Roadway Data Improvement Program

Technical Assistance: 

Final Report 

December 30, 2016
 

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no 

liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORM

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-17-027

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance: 

Final Project Report December 2016

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Brian Chandler, Omar Smadi, Adil Cheema

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

 

Leidos, Inc.

11251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston, VA 20190

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00024, T-13-001

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Final Report, 2013 - 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSA

15. Supplementary Notes

The contract manager for this report was Robert Pollack. 

16. Abstract

The Roadway Data Improvement Program provides States with a means to assess the quality of their roadway 

inventory information. From 2013 to 2016 a technical assistance team visited 13 State and Federal entities. They 

noted findings of current practices and developed recommendations to improve data collection, technical 

standards, data analysis tools, data management and governance, data sharing, and integration.

17. Key Words: 18. Distribution Statement

safety data, roadway data, traffic data, data collection, data 

quality, technical standards, data analysis, data governance, data 

integration, technical assistance

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages: 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 54 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized 
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors of this document were Mr. Brian Chandler and Mr. Adil Cheema of Leidos, Inc., 

and Dr. Omar Smadi of the Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University. Mr. Robert 

Pollack was the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Contract Manager for this project. 

The project team would like to thank the following agencies for their participation in the 

Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) technical assistance:

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

• Connecticut Department of Transportation

• Kansas Department of Transportation

• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

• Missouri Department of Transportation

• Nebraska Department of Roads

• New Hampshire Department of Transportation

• New Mexico Department of Transportation

• North Carolina Department of Transportation

• Oregon Department of Transportation

• Rhode Island Department of Transportation

• Tennessee Department of Transportation

• The Office of Federal Lands Highway

• Federal Highway Administration Division Offices in each of the participating States
iii
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1

2. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BASICS ................................................. 3

2.1 Legislative Compliance....................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Roadway Data Improvement Program Focus............................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Roadway Data Collection and Technical Standards............................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Data Analysis Tools and Uses........................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.3 Data Management and Governance ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.4 Data Sharing and Integration......................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 7

3.1 Initial Briefing........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Assess State Standards and Practices............................................................................................. 8

3.3 On-site Assistance .............................................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Final State Report............................................................................................................................. 10

3.5 Follow Up .......................................................................................................................................... 11

4. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RESULTS 

AND FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Participating States........................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Common Findings and Recommendations................................................................................. 14

4.2.1 Roadway Data Collection / Technical Standards..................................................................................................................14

4.2.2 Data Analysis Tools and Uses.....................................................................................................................................................15

4.2.3 Data Management and Governance ........................................................................................................................................16

4.2.4 Data Sharing and Integration......................................................................................................................................................16

4.3 Follow-Up Activities........................................................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX A. PRE-VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................ 21

APPENDIX B. SAMPLE EVENT INVITATIONS .................................................................... 25

APPENDIX C. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SESSION SAMPLE AGENDAS..................... 27

APPENDIX D. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 31

APPENDIX E. EXAMPLE MATRIX SUMMARY REPORT ..................................................... 33
v 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Using Data to Improve Safety....................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Roadway Data Improvement Program Key Areas................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Phases................................... 7

Figure 4. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Agencies, 2013-2016 .......13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Weekly Schedule ................ 9

Table 2. Roadway Data Improvement Program Workshop, Day One..............................................27

Table 3. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Transfer Roundtable Meetings, Day 

Two...................................................................................................................................................28
vi

ACRONYMS 

ARNOLD All Road Network of Linear-referenced Data

DGC data governance committee

DOT department of transportation

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FDE fundamental data element

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS geographic information systems

HPMS highway performance monitoring system

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

IHSDM Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

IT/IS information technology/information systems

LiDAR light detection and ranging

LRM location reference methods

LRS linear referencing system

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MIRE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements

MPO metropolitan planning organization

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PDO property damage only

QC/QA quality control / quality assurance

RDIP Roadway Data Improvement Program

RSDP Roadway Safety Data Program

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

TAP technical advisory panel

TAT technical assistance team

TRCC traffic records coordinating committee
vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety established the Roadway Safety 

Data Program (RSDP) to advance State and local safety data systems and safety data analysis 

and evaluation capabilities. FHWA has a vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on the 

Nation’s roadways and a mission to exercise leadership through the highway community to 

improve roadway safety. The RSDP supports this vision and mission by advancing the use of 

scientific methods and data-driven decision making, including the integration of crash, roadway, 

and traffic data for State safety programs.

The Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) provides States with a means to assess the 

quality of their roadway inventory information within their roadway and traffic databases, and

provides improvement recommendations for the support of roadway safety efforts. The RDIP 

focuses on agencies’ processes, policies, procedures and practices to collect, manage, and use

their roadway and traffic data to support safety. 

This report covers the period between May 2013 and December 2016, during which time the 

RDIP Technical Assistance Team (TAT) provided support to 12 States and the Office of Federal 

Lands Highways. In the RDIP Final Report to each State, the TAT noted their findings of 

current practices and recommended actions to improve data collection, technical standards, 

data analysis tools, data management and governance, data sharing, and integration.

The most common finding was a lack of central data governance and management for roadway 

and traffic data. Most States met their needs for roadway data within each business office (e.g. 

operations, design, safety, maintenance, etc.), identifying and collecting data needed to do their 

job without regard for potential uses or collaboration of this data by others. This can result in 

redundant expenditure of resources and inconsistent data sets within a State department of 

transportation (DOT).

To help address this deficiency, the most common recommendation in the RDIP State Final 

Reports was to develop a formal Data Governance Committee (DGC) for oversight of the 

following:

• Current and future enterprise data activities;

• Regular review of existing business data needs and tools to meet those needs; and 

• Development of new policies and procedures as needed.
viii

The RDIP technical assistance has been well-received by States that have participated in the 

program. Participating agency staff have expressed appreciation for the RDIP process, including 

the identification of problems and recommendations for improvement. Some States have 

reported back success in implementing recommendations after the RDIP technical assistance 

on-site event was completed. Based on the overall findings from the current assessment of the 

RDIP, FHWA intends to continue this program for additional States.
1 

1. INTRODUCTION

The Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) provides States with an objective means to 

assess the quality of information in their roadway and traffic databases. It recommends 

improvements related to data collection, technical standards, data analysis tools, data 

management and governance, data sharing, and data integration.

In 2011 and 2012 the FHWA Office of Safety conducted the State Roadway Safety Data 

Capability Assessment Program. From this program it was clear that many States lacked formal 

roadway data governance structures to oversee their roadway data. Further, States varied 

significantly in their approaches to roadway data collection, analysis, and interoperability (i.e., 

data sharing/accessibility within a State DOT and with external agencies). FHWA sought to 

develop a structured program to assist States to assess and improve their roadway data quality 

used to support safety and other business functions of a DOT. The program developed was the 

RDIP. 

The RDIP technical assistance effort is intended to provide States with guidance on assessing 

and improving the following:

• Roadway Data Collection/Technical Standards

• Data Analysis Tools and Uses

• Data Management and Governance

• Data Sharing and Integration

The RDIP Technical Assistance Program was delivered to the following 13 government agencies 

under a contract between the FHWA Office of Safety and its contractor from 2013 to 2016. 

1. Alaska

2. Connecticut 

3. Federal Lands Highway

4. Kansas

5. Louisiana 

6. Missouri

7. Nebraska

8. New Hampshire

9. New Mexico

10. North Carolina

11. Oregon

12. Rhode Island

13. Tennessee

3 

2. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BASICS

As highway safety analysis techniques improve over time, safety-related 

data become more and more important. Safety-related data include 

crash, roadway, and traffic, each of which provides value to analysts. In 

previous years, crash history (e.g. crash frequencies and/or rates) has

been considered the most important information to gather and 

analyze, with less attention being paid to roadway and traffic data. 

However, as analyses have become more robust, analysts need this 

additional information to mitigate some of the limitations of crash 

frequencies and rates. 

For example, the systemic safety approach relies on identifying the 

safety risk associated with particular roadway characteristics and then 

implementing safety countermeasures to reduce that risk. 

The ability to integrate roadway, traffic and crash data opens the 

possibilities of using the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and 

related software tools that require crash, roadway, and traffic data to 

provide more robust and accurate safety data analyses. Using 

predictive analytic methods, such as those from the HSM, allows States 

to develop expected crash frequencies for a particular set of roadway 

characteristics and traffic volumes. States may then further assess 

those locations that are experiencing higher than expected crash 

frequencies to determine the most appropriate safety 

conuntermeasures to correct these problems. 

2.1 LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE

The Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) is designed to help 

transportation agencies improve the quality of their roadway and 

traffic data to better support safety and other improvement initiatives. 

It focuses on the process and practices used by the agency for 

collecting, managing, and utilizing their roadway and traffic data. The 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) 

reauthorizing legislation required that States have a safety data system that can be used to 

perform analyses supporting their strategic and performance based safety goals for their 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). MAP-21 acknowledged the importance of using 

multiple data sources to understand highway safety problems and allocate resources for 

highway safety. Further, MAP-21 calls for advancing the capabilities of States for safety data 

collection, integration, and analysis to support program planning and performance management. 

Figure 1. Using Data 

to Improve Safety
4 

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act continued to support the robust datadriven safety initiatives of MAP-21, with one noteworthy change from MAP-21. The FAST Act 

allowed States to opt-out of collecting the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements on unpaved roads. 

2.2 ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

FOCUS

To assist States with realizing the benefits of improved 

roadway and traffic data quality and utilization, the RDIP 

focuses on four key areas: 

1. Roadway Data Collection/Technical 

Standards 

2. Data Analysis Tools and Uses

3. Data Management and Governance

4. Data Sharing and Integration

Each area is described below.

2.2.1 Roadway Data Collection and Technical Standards

Roadway Data Collection And Technical Standards covers the following topics: establishing the 

roadway network, and data collection technologies. It is vital for any State to know where 

roads are located in a given jurisdiction. In order to do this, location reference methods (LRMs) 

are used to identify a particular location with respect to a known point. It provides the distance 

and the direction from the known point. State and local agencies then use the LRMs to develop 

a linear referencing system (LRS) which provides a framework to store, manage, and extract 

information about a specific roadway. 

Following are some of the more commonly used data collection tools and methods: 

• Field data collection

• Photo-log and video-log

• Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) 

• Automated roadway inventory

• Aerial photo & satellite imagery

• Traffic monitoring technology

2.2.2 Data Analysis Tools and Uses

The second area is the Data Analysis Tools and Uses. Once the data have been collected, the 

RDIP examines the techniques and methods used by the State to analyze the data for safety 

Figure 2. Roadway Data 

Improvement Program Key Areas
5 

purposes. In addition to safety, other business offices with a State DOT are typically analyzing 

data for their particular business needs. These analysis methods are examined as part of the 

RDIP process as well. 

The RDIP recognizes that different States have different analysis needs and capabilities, but it 

advocates for more robust analysis. The RDIP recommends that States consider methods, such 

as those in the HSM, that address some of the limitations imposed by only using crash 

frequencies or rates for safety analysis. 

2.2.3 Data Management and Governance

The Data Management and Governance area focuses on the people, policies, technology, and 

resources related to the roadway data program. Data management typically includes the 

following personnel and activities: data administrator; data custodians; data entry and validation; 

data quality monitoring; data access control/facilitation; metadata development and reporting; 

and system maintenance and upgrades. 

Data governance has multiple meanings, but it typically refers to efforts to implement common 

standards for all data elements and data collection efforts throughout a large community that 

may include the State DOT and other stakeholders. It has broad applications across and within 

State and local agencies. The goals of data governance include the following: 

• Increase understanding and coordination among offices, agencies, and systems

• Increase data sharing

• Simplify data integration

• Determine responsibility

• Reduce redundancy

• Prioritize efforts

• Ensure accuracy and completeness

The RDIP examines a State’s management and governance, which usually includes State policies 

and practices, and a governance board of executives and practitioners from all relevant 

stakeholder offices and agencies. The board’s functions may be to set standards, review system 

designs, assess data definitions and changes, sequentially prioritize major initiatives, and allocate 

resources for data-related projects, among others. 

Following are some prominent advantages of data governance:

• Broadens data usage across stakeholders

• Makes data a strategic asset

• Facilitates sharing of resources
6 

• Encourages sensible allocation & scheduling

• Supports easier data integration

• Establishes an enterprise system for consistency of data and ease of use

2.2.4 Data Sharing and Integration

Data Sharing and Integration of diverse data sets are vital to enhance the utility of the data for 

decision making. It provides the agencies with richer and more complete source of information, 

and it can be an additional way to help assure the accuracy of information being used. A 

number of States have developed centralized systems where the records of all the public 

roadways are stored in a single location. Centralized systems are useful in theory, but in some 

cases practical expectations may not be met. For example, some of the data providers may not 

follow the established data quality procedures or standards, or the State may not have an 

adequate quality control / quality assurance system to detect problems with the data. 

A system can only be truly recognized as centralized when the State has complete control over 

the data collection and data management processes. Enterprise data systems combine all the 

typical data sources in a single, centralized application. It can lower costs and lead to an 

improvement in data integration among the system’s various sources.

An example of integration is the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to provide a 

framework for agencies to integrate with LRS. When done correctly, this can lead to a more 

comprehensive and more accurate database, and make legacy data easier to visualize. 
7 

3. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

The Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) technical assistance process begins with a 

State requesting support from FHWA. A technical assistance team (TAT) of subject matter 

experts is assigned to work with the State, starting with a comprehensive data quality 

assessment of the State’s roadway and traffic data. The RDIP TAT provides an independent 

review of practices, policies, and procedures through three phases of the RDIP process, as 

illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Phases

3.1 INITIAL BRIEFING

The RDIP program manager and contractor meet with the State by phone to introduce RDIP, 

the RDIP technical assistance process, and solicit the State’s participation. This typically occurs 

via teleconference with the following key attendees:

• State safety engineer

• FHWA Division safety specialist

• State roadway data experts

• Others as appropriate

The anticipated result of this meeting is a confirmation that the State desires to receive 

technical assistance from the RDIP TAT.

Follow-up Actions:

• State: Deliver documentation about State policies, practices, procedures and roles 

in collecting managing, and sharing its roadway data (see Section 3.2 below). The 
8 

State will also be expected to complete an RDIP pre-visitation questionnaire and 

grant permission for the RDIP TAT access to the State’s Roadway Data Capabilities 

Assessment Survey results. The State should also identify potential dates for the onsite portion of the RDIP.

• RDIP TAT: Send State the Pre-visit Questionnaire to be completed and returned 

(see questionnaire in Appendix A).

Upon receipt of the Roadway Data Capabilities Assessment Survey results, completed Pre-visit 

Questionnaire, and other related information, the TAT reviews the information to learn about 

current policies, procedures, and practices in the State.

The TAT schedules and holds a conference call with the State to ask follow-up questions and 

gain additional details about current State practices. The meeting also includes a discussion of 

the logistics for the in-person RDIP event, including confirmation of the event date, 

recommended attendees and the tentative agenda. Appendix B includes sample event invitations 

used by States.

3.2 ASSESS STATE STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

To understand the current state of practice, the TAT first works with the State via 

documentation exchanges and teleconferences to gain a basic understanding of each of the four 

areas. The TAT focuses on assessing the roadway and traffic data available, and the practices 

and procedures that guide data management, use, and analysis. Resources may include the 

following: 

• Response to a consultant-developed Pre-visit Questionnaire

• State answers to the 2011-2012 State Roadway Safety Data Capability Assessment 

Questionnaire 

• Safety Data Action Plans

• Traffic Records Assessment reports

• Draft RFPs for potential roadway data projects

• User Guides for data repositories (Crash, Roadway, Traffic, etc.)

• Data Dictionaries and Item Attribute Lists

• GIS Planning Report

• Road Data Inventory Manual

• All Road Network of Linear-referenced Data (ARNOLD) Plan

• Linear Referencing System ID Format

• Traffic Records Coordinating Committee plans and actions
9 

3.3 ON-SITE ASSISTANCE

After weeks of reviewing documentation to become better acquainted with the State, the TAT 

plans and delivers on-site technical assistance. The RDIP in-person event typically follows this 

schedule. 

Table 1. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Weekly Schedule

Day Event Attendees

Monday TAT travels to the State n/a

Tuesday RDIP Overview Workshop (1-day) All relevant stakeholders (30-50 participants) 

Wednesday

RDIP Technical Transfer Roundtables

(1⁄2-day State; 1⁄2-day Local) Stakeholder leadership (12-20 participants) 

Thursday TAT complies initial recommendations n/a

Friday Report out to management (2-hour meeting) State leadership and RDIP Point of Contact (8-

15 participants) 

Recommended Attendees. The following offices are recommended to send representatives 

as invited attendees to the RDIP events:

• Highway performance monitoring system (HPMS)

• Traffic data collection

• Management systems staff:

o Asset management

o Pavement management

o Maintenance management

• Planning 

• Data collection

o Central office 

o District offices 

• Information technology/ information systems (IT/IS) staff

• GIS staff

• Traffic safety

• District/Division Offices 
10 

• Local agencies (cities, counties, and MPOs)

• Local technical assistance program (LTAP) coordinator

The main activities of the on-site technical assistance are as follows (Appendix C includes 

sample agendas for these events): 

RDIP Workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to provide training to roadway and traffic 

database managers and other transportation professionals to assist them in identifying, defining, 

measuring, and ultimately improving the quality of the data within their roadway and traffic 

databases. Additionally, the workshop provides an overview of data collection practices, 

transportation planning and coordination, data management, and use of roadway and traffic data 

for safety initiatives. The workshop is highly interactive. As “good practice” examples are being 

presented as part of the curriculum, the participants are encouraged to discuss the way the 

RDIP recipient State is conducting activities.

Technical Transfer Sessions. The purpose of the technical transfer sessions is to build on 

the TAT’s initial review and understanding of the current state of practice by meeting directly 

with stakeholders in person to focus on the four program areas identified above, as well as 

other areas of interest. The TAT then uses the findings from the sessions to develop a brief 

summary report, which describes the current processes and practices within the State. The 

summary report also includes prioritized recommendations for improving roadway and traffic 

data, data quality, data interoperability, and management processes. 

Presentation to Management. At the end of the on-site visit, the TAT conducts a briefing 

with agency management to present their findings and discuss recommendations to improve 

roadway and traffic data collection, analysis, data governance and data quality. The briefing 

includes submitting a summary matrix of recommendations to the State for review while the 

TAT begins drafting the Final State RDIP Report.

3.4 FINAL STATE REPORT

The TAT transmits a final report to the State that documents all findings and recommendations 

from the RDIP technical assistance. The RDIP State Final Report is intended to be a detailed, 

useful tool for the State to build on their current state of practice and improve their roadway 

and traffic data. The report summarizes the TAT’s approach to assess the State’s roadway and 

traffic data practices, and it provides the State with more details on the recommendations to 

improve the performance of the components of their roadway and traffic data system. 

Helping a State improve its safety analysis capabilities is a key goal of providing RDIP technical 

assistance. This report is intended to serve as an actionable tool States can use to help improve 

its roadway and traffic data practices and procedures in support of its safety initiatives and 

other inventory-related programs. 
11 

3.5 FOLLOW UP

The contractor follows up with the State point-of-contact at some point after the technical 

assistance is complete to obtain feedback regarding their experience with the assistance. Topics

may include the following:

• Implementation

o Have you implemented any of the RDIP recommendations?

o If so, which ones?

• Barriers

o What are the biggest obstacles you’ve experienced in implementing thus far?

o What challenges do you anticipate in the future?

A full list of follow-up questions is available in Appendix D, Follow-up Questionnaire. 

13 

4. ROADWAY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 PARTICIPATING STATES

FHWA and its consultant conducted Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) technical 

assistance for the following agencies as listed below and illustrated in Figure 4.

1. Alaska

2. Connecticut 

3. Federal Lands Highway

4. Kansas

5. Louisiana 

6. Missouri

7. Nebraska

8. New Hampshire

9. New Mexico

10. North Carolina

11. Oregon

12. Rhode Island

13. Tennessee

Figure 4. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Assistance Agencies, 2013-2016
14 

4.2 COMMON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In visiting 13 different agencies, the RDIP identified gaps and needs that were common among 

many of them. The following section describes these findings and recommendations, organized 

by the RDIP key program areas. 

4.2.1 Roadway Data Collection / Technical Standards

Of the States involved in the RDIP technical assistance effort, none were exempt from 

recommendations regarding the improvement of their data collection, storage, or distribution. 

Some of the recommendations were natural progressions of in-place processes, while others 

proposed a paradigm shift for the State. For example, some States will need to take significant 

steps in the coming months to meet ARNOLD requirements for their LRS on all public roads. 

Others already meet All Road Network of Linear-referenced Data (ARNOLD) requirements, 

so the TAT recommendations in those States focused on maintenance and future updates.

Collection Tools. Some States have employed technologies, such as LiDAR, to expedite the 

collection of roadway asset data, while others have not yet added these tools to their data 

collection process. Also, some States collect redundant roadway and traffic data from multiple 

central office divisions and/or district offices. The technical assistance team (TAT) often 

recommended an enterprise data retention system to help States compile disjointed and 

scattered asset data to a single database to reduce redundancy and increase availability to all 

potential users.

Crash Reporting. Several States only report non-injury crashes where the property damage 

exceeds a minimum monetary threshold (often $1,000), and other States have stopped law 

enforcement reporting of non-injury crashes altogether, relying on citizen self-reporting for this 

information. The reduction of reported property damage only (PDO) crashes creates a skewed 

crash system that does not reflect the total crashes occurring on the system. A better means of 

collecting all crash types, regardless of personal injury severity, would paint a clearer picture of 

traffic concerns and roadway shortcomings. 

Local Road Data. Data collection is an ever-growing resource challenge as all roadways, 

regardless of ownership, are now considered part of the safety transportation system for each 

State. State DOTs have responsibility for the safety of road users on local and all other “off 

system” roadways. For example, roadway attributes and traffic data are often not collected on 

local roads due to a number of factors, including the following: 

• Data are not collected at all.

• Data are collected and housed at the local level and not shared with the State DOT.

• Data are collected in a manner that is not easily relatable to the State’s LRS or GIS 

systems.
15 

States should explore options to update the basemap for other public roads not on the State 

system. Examples include integrating major city GIS basemaps, and working with other partners 

to collect data for remote areas.

Fundamental Data Elements. States are still in varying stages of collecting the fundamental 

data elements (FDE) on their respective non-State systems, as well as working with FHWA to 

implement methods for collecting other Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data. 

The TAT recommended processes for data handling and storage, data file structure, and 

performance metrics to assess and assure data quality. States must incorporate specific 

quantifiable and measurable anticipated improvements for collection of MIRE FDEs into their 

State traffic records strategic plan update by July 1, 2017. States must have access to the FDEs 

on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

Enterprise Data Warehouse. All States that participated would benefit from developing a 

centralized process for maintaining and updating roadway data elements for the Statemaintained system. It would be helpful if States move towards an enterprise data warehouse 

that allows streamlined self-service access to multiple datasets without the need for specialized 

understanding of each individual dataset or specific query tools. The States should utilize the 

capabilities of an enterprise system to develop tools which allow easy access, information 

exchange, and data updates by end users. Asset Management may be the managing unit that 

handles all updates or changes to the roadway inventory in coordination with the State DOT 

GIS and IT, and the State could allocate resources to add regional GIS support staff to ensure 

coordination, including:

• Updates to the existing inventory; 

• Corrections to the existing inventory; and

• Future expansion to capture new assets (e.g., signs, roadside appurtenances, etc.). 

4.2.2 Data Analysis Tools and Uses

Expanded Asset Inventory. The TAT recommended that some States expand their asset

inventory to better use advanced safety analysis tools (e.g., HSM), and to better address 

intersections and roadway alignment. The expanded inventory should follow MIRE guidelines.

Safety Countermeasure Database. Most of the States do not have a safety 

countermeasures database. Establishing a safety countermeasures database can help to track the 

location and type of countermeasures to facilitate analyses of effectiveness. RDIP recommended 

establishing regional databases to track the location and type of countermeasures to facilitate 

analyses of countermeasure effectiveness. In States where regional databases exist, the State 

should compile this regional data to improve State-level analysis. It will also be useful to expand 

the system by uploading safety treatments on non-State-owned roadways.
16 

Enhanced Crash Reporting. All safety analysis starts with the law enforcement- or citizendeveloped crash report. States can work toward enhanced crash reporting by developing a

tiered approach for data requirements in the crash report by severity, and coordinating the 

geolocation of crashes between the State DOT and the municipality.

Training. Many States have been slow to incorporate more advanced statistical techniques 

into their safety analysis. States can increase analysis capabilities to include predictive analytics 

(e.g., HSM). Strategies include tools and training for headquarters, regional staff, and major city 

personnel. 

4.2.3 Data Management and Governance

All States participating were encouraged to create a formal data governance committee (DGC) 

made up of executive-level and practitioner-level staff to provide oversight of all current and 

future business system activities and to regularly review State system capabilities and features. 

The establishment of standards, policies, and procedures that can be passed onto future 

managers and users will be essential to the sustainability of the system and corresponding 

activities. The DGC should communicate those standards, policies, and procedures to partner 

agencies to promote a data standard across multiple State organizations. The DGC should also

communicate to local agency partners to market statewide efforts toward a common data set. 

Due to the importance of enterprise spatial data integration, the State should consider including 

GIS technical staff on the DGC to address data integration and LRS requirements. In addition to 

identifying strategic goals and establishing a related timeline, a data governance strategic plan 

should identify responsible parties and include performance metrics to measure incremental 

success.

The DGC should have oversight for all current and future enterprise activities and should 

regularly review functionality and features to meet business needs. The group should also be 

responsible for developing and/or assembling policies and procedures for item, such as: 

• Data standards,

• Data needs, 

• Quality control / quality assurance (QC/QA) processes, 

• Training plans, and 

• Communication with internal and external users.

4.2.4 Data Sharing and Integration

An accurate and up-to-date basemap and translatable LRS are critical tools for identifying and 

integrating roadway data. The basemap is the key to all spatially-focused analysis, and it 

connects a computer’s bits-and-bytes to the actual assets on the road. Further, including all 
17 

public roadways in the basemap is an important first step to integration and effective analysis of

these safety and access management data on all public roads.

Enterprise System. States should facilitate the elimination of duplicate data layers through 

integration within the enterprise system through communication among central office, region, 

and non-State staff. They should extend the enterprise system to include local roads and 

establish a process to allow local agencies to share their existing data. States can start with a 

localized effort by working on a pilot with a metropolitan planning organization to simulate the 

necessary steps to integrate local data into the enterprise system. 

Integrated LRS Updates. For States that had developed an ARNOLD-compliant LRS, the 

TAT recommended updating and maintaining it by developing a centralized business process to 

ensure roadway data (including the basemap, LRS, and roadway attributes) are kept up to date. 

The State could develop the process at their central office, to be implemented by central office 

and field staff, and ultimately maintained by GIS and IT departments at the State. Other systems 

(e.g., design, construction, maintenance) could trigger LRS updates when appropriate to keep 

the line work updated.

Tools, Documentation and Training. States can utilize the capabilities of an enterprise 

system to develop tools which allow easy access, information exchange, and data updates by 

end users. The State should ensure all necessary documentation is available to facilitate data 

access including data dictionaries and information about data quality processes. Further, States 

should establish a communication and training plan to make district and local agency personnel 

aware of what the State is collecting and what additional data and tools they can provide. The 

Training could include relevant points of contact, and it could lead the development of a data 

users group forum to support the discussion of user needs and prioritization and development 

of analysis tools and GIS applications.

4.3 FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES

The RDIP technical assistance team followed up with States using the questionnaire shown in 

Appendix D. Responses received included the following.

Implemented RDIP recommendations or plans for future implementation:

• Working to establish a comprehensive safety improvement inventory that will be useful 

in evaluating safety projects. The State will keep track of the safety projects delivered 

between 2017 and 2021 under an identified program.

• Developing a regional pilot project in a metropolitan area to collect FDEs for signalized 

intersections. The State will use these FDEs for network screening of hundreds of 

signalized intersections, and then expand collection to other regions.

• Developed tools that can be used for both State highways and local agency roads. 

Making these tools accessible to local agencies.
18 

• Expanding the use of Highway Safety Manual methods in other components of the safety 

program.

Data Governance efforts:

• A strategic plan is currently being created by the newly-developed State DGC. 

• Roadway data has always had a strong data governance program, so it is being 

continued. Some areas have established groups that oversee, manage, and make 

decisions about the data governance, yet there is still a lack of a strong executive 

committee overseeing all the efforts. 

Data Sharing:

• The State has conducted initial discussions with the local agencies, and stakeholders are 

planning future meetings to follow-up on topics from the RDIP workshop. 

• Primarily crash data and analysis has improved as a result of moving from a primarily 

State Highway program, to a program looking to improve all public roads. 

• Completing an all-roads LRS which will be the basis for new data collection and analysis 

for all public roads and the collection of the FDEs.

Challenges

• Staff turnover and budget constraints are problematic for many States. With limited 

staffing and funding, it is a challenge for States to implement some of the recommended 

activities. Current staff have other priorities and obligations that they must fulfill before 

committing to additional endeavors.

• A number of efforts to improve asset data (some driven by FHWA efforts) have

occurred at the same time. The result is that multiple groups are vying to get the same 

resources all at the same time. 

Improvement recommendations for the RDIP technical assistance:

• Some States recommended providing better information about the workshop prior to 

the visit itself. With a wide variety of staff attending, State DOT staff received lots of 

questions prior to the first day. 

• Locals wanted the smaller group meetings to be at their offices.

• A State suggested walking through a prioritization process to sort the actions into 

categories to identify the most beneficial and timely. 

Additional FHWA support desired:

• Some States have been in contact with their local FHWA representatives if anything is 

requested in the future. 
19 

• State respondents believe that the continued efforts of FHWA to point out the benefits 

of safety data and analysis to DOTs may be of help for those of trying to speak up for 

Safety. 

• States asked for additional PowerPoint presentations and examples of the progress 

other States have made in these areas to help continue their State’s efforts in the future. 

21 

APPENDIX A. PRE-VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to gain additional information about the State’s policies and 

processes related to roadway data in support of the Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP). 

1. Characteristics of the State’s public roadway system

Please characterize your roadway system:

a. Overall miles of public roadway

b. Miles of State-owned roadway

c. Miles of non-State-owned roadway

2. State Basemap

Describe the basemap for your State’s roadway network, including:

a. GIS environment and integration with business unit practices

b. Roadways covered (State routes only, non-State routes, etc.)

c. Is there more than one basemap and/or locating system used (e.g., linear referencing 

system, GIS, etc.) in use?

d. If more than one locating system is used, is there a means to translate the location 

coordinates between the locating systems?

e. What information is provided for ramps in the basemap? 

f. How are the data archived when replaced with updated information? How can the 

archived data be accessed?

3. Roadway and Traffic Data Inventory

a. Is there a data catalog (metadata) with data definitions, standards, policies, and 

procedures for the collection and use of data available electronically in the 

organization and is it accessible to users? Please provide a copy of your roadway 

data dictionary 

b. What are the primary roadway data collection procedures used to collect roadway 

and traffic information? For example: 

i. Cross section information (e.g., roadway width, shoulder width/type, etc.)

ii. Traffic counts

iii. Treatments, assets (e.g., signs, guardrail, rumble strips, etc.)

c. Does the State collect any non-State roadway data in the State database? If so, what 

data are collected?
22 

d. Does the State gather or integrate any non-State roadway data that is not collected 

by the State? If so, what data are collected and by whom? How is the information 

gathered by the State and integrated into the system?

e. Have you identified your State’s compliance with the MIRE elements or the 

fundamental data elements (FDE) subset of MIRE? If yes, please provide assessment 

results.

4. Data Analyses

a. How are roadway and traffic data elements incorporated into the safety data analysis 

process? 

b. Are they used in network screening?

c. Please characterize your State’s capabilities toward supporting analysis linking crash 

types to roadway geometry or other features (e.g., identifying locations with a 

propensity for rollovers, run-off-road crashes, or other) and then analyzing the 

network for similar locations based on similarity of roadway attributes?

d. As it related to roadway and traffic data availability, do you have the ability to 

support State-of-the-art analyses as described in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM)? 

Have you conducted HSM-type analyses?

e. Does your State use systemic analyses to identify risk-based problems and 

implement corrective treatments?

f. Does your State use Safety Performance Functions to assess the relative severity 

safety problems where crash data can be integrated with roadway and traffic data? 

5. Data Governance

a. Does the State have a central roadway inventory system that is commonly available 

to all data users within the DOT? If so, please identify how this database is 

structured. 

b. How can others gain access to roadway inventory data?

i. Who has direct access to these data?

ii. Who can request and be granted information?

iii. Who is disallowed roadway and traffic information?

c. If there is not a central roadway inventory system, do individual units or sections 

(e.g., Safety, Asset Management, Pavement, etc.) maintain their own database to 

meet their needs? Is this information shared between units?
23 

d. Is there a data governance board (e.g., committee, council, organization, etc.) that 

oversees roadway data activities in your State (above the Traffic Records 

Coordinating Committee)?

e. Is there a process to coordinate roadway data needs between business units and/or 

with other agencies? If yes, please briefly describe this process. 

f. Does your State have an established safety data improvement plan? If so, please 

share this document. Which State agency (and unit within the agency) is responsible 

for this plan? Does the plan represent a joint planning effort of all users of State 

roadway data?

6. Data Quality

a. Does your State conduct quality control/quality assurance of roadway data elements 

collected (e.g., what percentage of shoulder width and type data do you expect to 

match reality in the field?) 

i. Is there a process in place to provide verification and make changes as needed? 

ii. How does this occur?

b. Do you use metrics to assess your roadway data quality, and how are they 

determined and measured, for:

i. Completeness

ii. Timeliness

iii. Accuracy

iv. Uniformity/Consistency 

v. Accessibility

vi. Interoperability/data integration

25 

APPENDIX B. SAMPLE EVENT INVITATIONS

Dear Safety Partners,

You are invited to participate in a workshop and roundtable the week of <DATE> as part of 

State DOT’s participation in the Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP). 

The RDIP is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program developed to assess a State’s 

roadway and traffic data systems for the ability to use, manage and share the data; and to offer 

recommendations for improving roadway data. It is intended to help improve the roadway and 

traffic data the State uses to develop their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which supports 

the State’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). 

There is a high emphasis in identifying and addressing safety issues on all public roads. The HSIP 

is intended to be a data-driven program to direct resources where the traffic safety problems 

have been identified. In December 2012 Guidance on State Safety Data Systems to support the 

HSIP was issued by FHWA. This Guidance recognizes the need for States to have safety data 

(e.g. crash, roadway and traffic data) on all public roads in order to have a comprehensive HSIP. 

One component of an RDIP is a workshop that features discussions on roadway data collection, 

data analysis tools and uses, data management and governance, data sharing and integration, and 

data quality characteristics. Throughout the workshop we will discuss the following six data 

quality measures: completeness, timeliness, accuracy, uniformity, integration, and accessibility. 

The second day of the event includes a technology transfer roundtable discussion with

representatives from the State and other stakeholders about these same topics, with a focus on 

the State’s current practices, policies, and procedures; and potential activities to make 

improvements.

An agenda which lists the topics and issues to be discussed is provided with this invitation.

The RDIP events will be held as follows:

• RDIP Workshop: Tuesday, Date, 8:30am-4:00pm at Location.

• RDIP Roundtable (State-focused): Wednesday, Date, 8:30-12:00 at Location

• RDIP Roundtable (Local-focused): Wednesday, Date, 1:00-4:30 at Location

• RDIP Team Report Out: Friday, Date, 9:00-10:00 at Location

Please respond to State POC by Date regarding your availability to participate in the RDIP 

events and with any questions.

We hope to see you there.
26 

Sincerely,

Name

State POC

For any other questions regarding the RDIP program or this technical assistance effort, please 

feel free to contact:

POC, FHWA Division

Title

Phone 

E-mail

Robert Pollack, FHWA Office of Safety

Program Manager, RDIP

Phone: 202-366-5019 

Robert.Pollack@dot.gov

Omar Smadi, CTRE, Iowa State University

Principal Investigator, RDIP Technical Assistance

Phone: (515) 294-7110 

smadi@iastate.edu 

Brian Chandler, Leidos 

Project Manager, RDIP Technical Assistance

Phone: 206-850-3480 

Brian.E.Chandler@leidos.com
27 

APPENDIX C. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SESSION SAMPLE AGENDAS

Table 2. Roadway Data Improvement Program Workshop, Day One

TIME ACTIVITY

Section 1 – Welcome, Introductions, and Overview of RDIP 

8:30 – 8:45 Welcome and Introductions

8:45 – 9:00 Opening Exercise - Participant Use of Data

9:00 – 9:15 RDIP Introduction

Section 2 – Data Management and Governance 

9:15 – 10:15 Roles for People, Policies, Technology, and Resources 

10:15 – 10:30 Break

Section 3 – Roadway Data Collection and Technical Standards 

10:30 – 11:30 Roadway Data Collection Methodologies 

11:30 – 12:45 Lunch

Section 4 – Quality Characteristics 

12:45 – 1:30 Completeness, Timeliness, Accuracy, Uniformity, Integration, 

Accessibility

Section 5 – Crash Data

1:30 – 2:15 Data Quality and Integration

2:15 – 2:30 Break

Section 6 – Data Analysis Tools and Uses

2:30 – 3:45 Use of Roadway Data in Safety Analyses

3:45 – 4:00 Wrap-Up and Conclusion 
28 

Table 3. Roadway Data Improvement Program Technical Transfer Roundtable Meetings, 

Day Two

State Roadway & Traffic Data: 8:30 – 12:00

What are we hoping to accomplish today?

Introductions, Sign-In Sheet

Topics Issues

Basemap

Coverage (State and local)

Location Referencing

Standards

Roadway Data Collected and Quality 

Completeness

Timeliness

Accuracy

Uniformity/Consistency

Minimum Accuracy Requirements

Data Governance and Management

Structure

Policies

Technology and Tools

Break

Data Analysis Tools and Uses

Network Screening

Diagnosis

Countermeasure Selection

Evaluation

Accessibility

Data Sharing and Integration

Data Interoperability

Accessibility

Expandability

Linkage

Wrap-up
29 

Local Roadway & Traffic Data: 1:00 – 4:30

What are we hoping to accomplish this afternoon?

Introductions, Sign-In Sheet

Review the current process for collecting local roadway inventory data

Topics Issues

Basemap

Coverage (State and local)

Location Referencing

Standards

Roadway Data Collected and Quality 

Completeness

Timeliness

Accuracy

Uniformity/Consistency

Minimum Accuracy Requirements

Data Governance and Management

Structure

Policies

Technology and Tools

Break

Data Analysis Tools and Uses

Network Screening

Diagnosis

Countermeasure Selection

Evaluation

Accessibility

Data Sharing and Integration

Data Interoperability

Accessibility

Expandability

Linkage

Wrap-up

31 

APPENDIX D. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE

RDIP Follow-up Questions 

The FHWA Office of Safety would like to obtain feedback regarding your experiences as a State 

or agency that has received Roadway Data Improvement Program (RDIP) technical assistance. 

Your input will help us gain a better understanding of how the RDIP may be improved going 

forward. 

We have developed a short set of questions to identify your experiences following the RDIP 

program. To assist you, we are including a copy of the final RDIP Summary Report from your 

State. Recognizing that the amount of time the participating RDIP States have had since 

conducting the program will vary, we would like to ascertain information on the status of postRDIP activities, including recommended actions conducted or planned to date, successes, 

challenges, lessons learned, and next steps. Please respond as completely as possible to the 

following questions. Also, we would like to contact you, or your preferred point of contact, by 

phone or email to obtain further input on your observations. 

State: _________________________________________

Agency: _________________________________________

Name: _________________________________________

Job Title: _________________________________________

Phone: _________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________ 

1. How have the RDIP Summary Matrix and Final Report been used by your State to 

address roadway and traffic data needs since completing the program?

2. Have you implemented any of the RDIP recommendations? If yes, which ones?

3. Among the recommendations not implemented, does your State have plans to 

implement any of these RDIP recommendations? If yes, which ones?

4. Has your State taken steps to create or enhance roadway data governance efforts? If 

yes, what actions or plans have been developed?

5. Since participating in the RDIP, has your State initiated or improved roadway data 

sharing with local agencies (i.e. cities, counties, MPO’s etc.)? If yes, what has been 

initiated or changed to improve data sharing?

6. What are the biggest obstacles or challenges you’ve experienced in implementing or 

planning to implement the recommendations? 
32 

7. Now that there has been some time since the RDIP technical assistance, how could the 

RDIP process or components (e.g. gathering background information, the workshop, the 

technical transfer sessions, and RDIP reports) have been improved to better support 

your State’s data improvement efforts?

What additional support could FHWA provide to help your State to continue to make 

improvements in your roadway data system (e.g., training, document review, additional 

assessment or technical assistance)?
33

APPENDIX E. EXAMPLE MATRIX SUMMARY REPORT

State Roadway Data Improvement Processes 

State: Example

Assessment Date: 

Administration - Roadway Database

Custodial 

Department

Example Department of Transportation (DOT)

Administering 

Units

Data Management 

Transportation Safety

Administrator/ 

Position 

Title/Contact 

Information

Roadway Data Collection/Technical Standards

Background Characteristics of the State’s public roadway system:

• Overall miles of public roadway – 100,000

• Miles of State-owned roadway – 18,000

• Miles of non-State-owned roadway – 79,000 

• Miles of Federal roadways – 3,000
34

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

Basemap GIS environment and integration

Currently, the State’s Transportation Information 

Management System is the platform for maintaining LRS. It is 

not widely used due to the complexity of the process to add 

attributes or update basemap. This will change with the 

adoption of an enterprise system which will be completed 

soon. It only includes State-owned roads and HPMS sample 

roads in a geospatial environment. The database also includes 

a tabular component with attribute information for those 

roads, as well as some county roads. 

The GIS Section has GIS County road data submitted from 

most Counties and they also have access to E-911 road data. 

Public Safety is currently working to develop a network for 

major roads for oversize/overweight routing. This network 

includes E-911, Tribal roads, and State database information. 

This effort does not include an LRS component.

The State does not have an ARNOLD network of all public 

roads completed at this point. The enterprise system 

implementation will be the tool to manage the ARNOLD 

network and future roadway data efforts.

Neither of the efforts includes a plan for continuing updates 

to networks established during these initial undertakings. The 

State has no documented process for updating their 

basemap.

Kudos: 

• Commitment to implementing ESRI Roads and Highways 

indicates an understanding of the gaps between current 

systems and an effective LRS to meet data integration needs 

assessing with HPMS submittals, ARNOLD network 

development, and future asset management efforts. 

Recommendations: 

• Develop a roadmap or strategic action plan for the 

development of an all public roads LRS that meets ARNOLD 

requirements, and supports data integration and access for all 

units within the DOT and external partner agencies such as 

MPOs, RTPOs and law enforcement. This would result in 

significant efficiencies for HPMS, HSIP, performance measures 

and other reporting efforts as well as regular data update 

efforts.

• Determine the best LRS network option to meet State needs:

o Continue combining networks from other agencies such as 

DPS E-911 data with DOT data

o Establish the State’s own network that fits known 

requirements as well as its partners including MPOs and 

RTPOs.

• Develop a standardized process for updating the basemap. 

o For State-owned network, the DOT should develop 

procedures to trigger changes to the basemap based on 

standard actions taken by different offices. 

o For non-State-owned network, collaborate with E-911, 

MPOs, RTPOs and other agencies to identify changes and 

update the basemap accordingly.
35

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

• Be an active participant in these efforts because of the 

potential impact on the all public roads network establishment

effort.

Inventory 

Databases

The State does not have one master data catalog. They have 

numerous data collection procedures and documents located 

on shared drives which are accessible to users.

Traffic counts for State-owned roads and HPMS samples are 

completed by a traffic collection unit and MPOs as per our 

State Guide. All counts are conducted on a 4 year cycle, 

except county roads which are on an 8 year cycle. 

The majority of the new data collected in recent years are in 

pavement management and maintenance management 

systems. The remaining inventory data will reside in Roads 

and Highways. 

Currently, the State is focused on tracking HPMS related 

items. They are working toward expanding roadway 

inventory features to incorporate MIRE elements. This will 

support their development of a comprehensive asset 

management system and adoption of advanced safety analysis. 

Currently they are working on their Pavement Management 

System and Maintenance Management System. 

Kudos:

• Current data collection efforts moved the State from manual 

data collection to automated systems and now includes most 

FDE elements on all State-owned roads, NHS off the State 

system, and HPMS samples.

Recommendations: 

• Establish an enterprise GIS system that facilitates linkage of all 

business data as well as enhancing access and data sharing 

internally and externally.

• Develop a safety improvement database to enable evaluation 

of countermeasure implementation, as the State moves to

conducting advanced safety analysis activities.

Data Elements State Roads

The latest automated data collection effort for all Stateowned roads, HPMS samples, and local roads included the 

elements listed below: 

• Vertical and horizontal alignments

o Radius

MAP-21 recommends collecting the FDEs to enhance the ability to 

conduct more rigorous safety analysis. In addition, the MIRE should be 

considered for incorporation into databases.

Kudos:

• The automated data collection effort has replaced manual 

data collection and improved the quality and quantity of 
36

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

o Length

o Begin and end points

• Number of lanes

• Lane width

• Signs

• Shoulders

• Videolog/photolog

• Ramp information

Local Roads

Counties are required to submit certified county mileage to 

the State each year. However, this data is not integrated into 

TIMS and is mainly used for comparison analysis situations. 

Some Counties submit spatial and tabular road data and 

some just tabular data. This data is used for the annual 

submittal to the State Treasurer’s office and is used for State 

funding distribution. Counties do not submit any roadway 

attribute data to the State.

Even if local data does exist, there is no mechanism for 

integrating that data into the State databases. 

roadway attribute data available. This moves the State closer 

to alignment with FDEs which will support enhanced safety 

analysis.

• The State has conducted an assessment of the relationships 

between existing data elements and MIRE elements. This 

should guide any future data collection effort to support 

safety analysis.

Recommendations: 

• Clearly identify and communicate responsibilities for updating

roadway data elements among the different units responsible 

for managing the enterprise database (GIS unit, Roadway Data 

Inventory, etc.)

• Develop communications efforts to inform and remind 

Districts of available data and resources for accessing it. This 

will encourage the districts to utilize the existing data and can 

serve as part of the quality assurance process.

• Future data systems should include the ability to integrate 

data from local agencies, including traffic counts.

• The State should develop plans to acquire all FDE elements 

on all local roads, in accordance with FHWA’s State Safety 

Data Systems guidance.

• Leverage MPO and RTPO interest in joining data collection 

efforts to expand coverage of non-State-owned roads. 
37

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

Data Archiving Line work for State-owned roads is updated but there are no 

formalized processes for archiving changes. 

It is imperative to maintain historical data to conduct evaluations of 

safety improvements.

Recommendation: 

• As part of the implementation of Roads and Highways, 

institute a documented process for archiving changes to 

roadway inventory, line work, and traffic data. 

Data Analysis Tools and Uses

Network 

Screening and 

Spot Analysis

• Approximately 30,000 crashes in the most recent year

o 200 fatal crashes 

o 11,000 injury crashes

o 28,000 property damage only crashes

Crash reports are submitted to the State from local law 

enforcement agencies and State Police. A university codes 

crash reports, geolocates crashes, and produces analysis 

reports. Although this group geolocates crashes, they do not 

use the LRS for State-owned roads for this geolocation. This 

limits the State’s ability to integrate crash data with roadway 

data, which in turn leads to less flexibility in conducting safety 

analyses. 

There are concerns expressed by data users regarding the 

timeliness and completeness of crash data. The State is 

currently not performing any level of Highway Safety Manual 

(HSM), or similar advanced safety analysis. 

Kudos:

• Efforts to collect roadway data will allow NMDOT to 

perform network screening and advanced safety analysis once 

it is integrated with crash data.

• The State organized HSM training for District staff and other 

stakeholders.

Recommendations: 

• Develop a crash data improvement plan to address the 

following:

o Timeliness, completeness, and accessibility of crash data 

to meet internal and external partner agency user needs.

 Continue expanding electronic crash data 

collection and seamless electronic upload to crash 

database. 

 Establish measures for monitoring incoming crash 

records from individual law enforcement agencies 

to improve compliance with State law. 
38

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

o Integration with roadway inventory and traffic data.

o Spatial analysis capabilities.

• Establish an internal safety team that supports advanced safety 

analysis (segments and intersections) as well as training for 

internal and external stakeholders. This may include the use 

of HSM, or other similar advanced safety analysis tools. As 

part of this, the State should assess existing staff and 

determine whether additional staff and expertise are required 

to achieve this objective. 

• Establish a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to coordinate 

activities between the State and university partners. The TAP 

should meet with researchers on a regular basis to monitor 

progress, and provide feedback on existing products. TAP 

members should include Traffic Records, Roadway Data 

Inventory, Research Bureau, Data Management Bureau, and 

Traffic Safety Bureau. 

• Investigate methods to conduct statewide network screening 

and policy analysis to support the safety program.

• Coordinate engineering and behavioral safety efforts to 

enhance safety analysis and achieve future performance 

targets.
39

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

Data Management and Governance

Data 

Management / 

Governance

The State does not have a data governance board for 

roadway or other data activities. There is currently no 

process to coordinate roadway data needs. Since there is 

currently no central roadway inventory process, there is no 

consistency for data collection, including elements collected 

and frequency of updates. There is an opportunity to 

improve this with the implementation of Roads and 

Highways. 

Kudos:

• Under the current organizational structure, Asset 

Management and Planning is a centralized location for all data 

collection (except bridge data), management, and 

dissemination. This enhances data integration and access, 

which leads to improved data quality and more effective 

data/performance based decision making.

Recommendations: 

• Create a formal Data Governance Committee (DGC) for 

oversight of all current and future enterprise data activities 

and regular review of existing business services and tools. The 

group should also be responsible for developing and/or 

assembling policies and procedures when not available. DGC 

responsibilities and activities may include but are not limited 

to:

o Identify current data being collected and maintained 

in each of the State roadway inventories at both the 

Headquarters and district offices

o Assess current data standards and coordinate 

development of new standards

o Establish quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) 

processes for all data being collected

o Assess how to facilitate the interoperability of 

information within roadway inventory databases

o Identify and address data priorities and needed or 
40

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

potential improvements 

o Design for potential expansion of data elements 

o Assess current state of knowledge regarding analysis 

tools (e.g., GIS tools) and consider a training plan 

and communication with internal and external users

o Act as liaison to external efforts that impact data 

functions

• The Asset Management and Planning Division is well positioned to 

lead the data governance activities and should assemble a team of 

stakeholders including IT, maintenance, construction, highway 

safety, and the Districts to guide the process.

Standards The State lacks a comprehensive data dictionary for all 

roadway data. There is some documentation available, but it 

is not comprehensive or updated regularly.

Recommendation: 

• Develop standards and procedures (where they don’t already 

exist) for all data elements and data collection efforts and 

formalize by producing or assembling documentation in the 

form of a manual.

o Incorporate business rules on how to input data and 

format specifications into metadata.

o Standards can be shared with local agencies, which 

will facilitate data integration from local agencies into 

State systems.
41

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

Quality 

Assurance

The State conducts a QC/QA check of the automated data 

collection effort, per contract specifications which includes a 

third party review. Also, the roadway inventory activities will 

be conducting QC/QA checks on a small percentage of 

HPMS collected sample panel section data via video.

Kudos:

• The QC/QA conducted on automated roadway data collection 

effort is standardized.

Recommendations:

• Establish a process for updating data collected through the 

automated data collection effort, and maintain a standardized 

QC/QA approach for updates.

• The State should make quality assurance a priority for future 

data collection efforts (e.g., data submitted by local agencies) by 

establishing formal QC/QA procedures.

Data Sharing and Integration

Interoperability The State is involved with a GIS clearinghouse of State DOT 

other State GIS efforts. The State is also working with E-911 

to incorporate that data into the database.

The State has existing relationships with external partner 

agencies including MPOs and regional planning organizations 

that includes regular communication with them on a variety 

of topics. 

Recommendations: 

• Leverage relationships to increase two-way communication 

regarding data needs and opportunities with external partner 

agencies.

• Work with LTAP to educate and market the utility of the 

expanding roadway and safety data capabilities.

Accessibility Current access to roadway data is cumbersome and provides 

limited access to data and analysis tools. The State plans to 

improve this with updated tools to improve access to 

datasets within the Department to support multiple units.

MPOs and RTPOs expressed interest in being able to access 

the State basemap and related data to conduct their own 

Recommendations:

• Leverage implementation of Roads and Highways and Agile 

Assets to improve user access, ease of use, and availability of 

additional data applications across departments and Districts. 

Consider the possibility of extending that to external partner 

agencies as the program matures and relationships develop.
42

Critical Issue Current State Practices Recommendation for Improvement

analysis and program implementation. They also expressed 

an interest in becoming partners on automated data 

collection efforts, including a willingness to contribute 

financial resources to the effort if it includes information 

relevant to their jurisdictions. 

• Identify opportunities to work within IT frameworks to 

improve data access, development of tools, and applications

for decision support.

• Establish a communication plan to make internal and external 

partners aware of what data the State is collecting and what 

additional data and services the State DOT will be able to 

provide as data efforts expand. 

For More Information: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

FHWA Office of Safety

Robert Pollack

Robert.Pollack@dot.gov

(202) 366-5019 

 

December 2016

FHWA-SA-17-027