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 analysis and discusses each action using the framework established in the introduction.
| Data Analysis | Action | Priority | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Provide materials and support to demonstrate the value of data analysis and stress the importance of data quality for accurate safety analysis to make sound safety decisions. | HIGH | |
| B | Develop a reference with noteworthy practices and host a peer exchange exploring how to improve data analysis and data sharing tools and techniques, including the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse, using HSIP funds at the State and local level. | HIGH | |
| C | Develop training to deliver advanced analytic techniques for the Roadway Safety Management Process (Highway Safety Manual [HSM] Part B), including the systemic approach, to State and local agencies, as well as map and link data in analysis tools such as Safety Analyst. | CRITICAL | |
| D | Develop a reference on how to handle tort liability involved with providing safety data, in particular results from safety analysis. | MEDIUM | |
| E | Provide training on how the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 4th Edition affects data analysis and screening. | LOW | |
| F | Develop a reference containing noteworthy practices to show States how to incorporate safety into larger transportation projects so that safety dollars can be added to other projects to expand their crash reduction benefit. | LOW | |
| G | Develop a behavioral-focused analytic companion to the HSM to match the rigor of the engineering countermeasure selection analysis. | MEDIUM | |
In each peer exchange, this was a common theme. Leadership support is vital in deploying data analysis tools and methodologies. States discussed the need for FHWA to communicate directly with top leadership at the state level about the importance of funding safety analysis research, tools, and techniques. States also mentioned the need for quality data collection in order to have quality safety analysis, and it was suggested that FHWA could also directly communicate with agency leadership about funding such data collection projects. The idea of an FHWA "start-up kit" for States looking to move forward with data analysis programs was discussed.
Leadership disconnects and turnover can present significant barriers to data analysis improvements. Safety data professionals need an umbrella of leadership in order to leverage resources, staff expertise, and analyze data to improve decision-making. Currently, when it comes to data analysis, there is a need for State DOT management to understand the importance of data quality, trained experts, and analytic tools to allow the best safety improvement decisions to be made. Data improvements "don't cut ribbons"; there are different techniques required to visualize these improvements. The data elements that are collected should at a minimum cover the inputs needed for analysis. Guidance on why data quality is important, on what training is critical to success, and on efforts to link datasets for detailed analysis, are all items to be emphasized with State DOT management.
HIGH – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States. In the last two peer exchanges, 15 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 talking points and management briefings be developed to understand the importance of data quality, trained experts, and analytic tools to allow the best safety improvement decisions. The team also recommends that FHWA State Division Offices attend periodic webinars to elevate and encourage the dialogue between the Division Offices and State DOT management. These talking points and management briefings would support the Focused Approach to Safety and MAP-21 requirements for safety data systems.
Noteworthy practices are required to demonstrate the potential use of HSIP funds to create a robust safety data system and to implement analysis techniques with new tools in each State. It was mentioned at the Missouri Peer Exchange that one website for data analysis would be a good next step for practitioners looking for guidance and support.
The specific needs of local agencies and rural road applications need to be considered in deploying data analysis tools and methodologies. Tools developed for the State DOT may be too complicated for local agencies. Strong network screening tools can be hindered by a lack of local data. Local agencies should be an active participant in identifying safety solutions; however, it may be more effective for the State DOT to identify projects with the assistance of relevant local agencies. Deploying Safety Analyst required a significant level of investment in terms of resources and data. The FDEs were created, in part, to assist with the deployment of Safety Analyst and to better define what roadway inventory data are required for improved data analysis capabilities. Outside expertise is needed to show States how to deploy Safety Analyst. States agreed that Safety Analyst deployment at the local level is highly unlikely, given the requirements.
FHWA could provide additional support in the form of comprehensive peer exchanges and additional tools (e.g., for rural roads and systematic approaches). FHWA could support States with flexible spreadsheet tools for safety analysis, as well as simplified tools for use by local agencies.
HIGH – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States. In the last two peer exchanges, 12 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 developing noteworthy practices and hosting a peer exchange to provide a comprehensive look at how to fund and utilize new data analysis tools and techniques at the State, regional, and local level. States that developed analysis tools or techniques to handle rural roads in a systemic approach should also be shared in a peer exchange or documented. These noteworthy practices would support States to consider safety on all public roadways.
Although not explicitly stated, it is clear that the top-level "goal" for highway safety analysis is for States to adopt use of advanced analytic techniques for the Roadway Safety Management Process (HSM Part B), including the systemic approach. Whether a State adopts the HSM as its standard or develops its own methods, the hope is that States can move away from methods that are prone to math errors. Not all States are as far along as they could or should be at this point. FHWA is already doing a lot to promote use of advanced analytic techniques, but there is a need for more training as well as sharing of ideas among States. The safety workforce may be inexperienced in data analysis and could benefit from general safety data training.
States discussed the importance of Safety Analyst software, not only as an analysis tool, but also as a means to bring together and integrate the efforts of different agencies under one umbrella. During the peer exchanges, States noted their concern about how Safety Analyst requires a great deal of data to be fully utilized; however, this could be useful when identifying which important data is missing or needed. Additional concerns were raised about the difficulty of mapping data (i.e., crash to roadway data) when attempting to use data analysis tools. A suggestion was to have in place a good linear referencing system (LRS) to make mapping easier and simpler.
FHWA could support States by providing expertise on the resources needed to deploy Safety Analyst. Data on resources that Safety Analyst can save agencies by reducing the number of sites they investigate and increasing the effectiveness of safety projects would lead to better-informed decisions about deploying Safety Analyst. Moreover, deployment of Safety Analyst can justify the need for organizational changes like implementation of data management concepts or data standardization, which may be another selling point for DOT management.
CRITICAL – This action was a key finding from the State data capability assessments. It was supported by the first two peer exchanges. The team also identified this as a key priority to move data improvements forward in involved States. In the last two peer exchanges, 6 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 training modules and webinars be developed to provide guidance on how to use advanced analytic techniques for network screening, countermeasure selection, and evaluation. States want to know how to map analysis tools, such as Safety Analyst, to their existing safety data. These training modules would grow a cadre of safety professionals and their analysis skills to consider safety on all public roadways.
At the State, regional, and local level, jurisdictions are hesitant to share their network screening results with potential partners or the public. Some are reluctant to report any results for potential sites of opportunity because there is little understanding about the true impacts and rules related to risk management and tort liability. Knowledge of techniques to protect governing entities from exposure to risk is not widespread making it difficult to communicate to partners potential liability issues. Several States requested additional guidance to enhance the sharing of the results of their data analysis.
MEDIUM – The team identified this as a key priority to move data analysis results forward in involved States. In the last two peer exchanges, 3 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 reference containing talking points or management briefings be developed to provide safety professionals and managers a level of comfort surrounding tort liability and safety analysis. FHWA Division Offices could use these talking points to set expectations with State DOT management regarding safety analysis and work through any challenges that may arise. These management briefings would support States to remove legal barriers to effective safety data analysis. This action is similar to an action listed in the data management section and may be combined.
MMUCC is a voluntary set of guidelines to promote consistency in crash data collection. It describes a minimum, standardized dataset for describing motor vehicle crashes, which generate the information necessary analyze safety data. MMUCC helps States collect consistent, reliable crash data effective for identifying traffic safety problems, establishing goals and performance measures, and monitoring the progress of programs. MMUCC 4th Edition adjusts the "speeding-related element" to better capture crashes in which speeding was involved, expands the "driver distracted by" data element, and recommends a simpler set of definitions for injury status (KABCO) attributes. States want to know how these proposed changes affect data analysis and screening.
LOW – In the last two peer exchanges, 3 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 training module be developed in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide guidance on how proposed MMUCC changes affect data analysis and screening. NHTSA is currently updating an online training program. This new online training module could support States to collect consistent, reliable crash data effective for identifying traffic safety problems.
In many State DOTs, the safety considerations may be limited to just the HSIP program or hard to track since there are no FHWA approval codes for safety. The planning, maintenance and design of new and existing transportation construction projects may have a limited or no crash analysis component to prioritize improvements from a safety perspective. The HSIP Program Managers are looking for additional guidance and direction through noteworthy practices to determine how to leverage HSIP funds to better target and reduce severe crashes on non-HSIP transportation projects. Safety culture creates policies that are favorable to letting the HSIP program positively influence other areas of a State DOT. By providing model best practices, FHWA can assist States to achieve their safety performance measurements and their SHSP safety goals.
LOW – In the last two peer exchanges, 5 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data analysis 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 |
The project team recommends that a series of noteworthy practices be developed to leverage HSIP funds to better target and reduce severe crashes on non-HSIP transportation projects. These practices could be fashioned into a framework that would support States' safety goals and allow for better safety decision-making.
Although the RSDP is focused specifically on roadway data, it should be recognized that safety depends to a great extent on the human factor and that the level of analytic sophistication in this important area is lagging. At present, there is not a behavioral-focused analytic equivalent of the HSM. There has been talk of a behavioral companion to the HSM for years; but in the meantime, serious consideration should be given to how we can raise the analytic bar on the behavioral side of safety. FHWA can help to focus attention on this issue and work with the other safety partners and the surface transportation modes to foster a higher level of analytic sophistication.
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 raise the analytic sophistication on behavioral issues. This guidebook would complement the existing HSM and is an important component of a comprehensive approach to improving safety outcomes.
| << Previous | Table of Content | Next >> |
