Roadway Safety Data Program 

MICHIGAN ROADSOFT 

INTEGRATION OF STATE AND LOCAL SAFETY DATA

CASE STUDY

FHWA-SA-14-035

Prepared for

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

Roadway Safety Data Program

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

June 6, 2014
(Page intentionally left blank.)
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

i 

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.
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Roadway Safety Data Program team would like to thank the following individuals who 

graciously provided information needed to develop this case study. 

Name Title Department Email/Phone#

Tim Colling

Director of Center for 

Technology & Training 

(CTT)

Michigan 

Technology 

University

tkcollin@mtu.edu

906.487.2102 
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 1

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND USE........................................................................... 2

DATA INTEGRATION ................................................................................................ 4

DATA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................................ 4

RESOURCES.................................................................................................................. 5

KEY OUTCOMES AND LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................... 5

SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 6

SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 6
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

iv

ACRONYMS

AADT Annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

BMP Beginning milepoint

CSS Center for Shared Solutions

CTT Center for Technology and Training

DOT Department of Transportation

FDE Fundamental Data Elements

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS Geographic information system

GPS Global positioning system

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSIS Highway Safety Information System

HSM Highway Safety Manual

KML Keyhole Markup Language

LIDAR Light detection and ranging

LRS Linear Referencing System

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

MIRE Model Inventory of Roadway Elements

MIS Management Information System

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHS National Highway System

OIT Office of Information Technology

PR Physical Road

TAMC Transportation Asset Management Council

TMS Traffic Monitoring System

XML Extensible Markup Language
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Quality data are the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, 

and safety of roadways. While crash data have been a consistent element of highway safety 

analysis, in recent years there has been an increased focus on the combination of crash, 

roadway and traffic data to make more precise and prioritized safety decisions. The application 

of advanced highway safety analysis processes and tools requires a comprehensive inventory of 

roadway safety data combined with crash data to better identify and understand problems, 

prioritize locations for treatment, apply appropriate countermeasures, and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the those countermeasures. Comprehensive roadway safety data include 

information on roadway and roadside features, traffic operations, traffic volumes, and crashes.
(Page intentionally left blank.)
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

1

INTRODUCTION

This case study presents the Michigan Roadsoft system for local roadway data and analysis. 

With funding provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Michigan 

Technological University’s Center for Technology and Training (CTT) developed Roadsoft to 

integrate the local road system into the State database by assigning a consistent linear 

referencing system to the local roads. The program provides roadway asset management, field 

data collection, maintenance management, and safety analysis tools to local agencies. Each local 

agency maintains its own data in a local copy of Roadsoft and shares that information with the 

State upon request.

BACKGROUND

Local roads represent 70 percent of all roads in Michigan. In the early 1990s, MDOT had an 

asset management system in place for the State trunk network and Federal-aid eligible roads, 

but no corresponding system for local roads that are not eligible for Federal-aid. This 

represented a challenge as local agencies varied widely in their level of access to IT support, 

software tools, and analytic capabilities for managing roadway assets.

In response to this need, MDOT funded the development of Roadsoft in the early 1990s as a 

proof of concept for a way to meet local agencies’ needs for data with which to manage the 

roadway assets under their jurisdiction. The CTT designed Roadsoft specifically for local 

roadway system managers. Roadsoft provides a standard suite of data management and analysis 

tools free to local agencies and over which they have a great deal of control.

As the user base for Roadsoft grew, MDOT and the CTT enhanced the system to cover a 

broader range of assets, support planning and budgeting, and incorporate features beyond basic 

asset management including traffic and crash data for use in safety analysis. They expanded 

Roadsoft with new capabilities and new modules as the State legislature and the State 

Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC) implemented new reporting requirements.

In the early 2000s, the CTT implemented two major expansions of Roadsoft. The first, taking 

place in 2000, added a statewide basemap and GIS so that users could identify locations using 

mapped reference points (Physical Road – PR – number), street names, and spatial coordinates. 

Prior to this date, Roadsoft strictly used a linear referencing system and had no mapping 

component. 

The second expansion followed the formation of the TAMC in 2002 in response to Michigan 

Public Act 499. The TAMC sets requirements and minimum data collection cycles for asset 
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

2

management by local agencies. The TAMC provides the local agencies with money and 

participates in field data collection to support asset management efforts in Michigan for all 

public roads. The CTT added functionality to Roadsoft to support collection, use, and reporting 

of the necessary data to meet the TAMC requirements.

Local agencies serve on the TAMC and they control the Roadsoft Users Group—the body that 

determines which enhancements the CTT will implement in Roadsoft. The CTT has adopted a 

rapid prototyping development model that allows for early user feedback. The goal is to “fail 

early” with low cost mock-ups so that whatever is ultimately developed meets the user 

community’s needs at a reasonable cost.

Central support comes from MDOT and the CTT, but the Roadsoft data model relies on local 

ownership and control. While there is no centralized database of local data, Roadsoft makes it 

easier for local agencies to share data since all can use the same system, database structures, 

and data definitions. Decisions about Roadsoft expansion are a cooperative effort among the 

local agencies and MDOT.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND USE

As of the date of this case study, Roadsoft includes the following modules and capabilities:

• Asset inventory

• Bridges

• Crash data

• Culverts

• Driveways

• Guardrails

• Interchanges 

• Intersections

• Linear pavement markings

• Point pavement markings

• Roads

• Safety analysis tools

• Sidewalks

• Signs

• Traffic counts

• Traffic Signals

• GPS-based Laptop Data Collector

• Maintenance management
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

3

• Pavement strategy evaluation

• TAMC reporting

• Sign retroreflectivity management

• Customizable reports

(Note: The links in the preceding list hyperlink to descriptions at http://Roadsoft.org).

For safety data and safety analysis, Roadsoft serves as a single, uniform safety analysis platform 

that can meet most analysis needs at the local agency level. The system allows support for 

specific types of safety analysis. For example, the CTT delivers specific training and tools 

designed to help local agencies find and apply for safety grants using their data. During the 

development of Roadsoft, MDOT’s staff served as the subject matter experts and helped the 

CTT determine what data and analytic features to include in the safety analysis module. The 

system includes basic safety network screening methods using frequencies, rates, and equivalent 

property-damage-only calculations. More advanced analyses such as those described in the 

Highway Safety Manual are not included in Roadsoft in part because the data expertise required 

for those analyses may be lacking at the local level.

The system allows local agencies to create a data extract that they can incorporate into other 

analysis packages including advanced safety analysis. There is support for a spreadsheet analysis 

based on a model developed by Oregon State University as part of NCHRP Project 17-381 for 

training and as a companion tool to the Highway Safety Manual Part C Predictive Methods. 

Roadsoft has the ability to perform the necessary data extracts to complete this spreadsheet 

analysis. MDOT handles advanced safety analysis for the local agencies through its Local Safety 

Initiative. This brings professional services (e.g., traffic engineering) to the local agencies. 

Roadsoft serves as the tool for MDOT safety engineers to interact with local agencies in the

field of safety.

As of 2013, 412 agencies actively use Roadsoft. These include:

• All 83 county road commissions

• 175 of 276 cities

• 52 of 257 villages

• 22 of over 1,000 townships 

 

1 downloadable at: http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/tools_sub.aspx#4
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

4

• 23 planning organizations (of 26 Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional 

Planning Commissions)

• All 29 MDOT regional offices and transportation service centers

• Four of 12 Native American tribes

• Two Federal agencies

• 20 other entities (e.g., law enforcement agencies and GIS departments)

DATA INTEGRATION

Roadsoft data integration is based on location as coded in the Linear Referencing System (LRS) 

and mapped in the GIS using a cross-walk among the three LRSs as follows:

• Physical Road ID Number (PR): PR is a system developed and managed by the Michigan 

Department of Management and Budget (DTMB) Center for Shared Solutions (CSS). It 

covers all roads in the State. This is the LRS used in Roadsoft. Law enforcement 

agencies throughout Michigan also use the PR system. PR numbers are unique values 

given to each section of roadway. The beginning milepoint (BMP) and ending milepoint 

(EMP) define a section. Any location within the section is identified by a milepoint 

between the BMP and EMP.

• Control Section (CS) milepoint: The MDOT CS milepoint system applies only to the 

State Trunk Network. MDOT maintains an online PR Finder which is used to access PR 

and CS numbers using a map-based interface. The tool also provides access to traffic 

count data (AADT) and functional class information.

• Michigan Accident Location Index (MALI): MALI is a crash location methodology 

developed by MDOT. MALI was the original basis for the location referencing system 

used by DTMB to develop its GIS framework. MALI is the source for the PR number 

system.

DATA MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The Transportation Research Board’s NCHRP Report 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data 

Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies 

defined the concepts of data management, data governance, and data stewardship. Briefly, Data 

Management is the set of practices related to collecting, storing, and preparing data for use 

(e.g., in safety decision-making). Data Governance is the set of standards and practices applied 

to any data resource to control the quality of the data. Data Stewardship refers to ownership 
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

5

responsibility and control over data including authority for its collection, storage, integration, 

and use. Regarding data management, there is no centralized local roads database in Michigan. 

Roadsoft fills the need for a local roads asset management database and analysis tool by 

providing each local client agency a copy of the software, which they install and maintain locally. 

The local agencies are the stewards of their own data and choose what portions to share with 

the MDOT. Data governance is a combination of practices including reporting standards 

established for federal-aid-eligible roads, standards for local roads established by the TAMC in 

cooperation with the local agencies and CTT, which manages the system documentation for 

Roadsoft.

RESOURCES

Funding for Roadsoft comes out of the local roadway portion of Michigan’s distribution of 

Federal-aid funds. MDOT manages the distribution of funding and the contract with Michigan 

Tech CTT. Some of the initial funding in 1991 came from FHWA Local Technical Assistance 

Program (LTAP) funds during the proof-of-concept stage. Michigan Tech serves as the LTAP 

center for Michigan.

KEY OUTCOMES AND LESSONS LEARNED

Roadsoft delivered the following key outcomes and products for local agencies and MDOT:

• Improved location referencing for crashes on local roads.

• Consistent mapping and data standards for all local jurisdictions.

• Data sharing among local, regional, and State agencies.

• Efficient processes for conducting safety analyses.

• Comprehensive asset management capabilities.

The lessons learned from the Roadsoft effort are that long-term support, local agency control, 

and frequent, gradual, incremental updates, are the keys to Roadsoft’s success. CTT supports 

the incremental, gradual nature of Roadsoft development using a rapid prototyping model. This 

model is necessary due to a high level of variability of users, many of whom are not GIS 

experts, and there is no template or roadmap for this type of a management system to follow. 

Allowing users to experiment with functionality early in the development cycle allows the CTT 

to identify and take advantage of opportunities that were not initially apparent when 

development began.
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

6

SUMMARY

This case study presents a user-driven program. Roadsoft began with a single focus on

establishing the database and LRS for an all-public-roads asset management system. As the user 

base for Roadsoft grew, MDOT and the CTT enhanced the system to cover a broader range of 

assets, support planning and budgeting, and incorporate features beyond basic asset 

management, such as traffic and crash data for use in safety analysis. The CTT designed 

Roadsoft for local roadway system managers. They control the selection of upgrades and 

enhancements to the system. MDOT supports the system financially and benefits by having 

access to local data that is maintained and managed by the system owners—the local agencies.

SOURCES

The following sources aided in developing this case study:

• Phone and email conversations with: 

• Michigan Tech CTT.

• Michigan DOT Asset Management Department.

• Genesee County Road Commission.

• Macon County Road Commission.

• NCHRP Synthesis 458: Roadway Safety Data Interoperability between Local and State 

Agencies, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_458.pdf. 

• NCHRP Report 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support 

Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies (Section I: Chapter 

4, page I-58), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_666.pdf. 

• Michigan’s submissions to the FHWA Office of Safety project, State Safety Data 

Capabilities Assessment—used with permission from the State and FHWA.

• Federal, State and local personnel and university-based contractors interviewed:

• Michigan Tech CTT: Tim Colling, Gary Schlaff

• MDOT: Brian Sanada, Mike Toth, Ron Vibbert

• Northeast Michigan Council of Governments: Nico Tucker

• Genesee County Road Commission: Ken Johnson

• Mason County Road Commission: Wayne Schoonover

• Van Buren County Road Commission: Larry Hummel

• Resources available online at: http://Roadsoft.org
MICHIGAN ROADSOFT

 

7

This project was performed by Robert Scopatz, Yuying Zhou, and Angela Wojtowicz from 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.; and Daniel Carter, Sarah Smith, and Patricia Harrison of the

University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center.

FHWA, Office of Safety

Stuart Thompson. P.E.

Federal Highway Administration

202-366-8090 

Stuart.Thompson@dot.gov 
FHWA-SA-14-035