Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 23-31
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
23 Interoperability is defined in this report as the ability of data, systems, or organizations to work together. In terms of safety data, interoperability takes into account compatibility, the ability to integrate, and the accessibility of local and state data for crash, roadway, and traffic data.
|
From page 24... ...
FIGURE 18 Compliance with MAP-21 requirements for integrated safety data system. 4 9 22 6 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 Meet Are close to meeting Meet somewhat Do notmeet Do not maintain any data for local roads N um be ro fS ta te Re sp on se s Level of Compliance with MAP 21 Requirements 5 3 8 2 1 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very easily Easily Moderately Difficult Not at all Do not receive crash data N um be r o f L oc al A ge nc y Re sp on es Ease of merging FIGURE 19 Ease of merging state crash data with local crash data.
|
From page 25... ...
25 the overall compatibility/interoperability of their state and local safety data (for crash, roadway, and traffic)
|
From page 26... ...
26 During the RSDP Peer Exchanges, some states (including North Carolina and Indiana) indicated that some of the MPOs and cities are more advanced than the state when it came to GIS and integrating spatial data with other data.
|
From page 27... ...
27 some manual labor to adapt into a useable format; and two responded "difficult," as the data require extensive manual labor to adapt into a useable format. Of the local agencies that responded to questions regarding accessibility, six agencies reported that they have webbased access to the state data, seven that the state will provide its electronic database upon request, and nine that have no access to any of the roadway data maintained by the state.
|
From page 28... ...
28 about the integration of various roadway files within a state. Of 51 states, five have roadway datasets in stovepipes or silos; 13 can merge some of the data sources, although some are still stand-alone; 14 can merge most of the data sources with only a few stand-alone; nine have almost all data sources merged; and seven have all roadway data sources merged.
|
From page 29... ...
29 requirements that high-level executives were required to meet. Even after the requirements were rescinded, leadership continued to support the project because they understood its value.
|
From page 30... ...
30 State Agency Survey Results State respondents were also asked how they would rate the overall compatibility/interoperability of their state and local traffic data on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being least interoperable and 10 being the most interoperable. The state average was 5.8 (compared with 8.4 for crash and 5.7 for roadway data)
|
From page 31... ...
31 State Practice Description Contact Information Crash Data Wisconsin Effective Coordination and Sharing Local agencies share and access data through the WISLR. Susie Forde Data Management Section Chief Wisconsin DOT, Bureau of State Highway Programs susie.forde@dot.wi.gov 608-266-7140 http://www.dot.state.wi.us/loc algov/wislr/index.htm Kentucky Effective Coordination and Sharing The best source of data outside of the state government is the area development districts, each of which supports 15 to 20 counties with GIS, engineering, and planning support.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.