U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
This section summarizes the following actions to improve data collection and discusses each action using the framework established in the introduction.
| Data Collection | Action | Priority | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Develop a reference that States can use to guide their efforts in developing an intersection, curve, grade or other inventory information. | HIGH | |
| B | Provide additional technical assistance to States to develop their State Roadway Safety Data Action Plans. | CRITICAL | |
| C | Provide materials and support to demonstrate the value of roadway safety data improvements to State DOT management and elected officials. | HIGH | |
| D | Provide the States examples to fund, process, and extract roadway inventory items using cost-effective, accurate, and innovative data collection practices. | HIGH | |
| E | Develop a reference that States can use on how to properly apply the requirements for fundamental data elements and performance measurements. | MEDIUM | |
| F | Develop a reference that States can use to process locally maintained roadway safety data. | CRITICAL | |
| G | Create a reference with a priority list of data elements to improve data accuracy through external verification and validation. | MEDIUM | |
| H | Identify specific examples where the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) process promoted the funding and implementation of local and regional jurisdiction level roadway data improvement plans. | LOW | |
| I | Provide technical assistance to States to show how to implement MIRE fundamental data elements (FDEs) including intersection inventory attributes list, volume data, and geometrics for local roads. | MEDIUM | |
| J | Establish National Data Quality Measures for Data Collection and conduct periodic reviews to compare to a baseline. | CRITICAL | |
| K | Establish national standards, data quality control practices, and guidelines on what constitutes a sustainable traffic count program in terms of coverage, frequency of updates, and quality of the data collected. | MEDIUM | |
From the capabilities assessment and the peer exchanges, States identified intersection inventories as the most important roadway data that they are currently seeking to support improved safety analysis. States also identified curve and grade inventories as important. For most States, these specialized inventories do not exist or are only partially populated. For instance, one State noted during a peer exchange that they know where their intersections are located and have limited data but they are lacking some of the data they need to use the data for safety analysis. In the last few years, a handful of States have undergone efforts to develop these inventories. Many other States are planning to move forward with similar efforts. Federal guidance on how to collect these data and specifically what elements to collect would be timely. Best or noteworthy practices from peer States that have collected these data would be a useful reference for the States. Any guidance should include data elements important for analysis and the best collection methods.
HIGH – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments and supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 11 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area. Additionally, the data improvements that would result from this action would support the Intersection Safety and Roadway Departure Safety focus areas that are part of FHWA's Focused Approach to Safety.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☒ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☒ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends developing a guidebook that provides specific guidance to States on how to develop intersection inventories. The guidebook could draw from the successful practices of several States including the MIRE Management Information System (MIRE MIS) effort that developed New Hampshire's intersection inventory and Ohio's internal efforts to develop their intersection inventories. The guidebook could also address other inventories such as curve and ramp inventories. However, there are limited successful practices to draw from, particularly for curve inventories. Several States have attempted to develop curve inventories with varying success. A demonstration project or direct technical assistance may be needed to help one or more States develop a curve inventory before this can be addressed in a guidebook.
The key method for States to coordinate and advance their roadway data improvements is to create an implementation plan. As part of the capabilities assessment, the project team provided each State with an action plan template to advance their data capabilities in four areas: collection, analysis, management, and expansion.
The Focused Approach to Safety provides additional resources to eligible high priority States to address the Nation's most critical safety challenges through additional program benefits such as people, time, tools and training. Each eligible state participating in the Focused Approach can receive assistance to address fatality reductions in any one or all of three critical focus areas. These areas have been identified as providing the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities using infrastructure-oriented improvements, namely: roadway departure, intersection-related crashes, and pedestrian crashes. This same approach could be used for data improvements.
A tailored approach for FHWA technical assistance is required to meet each State where they are and where they are headed. Implementation plans are extremely important in focus States where intersection safety, roadway departure, or pedestrian safety are a critical safety need. Data improvements aimed at filling specific gaps noted by focus States would help those States' decision makers address their most pressing needs.
CRITICAL – The States added this action during the first two peer exchanges and ranked it highly. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward. The States identified this action in the Ohio Peer Exchange as being a top three priority by 1 out of 10 States.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☒ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☒ | Other: Implementation Plan | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that direct technical assistance be provided to States to refine their safety action plan templates into data improvement plans. The project team recommends that States be prioritized for this support based upon their data capability (pre the assessments), the number of Focus areas, and their expressed desire to increase their data capability. These data improvements would support the Focused Approach to Safety and lay the foundation for decision makers to address the most pressing safety needs.
The need and importance of demonstrating the value of roadway safety data improvements was a common theme in each of the four peer exchanges. Safety data professionals need an umbrella of leadership in order to secure resources, increase staff expertise, and produce useful data to improve decision-making. There is a need for State DOT management to understand the importance of collecting MIRE FDEs on all public roadways to support improved safety decision-making. Guidance is needed on why the collection of data describing locally maintained roadways is important. States need specific guidance on what elements are critical to collect, the return on investment in data collection, and effective ways to communicate these issues to management.
HIGH – The States added this action at the first two peer exchanges and ranked it highly. The States supported the action at the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 7 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☐ | Community of practice |
| ☒ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☒ | Panel discussion | ☐ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☐ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a suite of resources be developed and distributed for use by State DOTs and FHWA Resource Center and Division Office staff in communicating with upper State DOT management, politicians, and partners such as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local agencies. These resources can include talking points, management briefings, and executive presentation for use to secure resources, increase staff expertise, and collect useful data to improve decision-making. It is also recommend that FHWA State Division Offices attend periodic webinars to elevate and encourage the dialogue between the Division Offices and State DOT management. These resources would support the Focused Approach to Safety and MAP-21 requirements for safety data systems.
In the broader context of data collection, State DOTs are looking for cost-effective innovations to collect data for use in safety analysis. During the peer exchanges, States expressed that they lack an understanding of the funding and mechanisms for data collection. Specifically, this action addresses: How can a State fund data collection equipment and personnel? What data collection practices are the best for processing and extracting roadway inventory data?
HIGH – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 8 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☐ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☒ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☒ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that new case studies be undertaken to document lessons learned on how to fund data collection equipment and personnel and to identify collection practices for processing and extracting roadway inventory data. There should also be an emphasis on how to collect data on locally maintained roadways. These case studies would support the notion that innovation can decrease costs and increase accuracy and interoperability concurrently. There are several States that have practices that would be useful for case studies including Wisconsin, Utah, Tennessee, Illinois, and Ohio.
States want to know more about how MAP-21 relates to their safety data programs. At the peer exchanges, many States expressed the need for FHWA requirements to gain leadership buy-in and support. Guidance on FDEs and safety performance measurements were common areas of interest from the States. States would like to see a tiered approach to FDE data collection requirements, reflecting an approach they can follow. Currently, FDE requirements are divided into two sets – a full set of FDEs, and a reduced set of FDEs for roads with less than 400 vehicles per day. States would like to see some additional tiers of collection, beyond the low volume roads. States also want to understand the performance measurement requirement better as it relates to what data are to be collected to support State-level and national performance measurements.
MEDIUM – This action was added at the first two peer exchanges and ranked highly. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 5 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area. With MAP-21 rulemaking on the horizon, clarifying these requirements will shape the future direction of State DOTs and their safety data systems.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☐ | Community of practice |
| ☒ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☒ | Other: Rule making process |
The project team recommends that new guidance documents for FDEs be issued through the rule making process and a tiered approach be used for the data collection requirements. The fewest number of elements should be for less traveled roadways with no crash experience, with the highest number of elements on higher traveled roadways or a substantive crash experience. Additional dialogue should be encouraged to hear the States' perspectives on the proposed safety performance measurements. Talking points for Division Offices should also be developed to increase the dialogue with State DOT safety professionals and management executives.
Compared to data collected on State-maintained roads, States scored lower in completeness in their safety data capability assessments related to collecting data on locally maintained roadways. Only one State had a process in place to achieve the highest capability score. From the peer exchanges, there is a wide spectrum of issues involving locally maintained roadways. These issues include:
Several States can provide examples of excellent coordination and communication models between MPOs, State DOTs, and local agencies. In addition, States can provide legislative examples to serve as mechanisms for local agencies to provide roadway safety data. In the peer exchange, States wanted proof that the data collected on local roads would have a positive return on investment in order to prove to their leadership that this was worthwhile expense. States want to know what the best methods are (law, access to funding, penalties) to develop a process to collect non-State maintained roadway data. States also want guidance on how to best leverage HSIP funds for local roads and how to locate local road crashes and roadway features.
CRITICAL – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments and is ranked as a high priority action. In the last two peer exchanges, 5 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☒ | Clearinghouses | ☒ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a new reference, containing the results of case studies and pilots, document lessons learned on how to process and fund roadway safety data collection on local roadways. A key perspective to gain through this case study process is to determine what roadway data should be required on low volume roadways with no crash history and what communication models work best for State and local agencies. These case studies would support States to consider safety on all public roadways in a manner that is cost effective and pertinent to achieving better safety decisions and outcomes.
From the capabilities assessments, States would like to see MIRE and/or FDE elements with an estimate of accuracy or tolerance intervals for effective safety data analysis. Currently there are many data collection methods, from manual to automatic; however, there is no guidance for States on the accuracy of roadway inventory data. States also find it time intensive to review the accuracy of each data element. If a State were to obtain funding to improve data accuracy, they want to know which elements they should pursue.
MEDIUM – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments and is ranked as a medium priority action. In the last two peer exchanges, 3 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☐ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a new tolerance guidebook be developed to identify key MIRE elements or FDEs and the acceptable ranges for accuracy for effective safety analysis. Talking points for the FHWA Division office could also be developed to inform State DOTs of acceptable accuracy ranges for data collection purposes. This guidebook would support State DOTs to implement MIRE and FDE data elements with a sufficient level of accuracy to perform safety analysis to achieving better safety decisions and outcomes.
MPOs and local governments have their own safety data capability levels and are taking actions to improve their data collection. The SHSP process is an opportunity to engage the MPOs and localities regarding their safety data plans and to tie their efforts back to the State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC). Existing data improvement projects may be leveraged within a region or on a statewide basis through increased communication, coordination, and collaboration. Some States have used local SHSPs to address data collection challenges.
LOW – This action was added at the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 3 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☐ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☒ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☐ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that several case studies document noteworthy SHSP practices on how to fund and implement local and regional jurisdiction level roadway data improvement plans. Often times, local and regional data collection is more robust than at the State level. Through partnering agreements, all involved stakeholders can leverage limited resources to improve data sharing and save on the costs of data collection. These case studies would support States to consider safety on all public roadways in a manner that is cost effective and pertinent to achieving better safety decisions and outcomes.
According to the data capabilities assessments, there is a disconnect between the level of completeness between the State-maintained roadways and the locally-maintained roadways. Typically, the State-maintained roadways will have better coverage of intersection inventories, roadway characteristics, and traffic volumes. The States want to know how FDE requirements will be implemented with limited resources on the non-state maintained roadways.
MEDIUM – This action was added at the first two peer exchanges. In the last two peer exchanges, 7 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data collection emphasis area.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☒ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☐ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☒ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☒ | Other: Pilots |
The project team recommends pilots and case studies to document how to collect FDEs on local roads. These pilots could be selected in focus States and would support States to to consider safety on all public roadways in a manner that is cost effective and pertinent to achieving better safety decisions and outcomes.
One of the most important aspects of data collection is data quality management. Measures of data quality, compared to a baseline condition, can tell States if the data are meeting the needs of users and if the data are improving or not. The addition of a set of data quality goals and data quality management programs will help States better plan the future of data collection. Programs that are not measured and for which a State has not established some sense of what is the desired level of quality are less likely to produce usable data, and much less likely to improve over time.
CRITICAL – This action was added by the team independent of the capability assessment results and the peer exchanges. It was not vetted by the peer exchange participants.
| ☒ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☐ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☐ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a guidebook be developed to describe what data quality measurements would best indicate whether a State's safety data systems are providing their users the right level of data collection. This may fit into the same guidebook that describes acceptable tolerance levels and improved data element accuracy. This guidebook would support safety analysts and network screening to achieving better safety decisions and outcomes.
There are no national standards on what constitutes a "sufficient" traffic count program in terms of coverage, frequency of updates, or quality of the data collected. There is a wide variety of data quality control practices in place. Some are very detailed (e.g., Virginia uses their data stream from permanent counters to determine when the detector is starting to fail); others are not. There is still a lot of data that is estimated by State DOTs based on factors and nearby locations. There are numerous projects (FHWA-sponsored and others) in place to address the need for more accurate count data, but, realistically, we also need a useful description of formal data quality control practices and guidelines for how to maintain a sustainable traffic count program.
MEDIUM – This action was added by the team independent of the capability assessment results and the peer exchanges. It was not vetted by the peer exchange participants.
| ☐ | Talking points | ☒ | Community of practice |
| ☐ | Management briefings | ☐ | Symposium, conference, or summit |
| ☐ | Videos or CD-ROMs | ☐ | Site visits |
| ☐ | Clearinghouses | ☐ | Program reviews |
| ☐ | Training / presentation / webinars | ☒ | Literature review |
| ☐ | Panel discussion | ☒ | Best practices |
| ☐ | Domestic / international scans | ☒ | Case studies |
| ☐ | Peer exchanges | ☒ | Guidebook |
| ☐ | Other: | ☐ | Other: |
The project team recommends that a guidebook be developed to describe a quality management approach to sustain an active State DOT traffic count program. This document should provide quality control best practices regarding appropriate coverage, frequency of updates, and the quality of the data collected. This guidebook would support States to meet the MAP-21 requirements regarding FDEs.
| << Previous | Table of Content | Next >> |
