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.

41 Collecting data is just the first step in a comprehensive safety data system. Once the data are collected, it is important to continually manage the data to ensure they remain timely and accurate. Data management includes a discussion of staffing, funding, technology, coordination within the orga- nization, and support from leadership for crash, roadway, and traffic data, both separately and as a system. CRASH DATA Local Agency Survey Results Eighteen of 25 local agencies responded that they maintain crash records. Of these 18, 14 reported that they have staff ded- icated to managing crash data and four that they do not have staff to manage the crash data. Only one of those 14 responded that they have full-time staff whose primary responsibility is managing crash data. The remaining 13 noted that they have staff that manages crash data, but it is only part of their respon- sibilities, as shown in Figure 32. Twelve of the 18 local agencies that reported that they maintain crash records receive no support on the collection or management of their crash data. For the remaining six agencies, five responded that they are provided with software and/or other tools, four that they are provided with training, three that they receive funding, two that they are provided with format requirements, one that it is provided with a data dictionary, and three that they receive “Other” support but did not provide additional comments. Support is provided by state DOTs (4), universities (2), a Department of Public Safety (1), and LTAP (1). ROADWAY DATA Twenty-four of 25 local agencies responded that they main- tain roadway data. Of these 24, two responded that they have staff dedicated to managing roadway data as their sole responsibility, 19 that it is only a part of their responsibili- ties, two that they do not have dedicated staff but need to or would like to, and one that it does have not dedicated staff but does not need to, as summarized in Figure 33. There does not appear to be a direct connection between the size or loca- tion of the agency and whether they have dedicated staff to maintain roadway data. TRAFFIC DATA Twenty-one of 25 local agencies responded that they maintain traffic data. Of these 21 local agencies, none have staff dedi- cated to managing traffic data as their sole responsibility, 14 responded that it is only a part of their responsibilities, one that it contracts these services, three that they do not have dedi- cated staff but need to or would like to, and one that it does have not dedicated staff but does not need to, as summarized in Figure 34. SYSTEM MANAGEMENT State Agency Survey Results Fifteen states responded that they have adequate resources (e.g., staffing, technology, funding) to manage and maintain their safety data. Many states provided additional comments. These comments primarily reflected that states have adequate resources to manage the state data, but collecting additional data—particularly roadway data on local roads—would be a challenge and require additional resources. A sample of these comments follows: • “We have the resources to maintain and manage, but unfortunately not collect certain data on local roads (i.e., inventories, geometric data on local roads).” • “Able to meet the minimum requirements at this time. Additional data requirements may require additional resources.” • “Resources are adequate for crash data collection and analysis. If required to collect roadway data on non-state maintained streets resources would need to be identified.” Twenty-five states responded that they do not have adequate resources (e.g., staffing, technology, funding) to manage and maintain their safety data. Many states provided additional comments that primarily reflected that having adequate technol- ogy, collecting local road data, and decreasing resources are the most significant challenges. A sample of the comments follows: • “Need staff and funding, especially for local road efforts.” • “IT resources as well as program area experts have been decimated.” • “Data are difficult to integrate with older technology, data quality may not be as high as we would like, fund- ing competes with other department needs, finding and retaining staff who appreciate data can be difficult.” chapter five DATA MANAGEMENT

42 Local Agency Crash Data Maintenance Maintain crash data 18 Have dedicated staff for data management 14 Full time data management staff 1 Part time data management staff 13 Do not have dedicated staff for data management 4 Do not maintain crash data 7 FIGURE 32 Local agency crash data management resources. FIGURE 33 Local agency roadway data staffing resources. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Have staff dedicated to managing roadway data Do not have staff dedicated to managing roadway data N um be ro fL oc al Ag en cy Re sp on se s Roadway Data Staffing Part time • “Obtaining and maintaining safety data continues to be a challenge. There are many agencies involved. Crash reports often require revision, and our resources in this area are decreasing.” Documented Practices Further, the RSDPCA provided key findings on roadway safety data management (16): • In most states, there is not a common platform to dis- cuss data management or management issues. These terms are not well-defined or understood by the states. • There is not a firm understanding or relationship between the IT and safety arenas. Each discipline does not nec- essarily understand the other’s language or needs, but training may help to bridge this gap. • There are strong relationships between people, policies, and technologies. Often the institutional barriers are more important to remove than technological barriers. Relationships affect data linkage at the state level as much as resource issues. Some Traffic Records Coordinating Committees (TRCCs) and safety data improvement plans exist in name only. Some states expressed a sense of frustration related to data management. There is a potential bridge to be built between IT professionals and data stewards. • It is difficult to identify one way to approach data management. Most states do not have a statewide data governing body and several states said they prefer it that way. They believe that handling data coordination at the state agency level through the TRCC is the most efficient way. They expressed concern that a statewide body would not appreciate or respond to specific needs (i.e., heavy-handed treatment that values policies over the opinions of the agencies that gather and maintain the data). • Several states described a bottleneck in the delivery of IT resources within the DOT. Roadway safety data improvements were superseded by other DOT priorities. In some states data management is conducted through a data governance board or council. A data governance board serves as the primary governing body for the management of data systems. This governing body is usually comprised of senior level managers who have the authority to estab- lish policies for the management of data and information on behalf of the agency or state. Governance is not always at the DOT level; in some cases, it might be at a higher Investment

43 FIGURE 34 Local agency traffic data staffing resources. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Have staff dedicated to managing traffic data Do not have staff dedicated to managing traffic data N um be ro fL oc al Ag en cy Re sp on se s Traffic Data Staffing Part time Review Board level or chief information officer level (16). Twenty-one states reported having a data governance board in the RSDPCA. Of these 21, nine reported that the data governance board is within the DOT, while the remaining states noted that the data governance board is across all state agencies. However, there is no consensus on whether a data governance board either helps or hinders data management. Based on the responses from the survey and the RSDPCA, it appears data management can be a challenge for states; however, there are some states that are able to manage safety data. The involvement and support from leadership/executives often plays a large role in the development of data manage- ment practices. According to a representative from ITD, the deputy director in that state is a safety champion. Similar to Idaho, in Louisiana the current agency secretary is supportive of safety initiatives. This secretary chairs the Subcommittee on Safety Management for AASHTO and has an understanding of the methodology behind the HSM. They have been support- ive of moving forward with HSM implementation and acquir- ing funding for data. The initial focus was on executives; as a result, they are seeing some change toward an increased emphasis on safety (19). This holds true for local agencies as well. The city of Char- lotte, North Carolina, has a GIS Enterprise Team that coordi- nates GIS efforts among the various departments within the city. Any city department that has GIS staff has a member on the GIS Enterprise Team. The city also maintains a spatial data warehouse. Each department maintains its own data layers and then posts them to the spatial data warehouse where everyone has access to each other’s data (but no maintenance rights). This type of GIS data management is not standard throughout local agencies within the state. Charlotte credits its success on a small group of data champions who push to showcase the benefits and capabilities of GIS and, as a result, are able to acquire support from management and the local community to maintain such a robust program (29). In addition, several states have developed data sharing agreements to help agencies manage safety data. The state of New York has implemented the New York State Geographic Information System (GIS) Cooperative Data Sharing Agree- ment, which promotes data sharing and helps reduce the cost of GIS data maintenance. The cooperative agreement in New York has two key features: (1) it establishes data creators (pri- mary custodians) who own and manage the data, but agree to share the data with other agencies; and (2) establishes data users (secondary custodians) who provide updates and revi- sions back to the data creators, which enhances the quality of the data (36). Similar agreements exist in other states, such as Oregon and South Carolina, as well as at the MPO and county level (Palm Beach County) (29). Cooperation with local agencies also largely involves iden- tifying and distributing funding. In 2010, FHWA visited seven states in a local road safety domestic scan to identify and docu- ment their practices in the planning, programming, and imple- mentation of efforts to improve local road safety. Most scan states credited financial incentive strategies with increasing local agency participation in the states’ safety programs. The funding distribution policies balance the needs and priorities of various stakeholders and help local agencies substantially with projects that address the highest priority issues. All seven scan states allocated all their HRRRP funds to local rural road safety projects. Washington State DOT dedicates 70% of its HSIP funds to the local road network in the state. Minnesota DOT uses a data-driven process based on crash frequencies proportional allocation to distribute their HSIP funds regard- less of road ownership. They also streamline the process that local agencies use to obtain safety funds. MnDOT requires only one application for all sources of safety funds (2).

44 with local agencies; state liaisons or MPOs provide specific safety-related technical assistance. The local-aid divisions help to establish a formal mechanism for local agencies to obtain state and federal funding (2). A summary of the documented safety data decision-making practices, including contact information and websites when available, is provided in Table 14. In addition, all seven states that participated in the scan have a local-aid division. Although structure and operation vary among the states, there are some commonalities. The local-aid divisions typically consist of a central office with support from district or regional offices. The central office is generally responsible for developing program applications and guidelines including project selection. The regional or district offices are involved in the day-to-day coordination State Practice Description Contact Information North Carolina Data Champions The city of Charlotte has a GIS Enterprise Team that coordinates GIS efforts among the various departments within the city. Any city department that has GIS staff has a member on the GIS Enterprise Team. Steven Castongia Senior GIS Analyst Charlotte DOT scastongia@charlottenc.gov 704-336-3816 New York Data Sharing Agreements The state of New York has implemented the New York State GIS Cooperative Data Sharing Agreement, which promotes data sharing and helps reduce GIS data maintenance of the costs. Frank Winters Director, GIS Program Office NYS Office of Information Technology Services francis.winters@its.ny.gov 518.242.5036 http://gis.ny.gov/co-op/ Minnesota Funding Distribution Minnesota DOT uses a data-driven process based on crash rate proportional allocation to distribute their HSIP funds regardless of road ownership. Julie Whitcher Assistant Traffic Safety Engineer Minnesota DOT julie.whitcher@state.mn.us 651-234-7019 Washington Funding Distribution Washington State DOT dedicates 70% of its HSIP funds to the local road network in the state. Kathleen Davis Director, Highways & Local Programs Washington DOT 360-705-7871 DavisK@wsdot.wa.gov TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED DATA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES