U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building / P2P Technical Assistance / Improving Safety Data Collection, Access, and Analysis for California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

Improving Safety Data Collection, Access, and Analysis for California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

Downloadable Version
PDF [294 kB]

Proceedings from the Federal Highway Administration's Peer-to-Peer Exchange Program


About the Peer Exchange

Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)'s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Peer-to-Peer Program (P2P) supports and sponsors peer exchanges and workshops hosted by agencies.

Date
September 28 – 29, 2010

Location
Sacramento, California

Hosts
California Office of Traffic Safety

California Department of Transportation

California Highway Patrol

Key Participants
California Department of Motor Vehicles

California Department of Public Health

California Emergency Medical Services Authority

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Region 9

Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Washington State Traffic Commission

FHWA California Division Office

FHWA Office of Safety

U.S. DOT Volpe Center

FHWA's Office of Safety sponsors HSIP P2P events.
Learn more

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Data Driven Decisions logo

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Preparing for California's Peer Exchange Event

4. Proceedings of the California Peer Exchange

5. Key Findings and Lessons Learned

6. Feedback and Suggestions

Appendix A: Presenters and Planners

Appendix B: Agenda


1. Introduction

This report provides a summary of a peer exchange sponsored by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The report also includes recommendations to improve traffic safety data systems, which are used in addressing issues related to various Challenge Areas in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

California's goals for the peer exchange were (1) to review the State's current data systems and (2) to evaluate opportunities to better address data needs for California's SHSP.

The peer exchange convened safety stakeholders from California's Traffic Records Coordinating Committee/SHSP Challenge Area 16 (TRCC/CA 16) team to explore improvements to California's traffic safety data systems. Twenty-one members of the TRCC/CA 16 team attended, including representatives from Caltrans, OTS, CHP, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) (see Appendix A for the complete list of event participants and presenters). The event provided an opportunity for stakeholders to learn from selected peers with model traffic records systems, including the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), the Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (MI DTMB), and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC). Criteria for selecting peers included demonstration of successful collaboration with safety partners, including State DOTs, law enforcement, local governments, emergency medical services (EMS), and public health providers.

The peer exchange discussions and presentations focused on the following topics (see Appendix B for the full agenda):

Recommendations developed from the peer exchange identified actions to be included in California's SHSP. Cooperation of the TRCC/CA 16 team is essential to the success of any proposed strategy. The team will be expected to continuously manage the identified actions, modifying them as needed.

Return to Top


2. Background

The HSIP is a data-driven, Federal-aid program that aims to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by implementing infrastructure-related highway-safety improvements. The SHSP is a major requirement of the HSIP, and consists of a statewide-coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for the HSIP. To obtain accurate data to track safety issues and identify a State's primary safety needs for the SHSP, it needs to successfully integrate several traffic records databases. The peer exchange focused on five key systems used to collect and manage data: crash, roadway, enforcement/adjudication, driver license/vehicle registration, and EMS injuries.

Data system integration is a key component of an effective HSIP program. California's SHSP identified CA 16 to improve safety data, collection, access, and analysis and noted the following goals:

California's TRCC established the TRCC/CA 16 team to accomplish the goals in support of California's SHSP. Tasks include monitoring safety trends, identifying data needs for SHSP Challenge Area strategies and action plans, and modifying activities in response to changing conditions.

Return to Top


Icon: circle with the letter i inside

Planning a Peer
Exchange


Identify
Champions

Engage Safety
Stakeholders

Select and Invite
Peers

Recruit
Participants

Collect and
Distribute
Background
Information

Host the Event

3. Preparing for California's Peer Exchange Event

A peer event's success is due in part to comprehensive planning efforts. Key staff from the TRCC/CA 16 team, along with the FHWA Office of Safety and the FHWA California Division Office, spent approximately three months preparing for the peer exchange. Organizers followed the steps outlined below:

Return to Top


4. Proceedings of the California Peer Exchange

Welcoming Remarks

Photograph of five attendees seated at the peer workshop, including Dave DeYoung

Dave DeYoung of CA DMV discusses his agency's plans for upgrading data systems.

Dave Doucette, Assistant Director for the California Office of Traffic Safety, welcomed participants and thanked FHWA for arranging the event. Mr. Doucette noted that he understands that traffic records are an important issue for California and expressed his eagerness to learn about other States' data system projects.

Dave DeYoung, Chief for the CA DMV Licensing Operations Division – Research and Development, indicated that the event was an important step in creating a functional traffic safety database for California. Mr. DeYoung discussed the importance of considering how to integrate it with others systems containing crash, EMS, and roadway data as the CA DMV completes a $76 million effort to modernize its current safety data system.

Jesse Bhullar, SHSP Manager for Caltrans, expressed the importance of data as part of California's SHSP. Mr. Bhullar explained that resources are an important issue in California and data are a vital component in justifying how agencies spend their funds. Caltrans needs to ensure that data being used, particularly crash and roadway inventory, are current so that the agency can investigate priority locations for safety projects.

Traffic Records Overview Discussions

To provide a context for the peer exchange, Bob Pollack from the FHWA Office of Safety and Reginald Chappelle from the CHP discussed the national and State perspectives, respectively, on the importance of data systems for the HSIP program.

Bob Pollack, FHWA Office of Safety – National Perspective on Crash Data and SHSP

Mr. Pollack reiterated that HSIP is FHWA's key traffic safety program with a focus on achieving significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. Under HSIP, State DOTs are required to develop and implement an SHSP in collaboration with other agencies. The SHSP should include strategies and/or projects that can utilize HSIP funds. To prioritize projects and evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures implemented using HSIP funds, States rely on data provided from a number of sources.

In his presentation, Mr. Pollack addressed the following topics:

CHP Chief Reginald Chappelle – California's Current Data System and SHSP: Goals, Issues, and Questions

Photograph of Chief Chappelle speaking from behind a podium, next to a presentation screen

CHP Chief Reginald Chappelle discusses California's existing data systems.

Chief Chappelle's presentation focused on the current state of collision reporting in California and how it affects the State's highway safety programs. A key challenge in crash reporting in California is that all reports are submitted in analog form. Approximately 40 technicians are responsible for data entry and processing for the statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Due to the volume of data received, the need to communicate with local agencies to obtain reports, and the extensive data validation performed, CHP currently has about a seven-month backlog for entering collision data into SWITRS.

Chief Chappelle indicated that California is currently moving toward automated reporting by:

Lack of automated reporting in California also affects performance for the traffic records system. Chief Chappelle focused on the following crash data system issues:

Another significant issue with SWITRS is that it does not incorporate a global identifier in crash reports that can be used by other agencies. As a result, there is no method for connecting crash reports with EMS, healthcare, judicial, vehicle, or driver data. Chief Chappelle indicated that several current projects funded through NHTSA 408 grants are underway with the goal of providing a global identifier. Currently, CHP sends data from SWITRS to Caltrans and the DMV, but it is not a totally automated process. Chief Chappelle's presentation highlighted existing gaps in California's traffic records system that make tracking safety issues a challenge.

Peer Presentations

Peer presentation topics covered a wide range of issues, including management and integration of traffic safety databases, outreach to safety partners, and success in addressing the “six-pack” performance measures. The three participating peer agencies tailored their discussions to respond to the questions received from TRCC/CA 16. The following section provides an overview of their presentations.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT)
Brian Mayhew, Traffic Safety Systems Engineer at NC DOT, detailed North Carolina's TRCC and its approach to integrating traffic data systems to ensure complete and accurate records of the crash history and trends on North Carolina roadways. Mr. Mayhew mentioned several lessons learned that contributed to NC DOT's success, including the following:

Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
Chris Madill, Traffic Records Coordinator at WTSC, provided a history and overview of Washington's traffic records system. Mr. Madill focused on a number of initiatives that WTSC is undertaking to improve timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of key data systems. He identified the following lessons learned:

Michigan Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (MI DTMB)
Jack Benac, Crash Project Manager at MI DTMB, provided information on Michigan's traffic records systems and the State's emphasis on data-driven decision making and a team approach to achieve success. The following were noted as key lessons learned to Michigan's successful program:

Data Systems Discussions

Following the peer presentations, Ben Gribbon, FHWA Office of Safety, facilitated discussions with all participants on four of the data systems, concentrating on how California can make improvements to better address SHSP data needs.

Participants documented their work under the six performance areas, including timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, ability to integrate data, and accessibility. The first part of each discussion focused on issues and opportunities presented by the current data system. Next, the group identified strategies to improve the performance of the data system for California.

Crash Database Discussion

Improving the crash database is the most difficult challenge California faces in addressing its SHSP data needs. The group acknowledged that electronic reporting has the greatest potential to make a difference in a number of critical areas. However, California faces several hurdles in implementing electronic reporting. In the past, CHP used laptops to fill out crash reports. The computers were stored in patrol cars' trunks until needed. Officers found it more convenient to fill out a paper report for later processing than retrieving the computer to submit a report. Given these challenges, the group agreed that it was important to investigate new solutions. The group agreed that electronic reporting has the potential to address many of California's “six pack” data quality issues. The peers suggested starting with a target time for entering crash reports into the crash database. Reaching this goal will encourage future target-setting and potentially lead to other successes.

To promote the benefits of electronic reporting to law enforcement agencies, an agency must demonstrate the added value of the system. For example, the electronic system can add value by providing a repository of crash data and reports that are available to the reporting agencies and streamlining the process for creating reports. It can also lead to cost savings in eliminating the need to devote administrative time to copying and shipping reports.

The group agreed that it would be effective to pilot electronic reporting in an area that has a high crash rate but has limited SWITR submissions. In exchange for participation, the State could impose evaluation criteria for the pilot project.

Another discussion focused on staffing the TRCC. The group agreed that an effective strategy would be to develop a staff position devoted to coordinating the TRCC's efforts.

The group identified seven strategies to pursue:

  1. Initiate electronic reporting
    1. Understand the benefits, such as reducing costs and creating a central repository
    2. Identify a target number of days for processing crash reports; make criteria clear for reporting
  2. Outline evaluation requirements for electronic reporting
  3. Develop a marketing plan and include success stories
  4. Address legislation modifications as needed
  5. Hire a TRCC coordinator
  6. Include an IT representative on the TRCC
  7. Host a FHWA Crash Data Improvement Program review

Roadway Data Discussion

CHP was excited to hear from peers about applications to auto-fill latitude/longitude coordinates based on roadway location. Auto-filling location could eliminate the need to provide crash reports to Caltrans for geo-coding and validation; and reduce the amount of hardware needed for officers and administrative staff.

The group agreed that the biggest consideration for improving roadway data was developing a common roadway base map system. The group identified the following issues:

Peers emphasized the importance of maintaining one common base map, which can support multiple ‘XY’ coordinates or linear referencing systems. The group raised the possibility of using a comprehensive, statewide map (currently under development by CHP) as the roadway database map. As a next step to pursue a common base map, the group will assess the suitability of CHP's map for use as a common base map. CHP will verify whether its map is based on vendor data and whether Caltrans could use it to meet its Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) requirement. If suitable, CHP can present its map as a potential statewide base map during the next TRCC meeting.

The group identified the following three strategies to pursue:

  1. Create a GIS subcommittee of TRCC. Discussion items would include identifying the host for the base map and determining logistics for coordination.
  2. Include the creation of a base map in TRCC's strategic plan.
  3. Conduct outreach to local governments to help them understand the importance of keeping roadway data current.

Driver/Vehicle Data Discussion

California's current databases for drivers, vehicles, and crashes are not linked. California is currently working on modernizing their driver and vehicle databases, and converting them into relational databases written in industry standard programming language. This effort is expected to be completed by 2014.

In the existing system, CHP sends driver and vehicle crash information to the DMV; this information is not housed in SWITRS. Since traffic data systems in California are not linked, at this point it is difficult to collect or extract information on the same driver or an event (for example, crash or citation) from various traffic data systems. One example of such effort is DMV's DUI Management Information System, which combines and cross-references DUI data from diverse sources (crash data from CHP, arrest data from DOJ, and DMV driver data) to track the processing of DUI offenders in the State. Since some data sources do not contain particular information which can be used as an identifier (e.g., driver license number), other data elements are sometimes used for the same purpose (e.g., name or birth date). Still, this effort is not always successful due to various reasons such as inaccuracies or incompleteness when writing arrest, crash, or citation reports, as well as the following:

Electronic reporting of citations and arrests could substantially improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of traffic data systems and help efforts such as DUI Management Information Systems.

The CHP will start an e-citation pilot project in the City of Ventura, California in September 2011. CHP will provide an application that allows users to input and store citation data as well as handheld devices for distribution in several field offices. To avoid the challenge of maintaining two separate datasets (those areas with the handheld devices versus those without), CHP intends to cease use of the existing desktop legacy citation system and will have clerks enter handwritten citations into the new e-citation system instead.

The group agreed that many of the difficulties that the DMV systems face can be traced to other databases. Many States assign a unique identification number to each crash. The identification number is then transferred to driver and vehicle information databases. Crash report accuracy and timeliness are also important considerations for driver/vehicle information because if law enforcement agencies delay submitting crash reports, they will not be able to find current information in the DMV database. This delay can affect traffic safety. It might be important to develop a campaign to educate local law enforcement agencies on the importance of submitting collision reports in a timely manner. Stories and anecdotes about the importance of submitting collision reports can also be a powerful tool.

The group discussed the possibility of having citation and/or arrest information (other than DUI) in the DMV database. The group identified the following issues:

One potential next step for the TRCC is to discuss using a common identifier through citations, collision reports, driver records, and vehicle records. The group discussed the case identification number that is assigned in SWITRS. Caltrans currently tracks this number. If the case number does not work, the group will pursue creating a number to be used by all agencies.

Injury/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Data Discussion

In California, local EMS agencies are decentralized but EMS records are currently in the process of becoming centralized. Two data projects are currently underway, including:

Once these projects are completed, California will have “crash to grave” information. The group agrees that data completeness is one issue with EMS data and might limit the ability to link EMS records probabilistically with SWITRS records.

A potential strategy that California might pursue involves creating a test case for linking EMS, trauma, and crash data. This test would first link EMS data to the chosen trauma center and then attempt to link those records with SWITRS data.

Return to Top


5. Key Findings and Lessons Learned

The peer exchange accomplished California's goal to engage the TRCC/CA 16 team and identify potential Actions for its SHSP. Participants learned how peer States' TRCCs overcame challenges and increased data system efficiency by collaborating and communicating the value of integrating data systems to meet the State's data needs.

The following lessons learned from California's peer exchange might be helpful to other States as they work to improve their safety data systems:

Return to Top


6. Feedback and Suggestions

Overall, California's experience with developing and hosting a peer exchange was positive. Feedback from participants obtained after the event underscored the value of exchanging ideas and learning how other States have been successful with traffic records systems. Chief Chappelle noted that one of the most valuable lessons he learned from the event was the “unique constraints and/or opportunities that exist in each State (government structure, legislation, and executive support).”

The following suggestions could improve future peer events:

Return to Top


Appendix A: Presenters and Planners

Peer Presenters
Jack Benac
Michigan Department of Technology,
Management and Budget
Office Phone: (517) 335-2975
Email: BenacJ@michigan.gov
Chris Madill
Traffic Records Program Manager
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Office Phone: (360) 725-9884
Email: cmadill@wtsc.wa.gov
Brian Mayhew, PE
Traffic Safety Systems Engineer
NCDOT – Traffic Safety Unit
Office Phone: (919) 773-2886
Email: bmayhew@ncdot.gov
 
FHWA/Volpe
R. Benjamin Gribbon
FHWA Office of Safety
Office Phone: (202) 366-1809
Email: Benjamin.Gribbon@dot.gov
Robert Pollack
FHWA Office of Safety
Office Phone: (202) 366-5019
Email: Robert.Pollack@dot.gov
Randy Warden
FHWA California Division Office
Office Phone: (916) 498-8042
Email: randy.warden@dot.gov
Ken Kochevar
FHWA California Division Office
Office Phone: (916) 498-5853
Email: ken.kochevar@dot.gov
David Perlman
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Office Phone: (617) 494-3178
Email: David.Perlman@dot.gov
Susan Smichenko
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Office Phone: (617) 494-3438
Email: Susan.Smichenko@dot.gov
California Event Planners
Jesse Bhullar
California Department of Transportation
Office Phone: (916) 654-5026
Email: Jesse.Bhullar@dot.ca.gov
Chief Reginald Chappelle
California Highway Patrol
Office Phone: (916) 843-4000
Email: RChappelle@chp.ca.gov
Bill Ehart
California Office of Traffic Safety
Office Phone: (916) 509-3028
Email: behart@ots.ca.gov
 
Attendees
Dave DeYoung
California Department of Motor Vehicles
Office Phone: (916) 657-7954
Email: ddeyoung@dmv.ca.gov
Dave Doucette
California Office of Traffic Safety
Office Phone: (916) 509-3030
Email: ddoucette@ots.ca.gov
Edward W. Gebing
California Office of Traffic Safety
Office Phone: (916) 340-5731
Email: egebing@ots.ca.gov
Brian Huynh
NHTSA Region 9
Office Phone: (415) 744-3089
Email: Brian.Huynh@dot.gov
Ron Johnson
California Office of Traffic Safety
Office Phone: (916) 509-3016
Email: rjohnson@ots.ca.gov
Mary K. Lackey
California Department of Public Health
Office Phone: (916) 552-9825
Email: mary.lackey@cdph.ca.gov
Phillip Leach
California Emergency Medical Services Authority
Office Phone: (916) 322-4336 x424
Email: phillip.leach@emsca.ca.gov
Annette Lockhart
California Department of Transportation
Office Phone: (916) 654-2621
Email: Annette.lockhart@dot.ca.gov
Sladjana Oulad Daoud
California Department of Motor Vehicles
Office Phone: (916) 657-0951
Email: souladdaoud@dmv.ca.gov
Randy Ronning
California Department of Transportation
Office Phone: (916) 653-4727
Email: randy.ronning@dot.ca.gov
Wes Rutland-Brown
FHWA California Division Office
Office Phone: (916) 498-5018
Email: Wesley.rutland-brown@dot.gov
Mark Samuelson
California Department of Transportation
Office Phone: (916) 654-3334
Email: Mark.Samuelson@dot.ca.gov
Bonnie Sinz
California Emergency Medical Services Authority
Office Phone: (916) 322-4336
Email: bonnie.sinz@emsa.ca.gov
Roberta Tanger
California Highway Patrol
Office Phone: (916) 843-4229
Email: rtanger@chp.ca.gov
Roger Trent
California Department of Public Health
Office Phone: (916) 552-9858
Email: roger.trent@cdph.ca.gov
Lynn Walton-Haynes
California Department of Public Health
Office Phone: (916) 552-9835
Email: lynn.walton-haynes@cdph.ca.gov

Return to Top


Appendix B: Agenda

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Peer Exchange and States Data System
Final Agenda

Office of Traffic Safety – 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300, Elk Grove, California
September 27 – 29, 2010

Monday, September 27 – Travel Day
2:00 pm Pre-Meeting Logistics Briefing (event planning team and peers only)
Tuesday, September 28 – Peer Exchange
8:00 am Welcome
  • Moderator – Ben Gribbon, FHWA Office of Safety
  • Office of Traffic Safety – Dave Doucette
  • NHTSA/FHWA – Brian Huynh, NHTSA Region 9/Randy Warden, FHWA CA Division Office
  • CHP – Reginald Chappelle
  • Caltrans – Jesse Bhullar
  • DMV – Dave DeYoung
8:25 am National Perspective on Crash Data and SHSP (Bob Pollack, FHWA Office of Safety)
8:40 am Presentation from California on Current Data System and SHSP:
Goals, Issues and Questions with Q&A (CHP Chief Reginald Chappelle)
9:30 am Break
9:40 am Presentation from North Carolina with Q&A (Brian Mayhew)
10:30 am Break
10:40 am Presentation from Washington with Q&A (Chris Madill)
11:30 am Lunch
12:30 pm Presentation from Michigan with Q&A (Jack Benac)
1:20 pm Introduction to SHSP Discussions (Randy Warden)

SHSP discussions will focus on highlights from peer presentations and follow-up questions. For each “Discussion” (see below), all peers and participants will compare and contrast State approaches, identify the most noteworthy practices and further discuss “how it's done.” One USDOT person and one local volunteer will take notes on noteworthy practices.

1:30 pm Crash Data
  • Discussion
2:30 pm Mini Break
2:40 pm Crash Data (continued)
  • Strategy Development
3:40 pm Mini Break
3:50 pm Roadway
  • Discussion
  • Strategy Development
4:50 pm Conclusions and Logistics
5:00 pm Adjourn
5:30 pm Dinner) (optional
Wednesday, September 29 – SHSP Workshop
7:30 am Welcome and Logistics
7:40 am Enforcement and Adjudication
  • Discussion
  • Strategy Development
8:40 am Drivers and Vehicles
  • Discussion
  • Strategy Development
9:40 am Mini Break
9:50 am Injury
  • Discussion
  • Strategy Development
10:50 am Wrap-up
11:00 am Adjourn/Planners Debriefing
12:00 pm Planners lunch and/or flight
1:00 pm TRCC/CA #16 subcommittee meeting to discuss results from the SHSP discussions; put together a skeleton plan with specific actions; and outline a strategic plan for next steps.
Page last modified on September 4, 2014
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000