Transcript Slide 1

Roadway Safety Data –
What Is It and Why Should It Be
Important to My State?
Name
Date
Overview
• Safety Data Background
• Overview of the MIRE FDE for Safety
• Why Collect More Safety Data
– Case Study: Using Safety Data Results in Ohio
•
•
•
•
How to Collect Safety Data
The Value of Safety Data
Safety Data in INSERT STATE NAME
Q&A
2
Safety Data Background
3
FHWA Roadway Safety Data
Initiatives
4
Safety Data 101
• Good data helps you make better decisions
• Better decisions help you make more effective use
of limited funds
• More effective use of funds, more improvements,
more lives saved!
5
How Data Are Used in Safety
• Collecting additional roadway data and
integrating into analysis processes will improve
safety by:
• Improving an agency’s ability to locate problem
areas
• Improving ability to apply countermeasures
• Improving ability to more accurately evaluate
Reducing injuries and fatalities
6
How Data Are Used in Safety (cont.)
• Analysis:
– Network screening – Where are the issues?
– Prioritization – In what order do you address the issues?
– Countermeasure selection – What can we do to address
the issues?
– Evaluation – How effective were the countermeasures?
– Cost/benefit – Do the benefits justify the costs?
• Safety Plans (e.g. SHSPs)
• Safety investment decisions
7
What Data Are Used?
• Crash data alone isn’t enough
• Comprehensive data system includes:
– Crash, Roadway/Traffic, Vehicle, Driver, Citation, EMS,
etc
• For engineering – focus on roadway, traffic, and
crash
8
What Data to Collect?
• Existing regulations (e.g. HSIP) do not provide
specific elements
• FHWA Model Inventory of Roadway Elements
(MIRE) comprehensive list of 200+ elements
• FHWA recommends 37 fundamental data
elements (FDEs), roadway and traffic Data
Elements to support a State’s data-driven
safety program
9
Overview of MIRE FDE for Safety
10
MIRE FDEs: The Basics
• MIRE FDE: Fundamental roadway and traffic Data Elements
to support a State’s data-driven safety program
• 37 Elements
– Roadway segment data: route number, median type,
functional class, etc.
– Intersection data: intersection/junction geometry,
unique junction Identifier, intersection/junction traffic
control, etc.
– Interchange/ramp data: : ramp length, interchange type,
ramp AADT, functional class, etc.
• Prerequisite: a location referencing system on all public roads
(GIS, LRS, etc.)
11
MIRE FDEs: The Guidance
• MAP-21 Guidance on State Safety Data Systems
(December 2012)
• Recommended, not mandatory
Available online:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesafetyda
ta.cfm
12
MIRE FDE: The Guidance (cont.)
• Developed through FHWA Working Group
• Many elements collected through Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) on
Federal-aid roads
• Support safety programs (e.g. HSIP)
• Goal: Collect on all public roads, prioritized based
on existing resources
13
Why Collect More Safety Data?
14
Why Collect More Data?
• Do more than what your agency is already doing
• Do a better job of what your agency is already
doing
• Ultimately:
– Make better, more informed safety decisions
– Get more safety improvement for dollars spent “more bang for your buck!”
15
Why MIRE FDE Data Collection?
• Establish minimum amount of data to collect
• Develop consistent data practice
• Better, more accurate cost estimating
Better data
Better decisions
Saves lives!
16
Benefits Beyond Safety
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Decision Makers
Asset Management
Infrastructure
Operations
Maintenance
Planning
GIS
17
OPTIONAL Case Study: Using
Safety Data Results in Ohio
18
Ohio DOT’s Safety Program
• Dedicates $75 million
annually for safety
improvements
• Spot/corridor locations
• Systematic improvements
Total fatalities dropped
28% from 2002 to 2011
• Improved statewide coordination through
partnerships formed by Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP)
19
Ohio’s Data Improvement Program
• Address-based spatial data system on all public roads
• Intersection inventory
• Refined GIS tools to improve crash location at
intersections
• Expanded data collection on local roads
• Expanded traffic counts on segments and
intersections
• Implementation of SafetyAnalyst
20
Benefits of Data Improvement – Safety
• Improved HSIP Transparency
Reports
• Increased identification of sites
with highest potential for
safety improvement
105% Increase
67% Increase
• Improved safety performance functions (SPFs) and crash
modification factors (CMFs)
• Reduced number of manual safety studies from 600 to 350
21
Benefits – Beyond Safety
• Improvements for EMS
• Improved data collection practices
• Increased collaboration with districts and local
agencies
• Data utilized by other offices: pavement, traffic,
planning, etc
• Retire legacy tools and improve enterprise tools
22
Summary Thoughts
• Integrate safety into all aspects of DOT
• Ensure collection efforts are prioritized and input
obtained from all affected stakeholders
• Quantify safety benefits and implement identified
best practices
• Implement improvements through an incremental
and iterative process – with goal of continuous
improvement
23
How to Collect Safety Data
24
What to Collect: MIRE FDE
• MIRE Fundamental data elements to support the
HSIP
– Segment, Intersection, and Interchange/Ramps
• Based on
– Elements needed to network screening analytical tools
– Subset of MIRE
– Duplicate many of Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS) elements already collected for a few
sample sections
25
Where to Collect MIRE FDE
• Goal: All public roads
• Prioritize collection
– Federal-aid roads/Non-Federal-aid roads
– State-maintained/Non-State maintained
– Functional Classification
– Urban/Rural
– High crash locations
26
How to Collect MIRE FDE
• Traditional and innovative methods
• Resources:
– FHWA Explore MIRE Element Collection Mechanisms
Report (pending publication)
– MIRE Guidebook (in development)
– Summary of Roadway Safety Data Partnership (RSDP) –
Capability Assessment (all 50 States)
27
How to Pay for MIRE FDE Data Collection
• Federal Funding Sources for Traffic Safety Data
Activities http://www.dottrcc.gov/funding_sources/
• Collaborate with other divisions/agencies within
DOT (they might even already have it!)
• Collaborate with your neighbor States - do they
need the same things?
28
The Value vs. Cost of Safety Data
29
Understanding the Cost of Safety Data
• Resources:
– FHWA Market Analysis
– FHWA project - Methodologies to
Determine the Benefits of
Investing in Data Systems and
Processes for Data-Driven Safety
Programs – being developed
30
Methodologies to Determine Benefits
• Investments for data compete with infrastructure
improvements
• Infrastructure improvements have CMFs to help
develop C/B
• Build upon Market Analysis
• Project goal: Develop methodologies/tools to
make informed decisions on data investments
31
Market Analysis: Implications for States
• Can use results to estimate costs of similar data
collection in States
• Determine if fatality and injury reductions are
reasonable to expect in the State
32
Safety Data in INSERT STATE
33
Safety Data in [INSERT STATE]
• INSERT state specific information regarding the
current state of things locally, i.e. what data is
collected?
34
Next Steps
35
Potential Next Steps A
1) Have safety engineers review MIRE FDE and
determine safety data priorities for INSERT STATE
NAME
2) Bring all roadway data partners to the table:
a)
b)
c)
d)
What do we already have?
What do we need?
Who else needs it too?
Determine potential funding sources.
36
Potential Next Steps B
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Assess needs
Determine priorities
Identify and reach out to stakeholders/partners
Determine collection methodologies
Assess system capabilities
Identify funding
Obtain approval
37
Additional Resources
The Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)
Version 1.0 Report (October 2010)
• http://www.mireinfo.org/index.html
MAP-21 Guidance on State Safety Data Systems
(December 2012)
• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidesaf
etydata.cfm
MIRE FDE Cost Benefit Estimation (March 2013)
• http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_
%20cbe_finalrpt_032913.pdf
38
Questions/Feedback?
39
Thank you!
Name, email address
Name, email address
40
Additional/Replacement Case
Study*
41
Case Study: Getting Data
Collection Started in Utah
42
Utah Roadway Imaging/ Inventory Project
• Purpose: Obtain data for use in making safety, pavement,
and roadway asset management decisions
• Data types include:
– Pavement condition
– Roadway asset/inventory
– Roadside features
• Scope: 5,845 centerline miles, with data collected in both
directions, and 310 miles of ramps & collectors on state
maintained roads
43
Project Development
• Initiated by the UDOT Asset Management
Engineer in Planning & Programming
• Champions: Planning & Programming, Central
Maintenance, Central Traffic & Safety
• Attempting to institutionalize use of data to
sustain a long-term program
44
Project Timeline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
October 2011: Out to RFP
Nov-Dec 2011: Two-step selection process
January 2012: Contractor selected (Mandli)
Feb-Mar 2012: Refined data elements collected
April 2012: Contract signed – collection begins
September 2012: Collection complete
December 2012: Data delivery complete
45
Data Collection
• Contractor is providing:
– Data collection, including LiDAR point cloud
– Data extraction services
– Integrated software solution
46
Project Funding
• Cost is being shared across UDOT Divisions;
majority of funding from:
– Planning & Programming
– Central Maintenance
– Central Traffic & Safety
• Justification: one-time data collection effort that
will be used across multiple UDOT Divisions
47
Data Uses and Benefits
• Data will be shared across the UDOT enterprise
from central databases and the GIS data
warehouse:
– Safety analysis (combine with crashes)
– Asset management (roadway, pavement & structures)
– Maintenance operations (feature inventory)
– Web viewer, workstations
• Flexibility to extract additional data elements in
the future
48