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 expansion and discusses each action using the framework established in the introduction.
| Data Expansion | Action | Priority | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Select and improve roadway safety data capabilities in focus States to support the vision and goals of the Focused Approach to Safety. | CRITICAL | |
| B | Provide roadway safety data training modules to enhance the program's visibility, consistency, and effectiveness. | HIGH | |
| C | Implement three to five case studies or pilots for State DOTs to understand how linking citation, injury, and driver data to other safety data can yield better safety decision-making and positive safety benefits. | HIGH | |
| D | Develop noteworthy practices and case studies on how TRCCs and Statewide Planning and Programming are structured, and how they disseminate information on data collected by various partners. | HIGH | |
| E | Develop model intergovernmental agreements with appropriate options for data sharing using examples from the States, regional MPOs, and local agencies. | MEDIUM | |
| F | Develop a reference for how States can adopt national standards for driver and injury data. | LOW | |
| G | Research and develop models for data sharing agreements, technical requirements, and overcoming barriers for local agency and regional MPOs to link to State DOT safety databases. | LOW | |
| H | Provide case studies and potentially pilots of what States should request for in their next system upgrade projects, particularly as it relates to data expansion models and vision statements. | HIGH | |
| I | Develop a presentation that highlights the latest LRS and GIS noteworthy practices to comprehensively collect and manage data for all public roadways and identify which practices rely on GIS to support access to expanded information. | HIGH | |
| J | Implement a multi-State cooperative project where each involved State contributes compatible (MIRE-compliant) roadway inventory data to show the value of the expanded set of data elements and reinforce the adoption of MIRE as the standard for safety analysis decision support systems | MEDIUM | |
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 in providing the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities using infrastructure-oriented improvements, namely: roadway departure, intersection-related crashes, and pedestrian crashes.
There are several focus States that have multiple focus areas. Some of these focus States need and desire targeted safety data improvements to provide better decisions related to safety project selection. This action recognizes that certain States have larger-than-average safety challenges and that improvements to their data capabilities can further the goals of the Focused Approach to Safety and leverage the resources of the Roadway Safety Data Program.
CRITICAL – 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, 9 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data expansion 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 three to five focus States that have a high demand for roadway safety data capability improvements, and a strong desire to improve, be selected and granted technical assistance through an application process. This technical assistance would include site visits, program reviews, and recommendations to advance their data capability through a tailored approach. Case studies would be generated from the results to share with other States. Division offices and State DOTs would benefit from this initiative.
This action focuses on obtaining leadership and State DOT management support for expanding and improving the linkages and interoperability between safety datasets. There are many ideas that compete for a State DOT's attention and there is not a consistent program to raise the visibility of the benefits and resources available to upgrade safety data. By providing training to create a cadre of safety data professionals, the State DOT can grow the human resources required to provide more consistent and effective safety data programs. With retirements, down-sizing, and turnover, it is difficult to obtain leadership support and sustain a data improvement program. When there is top-level training and marketing available for State DOTs, data professionals can use it to make their case; then, there is the opportunity to push against these challenges and improve the program's effectiveness.
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 expansion 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 management briefings and leadership training modules be developed to highlight the importance of roadway safety data and the need for program support through financial, technical, and human resources. These management briefings are critical tools for FHWA Division safety professionals and State DOTs' managers to move safety data improvements forward and to address the challenges of sustaining an improvement program. There are other actions very similar to this recommended action. These actions could be combined as components of a successful data expansion program to sustain leadership support. These training modules would support the Focused Approach to Safety and MAP-21 requirements for safety data systems.
This action comes from several States that want concrete examples of the benefits of linking citation, injury, or driver data to traditional safety data (crash, roadway, traffic). Injury and citation data can present challenging legal barriers, processes, and concerns. States want to see how another State uses the links to make better decisions. If FHWA can provide best practices or case studies on successful deployments, then data linkage models could be developed and deployed in other States that have lower capability.
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, 7 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data expansion 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 that case studies for existing examples (or pilots if no examples exist) be developed to highlight the benefits of linking citation, injury, or driver data to traditional safety data. These case studies would support the data expansion objectives of the States and local agencies, as well as NHTSA and FMCSA, to perform new safety analysis, improve problem identification and improve safety outcomes.
In some States, more connection between the TRCC and infrastructure safety professionals is needed. There are several different models for TRCCs to operate. FHWA could provide guidance on these models through case studies and develop a process for TRCCs to use to improve their organizational structure to meet their data expansion goals. One of the first steps to expanding and linking useful datasets is to explore what data the various involved safety partners collect. By mapping where the data are collected through surveys, these initial steps could be institutionalized and move a State TRCC on a path to improve their data expansion capabilities.
HIGH – This action 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, 14 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data expansion 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 noteworthy practices and case studies be developed to highlight the how TRCCs are structured and how TRCCs engage their members to determine what data are currently collected and how they embark on data expansion projects. These case studies would support the data expansion objectives of the States to structure their TRCC to support appropriate projects.
Intergovernmental agreements for data improvements are important for various local, State, and Federal agencies to share safety data. In order to improve data linkage, FHWA could create several model agreements to demonstrate what legal components a local to State or a State to regional agency agreement might use for effective data sharing.
MEDIUM – In the last two peer exchanges, 5 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data expansion 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: Model Agreements |
The project team recommends that model intergovernmental agreements be developed to provide examples to State DOTs of the components required for effective data expansion and sharing activities. These agreements would support the data expansion objectives of the States to share roadway safety data.
The two systems listed (driver and injury) already have national standards. Whether States have adopted them or not is another question. This might be a partnering opportunity with NHTSA to develop a reference that has an equivalent to FHWA's MIRE and FDEs. This action originally listed citation data as a candidate for national standards. The project team removed citation data from this action as a national standard citation is not likely as citations always reference specific sections of state code. This suggestion is akin to asking States to develop a standard set of traffic laws.
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 expansion 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 be developed to link existing resources for driver and injury data standards to State Department of Motor Vehicle agencies to ensure all of the appropriate date components are collected and linked. These talking points would support the data expansion objectives of the States to comprehensively share roadway safety data.
The State data capabilities assessment results focused on State-level government. From other FHWA work, the team recognized that safety data can be more robust at the MPO or local level. Several States identified relationships with local or regional jurisdictions to share and cleanse safety data and return to the data stewards. FHWA could develop models of linking State safety data to local and regional datasets. These models could also outline the sharing agreements, technical requirements, and benefits of these partnerships.
LOW – In the last two peer exchanges, 2 participants out of 19 States / Territories ranked this action as a top three priority in the data expansion 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 model intergovernmental agreements be developed to provide examples to State DOTs of the components required for effective data expansion and sharing activities. These agreements would support the data expansion objectives of the States to share roadway safety data.
There is no clearly defined goal that would give States an idea of what should be possible to accomplish with their systems. They know that "stovepipes" are bad, and, as users, they know the downsides of data systems that are not well designed, modern databases. What States may not know is what is truly possible. What should they be asking for in their next system upgrade/replacement projects? They need more specific guidance than just that their systems should be easy to update or expand, and that the data should be compatible with data in other systems so that the information can be linked. Examples of why linked data sets are valuable and how to successfully establish a linked data set are crucial. States need peer examples of how to get such a system successfully under contract, designed, built, and implemented. FHWA could develop this type of guidance in conjunction with the guidance related to data governance. The hope would be that States with success stories could share those with their peers. In addition, it would be very useful for States to share examples of the utility of data integration efforts—what new analyses can a State perform by virtue of having access to a database that combines roadway information with other sources of data.
HIGH – 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: Pilots |
The project team recommends that case studies be developed from existing examples (or potentially pilots where no viable examples exist) to provide examples to State DOTs of the contract components required and what is possible for effective data expansion and sharing activities. These highlighted examples should be current and show how to construct and implement a system with linked data sets and emphasize why linked data sets are valuable. It is also important to outline for State DOTs, the utility of data integration efforts and what new analyses a State can perform with other sources of data. These case studies and pilots would support the data expansion objectives of the States through a better vision of what is possible to implement roadway safety data improvements.
The call to collect and manage data for all public roadways (not just those that the State maintains or those eligible for Federal-aid) is prompting States to increase the coverage of their roadway inventory files. A comprehensive base map for integrated data collection methods are a basic need of many States. These solutions all rely on GIS rather than a series of flat (not geospatial) files to allow access to the expanded information. These best practices would serve as good examples that could be presented in peer exchanges or documented in a clearinghouse setting.
HIGH – 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 the latest LRS and GIS practices be highlighted in a community of practice as this area is evolving. These latest practices could also be summarized into a training presentation and presented at conferences or peer exchanges with additional references for further information to collect and manage safety data on all public roadways. These noteworthy practices would support the data expansion objectives of the States utilizing the most recent tools and techniques.
A national-level adoption of MIRE as the standard for a decision support system for safety analysis would be a boon to shared data and analysis. That would be especially helpful to small States that cannot always find enough data in their own State to conduct valid analyses (especially valid analyses of safety countermeasure effectiveness). There are other values to having national level data related to roadway infrastructure. Those benefits are among the reasons for MIRE's creation, but it must also be recognized that multi-state datasets could be of real benefit in small States, States with low crash frequency counts, and States with limited analytic resources. A multi-State cooperative project where each State contributes roadway inventory data (compliant with MIRE recommendations) could show the value of the expanded set of data elements.
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: Pilots |
The project team recommends that a multi-State project be implemented with data compliant with MIRE recommendations and/or Safety Analyst States to demonstrate the benefits of compatible data systems. It is possible that some of the HSIS States could be included as they are used to working with the FHWA. These model projects would support the data expansion objectives of the States utilizing common MIRE elements.
| << Previous | Table of Content |
