessment from FHWA, survey of state and local transportation agen- cies, and interviews with agencies identified as having exist- ing safety data practices on all public roads. The following provides more detail for each area. Literature Review An extensive literature search was conducted, including a review of pertinent websites, key publications and techni- cal journals, and conference proceedings. Several sources of literature were utilized, including the National Transporta- tion Library Transportation Research Information Database (TRIS), the NHTSA Traffic Records Improvement Program Reporting System, Journal of the American Planning Associa- tion, FHWA websites, university research centers, and Internet search engines, such as Google. Roadway Safety Data Program Capabilities Assessment The FHWA Office of Safety conducted a comprehensive assessment of states’ capabilities of their roadway safety data to support their safety programs. The Roadway Safety Data Program Capabilities Assessment (RSDPCA) conducted in 2011–2012 focused on data collection, data use, data man- agement, and data interoperability and expandability and assessed all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Furthermore, as part of the effort, FHWA hosted a series of four Peer Exchanges from 2012–2013 to allow states to dis- cuss their roadway safety data practices and issues and chal- lenges with their peers. Forty-three states participated in the Peer Exchanges. The FHWA Office of Safety provided a data- base of the assessment responses (redacted to remove identi- fying information) and a summary of the draft proceedings for FIGURE 1 State respondents to project survey.

8 Chapter two—Data Collection: addresses what data are collected at the local level and at the state level for crash, roadway, and traffic data. This chapter also discusses any data sharing agreements between local agencies and state agencies. Chapter three—Data Interoperability: addresses the inter- operability of local and state data, including a discussion of compatibility, linkability, and accessibility for crash, roadway, and traffic data. Chapter four—Safety Decision Making: addresses if and how local agencies make safety decisions and if and how states make safety decisions on local roads. This includes any support states provide to local agencies and highlights local and state coordination efforts. Chapter five—Data Management: addresses issues with managing and maintaining the data such as staffing, funding, technology, coordination within the organiza- tion, and support from leadership for crash, roadway, and traffic data. This also includes a discussion of any support state agencies are providing to local agencies regarding the management of their safety data. Chapter six—Conclusions: provides a brief overview of the background and objectives, a summary of the key findings, discussion of barriers to widespread imple- mentation of the documented practices, and suggestions for further research. Each topic within a chapter follows a similar format—the results of the local agency survey, the results of the state agency survey, and documented practices. The documented practices are drawn from the literature review, RSDPCA and Peer Exchanges, and interviews. survey. However, these did provide a diverse geographic rep- resentation, as shown in Figure 2. Of the 25 agencies, 20 were counties and five were cities. The list of local agency respon- dents is provided in Appendix D. Interviews Interviews were conducted with four state agencies that have projects or programs aimed at local road safety, particularly focused on increasing the interoperability of state and local data. These practices were identified based on findings from the literature review and RSDP Peer Exchange proceedings, and include: • Tennessee: Automated Inventory Project and Tennessee Roadway Information Management System (TRIMS) • Wisconsin: Wisconsin Information Systems for Local Roads (WISLR) • Michigan: RoadSoft • Minnesota: County Roadway Safety Plans The project team developed a standard list of questions for the interviews, which is provided in Appendix E. A full sum- mary of the interviews is provided in Appendix F. ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS The synthesis is organized by primary topics, including data collection, data interoperability, safety decisions making, and data management. The following provides an overview of each chapter. FIGURE 2 Local respondents to project survey.