How have crash records been integrated with other agency data in support of programs outside of the crash records and analysis function, e.g TAM, performance management,

project scoping–preconstruction?

Alaska: Crash data is part of the Alaska Preconstruction Manual’s design standards. Traffic

and Safety staff review crashes and propose cost-effective measures to address correctable crashes. The Alaska Preconstruction Manual requires use of the existing crash data reporting system and will be updated for the new CRASH.

Iowa: Some crash data has been uploaded to the Iowa DOT GIS Portal.

Maryland: Most crash data is integrated with other agency data on a project by project basis. Michigan: Crash data has been integrated into the UMTRI effort through the Ohio State

Highway Patrol (www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org), that is available to anyone one the web and supports the Michigan SHSP. Crash data is utilized in the following agencies: Judicial, Department of Community Health, Department of State, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Education, and Department of Management and Budget. External to the state of Michigan there is the Transportation Improvement Association of Michigan and Michigan LTAP (Roadsoft). Michigan has a LRS that is also available for anyone to download through DTMB-CSS.

Montana: A safety review is completed for projects with a scope of work greater than a seal

and cover. This includes reviewing crash data for the specific project and recommending countermeasures to address any identified crash issues.

Ohio: At this time, only crash frequency and severity has been implemented with the TAM.

Crash analysis is required for all design exceptions and Ohio DOT tracks crashes similarly to pavement conditions across the state.

Rhode Island: No.

2a. What safety data integration efforts have been most successful?

Alaska: By far the most successful is the comprehensiveSIRIS, which is composed of the RDS, the Traffic System, and the Crash System. RDS is the Alaska DOT&PF’s LRS which is based on the road centerline network. SIRS RDS provides the integration using a common road centerline/LRS network. Integrating the Traffic and Crash systems with RDS through SIRIS will make it easier to integrate and link data from other transportation datasets such as bridge,

pavement, and maintenance systems. Alaska DOT&PF believes they are well ahead of most of the other data systems for the upcoming TAMIS implementation in terms of a common LRS, centerline coordinates, metadata, and database structure.

Full Text of State Questionnaire Responses 87

Idaho: The roadway data and crash records has been the most successful. ITD is in the process

of integrating the TAM data.

Iowa: The GIS Portal includes roadway and crash information.

Maryland: Integration of crash data and congestion data has allowed Maryland to make better

decisions. Historically, SHA has relied on crash rate alone to identify areas to address safety issues. Through integration with congestion data, SHA has been able to better identify areas truly needing to be addressed for safety versus areas where there are a high number of crashes due to congestion (i.e., fender benders). Knowing the difference between these reasons for high crash rates, SHA has been able to better strategize how to address the issue, either through engineering, enforcement or education. SHA has further been able to identify the top 3 issues:

• High-speed merge or short weave areas,

• Pedestrian issues where there is high congestion, and • At-grade crossings on high speed roadways.

Michigan: Development of a statewide (e.g., all roadway) crash database. Safety Analyst and

Roadsoft have been very successful in integrating roadway and crash data together.

Montana: Montana recently completed an upgrade of Montana DOT’s Safety Information

Management System (SIMS) software. Montana DOT now has a nightly interface that brings over MMUCC-compliant crash data from the Montana Highway Patrol. The SIMS project also included the integration of many of the MIRE FDE data elements as well as the MHP citation data.

Washington State: Crash data are routinely used in project scoping and preconstruction for

evaluation and analysis. The department is currently integrating crash, roadway, traffic, and illumination system information to support decisions about illumination reform. The analysis is supporting decisions about LED conversion, lighting system removal, and prioritization of pole replacement after being hit.

Washington State DOT uses data to support performance assessment of projects and to guide changes in the safety program. Projects also use data for design and operational decision making.

2b. What integration initiatives have been less successful and why?

Alaska: There are three integration areas that have not progressed as fast as the department

would like:

• CDR full implementation. The CDR will provide seamless electronic data transfer from the DMV to DOT&PF once the crashes are accepted at the CDR. The reason is that DMV has not completed the required database business rules on their side to implement the electronic transfer. Additionally, Alaskan LEAs operate on different data platforms; interfaces between these platforms and the CDR have not been completed. Loss of programming staff and leadership turnover are contributing factors.

• Integrating health and crash records at the state level. Alaska DOT&PF is ready to have the conversation. However, the health records community is still sorting out the required privacy and database requirements needed for this linkage.

• TAMIS. DOT&PF has completed a high-level database analysis, including the integration points, for all the TAMIS-related databases. Now comes the hard part—

implementing TAMIS. A project champion to lead the effort and considerable hard work are yet to come.

Idaho: Project scoping and preconstruction have been less successful because this work has

yet to be done.

Iowa: Any initiatives dealing with personal or private information. Maryland: Not applicable.

Michigan: There have not been less successful integration initiatives, but successful ones that

may have lost potential due to lack of updates to modern data use practices and interfaces.

Washington State: Individual business units are typically doing the integration activities.

While these may be successful for the business need, the enterprise need may receive differing levels of consideration. This means that multiple efforts may occur. Data collection for these efforts may also occur at a greater or lower precision level necessary to be cost effective, optimal for future use, or sustainable over time.

3. Does your agency make use of design or as-built plans to update road network