self evaluation of trb committees(3rd draft)rsouley/abj00/strategic plan/committee... · web...

2009 TRIENNIAL STRATEGIC PLAN

For

TRB POLICY AND ORGANIZATION GROUP

Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems (ABJ20)

April 20, 2009

ABJ20 TSP 2009

POLICY AND ORGANIZATION GROUP

Committee Triennial Strategic Plan (TSP)

Committee Name and Number: Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems (ABJ20)

Committee Chairperson: Jack R. Stickel

TSP Three-Year Period: April 15, 2006 to April 15, 2009

Date Prepared: 24 April 2009

1. Committee Scope: Research and technology transfer activities pertaining to transportation data and information systems for statewide planning coverall all modes of transportation. A primary concern is the capability of data management and information systems to integrate various transportation data sources to support a strategic intermodal statewide transportation planning function. The committee serves as a forum for discussion of current planning data activities.

A. When did your committee last consider the scope?

January 2008 annual meeting with additional discussions throughout the year.

B. Does the current scope statement accurately reflect your committee’s activities?

Yes.

Should the scope be modified?

Several factors, which are outlined in para C below, will impact State DOTs across many fronts. Transportation data systems will have to be adaptable and innovative. New initiatives and redirected work efforts will be required to:

Analyze new transportation policies and their impacts on transportation programs and the potential data requirements

Capture enterprise experience through knowledge management and transfer both within and across organizations transfer and management

Streamline information exchange among the U.S. DOT, BTS, Federal agencies, and State DOTs

Develop and maintain a network of statewide transportation professionals involved in data collect and analysis

Advance research through better needs definition and coordinate on the research objectives

ABJ20 TSP 2009

C. What changes are proposed and why are these changes necessary?

No immediate changes to ABJ20 scope are anticipated. However, we have identified six key challenges for State DOTs will face over the next several years:

1) Reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program.2) Impact of climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. The

Transition to Green documents the potential impact on climate change on the federal transportation policy.

3) Final rule for the Real-time System Management Information program (Section 1201, SAFETTEA-LU). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed in April 2009; the final rule for transit, road weather, lane closures, roadway incidents, and travel time will be out late this year or early in 2010.

4) Increased demand for improved data management, data quality, and data access to support transportation system operations, performance-based decision-making, and resource allocation

5) Risk assessment analysis, particularly for the aging transportation infrastructure and need for improved asset management data programs

6) Continued emphasis on transportation safety with cross agency data fusion and data integration

2. Committee Strategic Planning

ABJ20 strategic goals echo many of the goals presented in the TRB Critical Issues in Transportation (2006). State DOTs are facing increased challenges. Thrown into the mix are also the end user’s expectations for quality transportation data, with quasi-real-time delivery in a spatial environment. ABJ20 uses these issues as guidance in forming strategic planning for Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems.ABJ20’s critical issues include:

CONGESTION: increasingly congested facilities across all modes; EMERGENCIES: vulnerability to terrorist strikes and natural disasters; ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT: extraordinary challenges stretching from air

quality to a VMT-based gas tax; FINANCE: inadequate revenues to keep some existing data programs or to expand

systems to meet new requirements; HUMAN AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: inadequate investment in innovation

and knowledge management; INFRASTRUCTURE: enormous, aging capital stock to maintain with data systems

to inventory and visualize the current state; SAFETY: new standards and analytical tools require increased data and experience to

run the programs

A. Has your committee conducted strategic planning sessions?

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648081efad

http://www.saveourenvironment.org/assets/transition-to-green-full-report.pdf

The focus direction for ABJ20 has been an item of interest at the three previous TRB annual meetings. The Committee established five strategic priorities in 2008 (attached). The Data and Information Section, Policy and Organization Group, held a Section strategic planning retreat March 19 – 20 in Irvine CA (Beckman Center). The purpose of the retreat was to develop a shared 3-5 year vision for transportation data and information system needs, opportunities, and actions. More importantly, we wanted to clarify how our committees can – individually or jointly - best advance that shared vision and communicate its’ value to others in the profession and to policy makers. Considerable time was spent on defining the challenges the transportation professionals are facing. These challenges are reflected in this report. There are several ongoing initiatives, e.g., self-evaluation, from the retreat.

B. If you have not done strategic planning, what are your committee’s strategic directions for the future?

ABJ20 will participate in an additional strategic planning activity once the transportation authorization process is completed. Our direction for the next several years will embody the current Committee strategic priorities and the TRB Critical Issues. Of particular interest is defining our research needs as they cut across other committees within the Section, Group, and to other TRB Groups. Stovepipe systems and efforts can no longer be afforded. ABJ20 has not yet established subcommittees but plans to do so as we move into the next transportation authorization environment.

3. Critical and Cross-cutting Issues

A. What are the key long term and emerging issues that your committee is tracking?

Analytical tools – turning data into information decision support tools Climate change – determining impacts on transportation, assets and data needs Cost Benefit & Return on Investment – evaluating methods for data programs and

communicating executive understanding for data need Data quality and data collection – recognizing the paradigm shift for the next

transportation authorization to performance-based systems Data governance – establishing framework to align data systems to support

transportation decisions. This includes data program performance measures, knowledge management, risk assessment and capturing best practices from other state transportation agencies

Highway safety – linking roadway asset inventory, geographic information systems, and vehicle crash records (drivers, law enforcement, court system, emergency services)

Performance based data systems – applying data management systems and business intelligence software to develop goals, objectives, and targets for agency programs

Standards –define new standards that may involve thesaurus, /taxonomies, semantics, and other metadata applications

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Sustainable data system infrastructure – establishing an efficient, results oriented, and cost effective data system that incorporates data integration, fusion, and security

Risk assessment – addressing the impact on data programs from technological advances such as data collection platforms and sensors,e.g., length-based classification

Visualization – incorporating new tools to visualize transportation data, particularly in a spatial environment

B. What plans to you have to address cross-cutting issues with other committees?

The key to successfully addressing critical and cross-cutting issues with other committees is to:

Strengthen the committee liaison program, especially between other Sections and Groups

Actively pursue appropriate themes early in the year to develop sessions and/or workshops for the following TRB annual meeting. ABJ20 has proposed a Knowledge Management cross-cutting session for the 2010 annual meeting.

Continue the annual TRB data and safety breakfast and pursue leads

4. Committee Activity Plans

A. What activities are planned next year to achieve your goals?

1) Committee Business

a. Liaisons . ABJ20 shall strengthen the committee liaison program across committees in the Section, Group, and to other Groups as appropriate.

b. Membership . ABJ20 shall identify potential members that will add to the breadth of experience, organization, and diversity.

c. Sub-Committees . ABJ20 shall establish sub-committees appropriate to the ongoing and anticipated focus areas and challenges.

2) Asset management .

a. ABJ20 is actively involved in planning the 8th National Asset Management Conference in Portland (Oct 19-21). ABJ20 has helped develop a Data and Information Infrastructure track to investigate how transportation organizations introduce and use data programs to guide funding and performance-based resource allocation for infrastructure investments, project selection, rehabilitation strategies, and safety improvements. The role of data collection in decision-making and

ABJ20 TSP 2009

data program return on investment is of special interest. There are three data highlight areas: data governance and common framework for asset management, data collection assessment and evaluation, and performance measures. ABJ20 will sponsor a TRB 2010 session on the conference highlights.

b. ABJ20 shall actively participate in the Asset Management & GIS Peer

Exchange organization. Coco Briseno is on the 2010 TRB workshop organizing committee.

3) Communication .

a. ABJ20 shall support the TRB initiative on long distance knowledge exchange by appointment of a representative to the communication working group. Alejandra Medina shall serve as an ABJ20 co-representative to the communication adhoc committee.

b. Ensure the chair of American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Highways (SCOP) Data Task Force Chair is a member of ABJ20. The SCOP reports are a significant contribution to the ABJ20 strategic planning.

c. Continue and expand the periodic ABJ20 newsletter.d. Hold committee meetings at the Summer Meeting in Seattle and the

October Asset Management Conference in Portland.

4) Data Management Systems . ABJ20 shall take a proactive role in distributing information and collaborating on data governance, data management, quality data for informed decisions, and furthering the concept that data is an asset.

5) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). The full impact of the new HPMS requirements will hit in 2010. Hopefully ABJ20 can help out with the HPMS rollout specifically and traffic data in general during the year. ABJ20 will sponsor a session on HPMS at the TRB 2010 annual meeting.

6) Research . ABJ20 shall further enhance the research agenda through (a) examining previous research results for pertinent efforts which will be highlighted for the Committee, (b) appoint a Committee representative for the Section research effort, and (c) actively generate research needs statements as a collaborative effort with other TRB committees.

7) Transportation Authorization . ABJ20 shall take an early look at the transportation authorization requirements that deal with transportation data, particularly in regards to (1) performance measures, (2) safety, (3) real-time data management, (4) climate change & GGH, and (5) vehicle-miles-traveled requirements.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

8) TRB 2010 . ABJ20 shall work with other committees to establish TRB 2010 sessions and workshops. The following sessions/workshops have been identified:

a) Asset Management Conference . ABJ20 shall sponsor a session on the 8th National Asset Management Conference highlights.

b) Data Privacy . ABJ20 shall sponsor a session on transportation data privacy. Potential speakers could cover vehicle crash records, probe data, and data fusion activities across state agencies.

c) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). ABJ20 shall sponsor a session on the new HPMS requirements. Likely topics include the specific new requirements, the GIS component, and potential impacts to state DOTs.

d) Public Private Blended Data . ABJ20 shall co-sponsor a workshop that will look at how public transportation agencies use historical blended data from both public and private sources.

e) Knowledge Management Session . ABJ20 shall sponsor (hopefully accepted as a cross-cutting TRB session) on how agencies can deal with the unprecedented work force erosion challenges from retirements, increasing use of third parties and contractors, job mobility, and increased information demands. Knowledge management can provide ways to better utilize the expertise that we have – people and information – by obtaining the retaining the critical staff skills and abilities needed for a sustainable transportation program. The session shall introduce knowledge management successful practices for succession planning, knowledge capture and retrieval, and sharing information across institutional and geographic boundaries.

f) Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE). ABJ20 shall co-sponsor a session on the MMIRE elements, the connection to safety and asset management, and how visualization can help agencies

g) Non-Traditional Data Sources . ABJ20 shall sponsor a session on non-traditional data sources. With massive advances in new forms of data collection and archival, data collectors are now looking to more diverse options for collecting statewide data. Many promising options are available, including GIS technology, Google Earth, cell phone, probe, and transponder tracking. The session shall explore some of these new non-traditional data sources.

h) Visualization . ABJ20 shall co-sponsor a workshop on the state of visualization for transportation information.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

B. What activities are envisioned in future years?

ABJ20 shall continue with the initiatives started in 2010. Clearly the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) deployment in 2010 will have continued emphasis. There should also be more definitive guidance and perhaps even a new transportation authorization for State DOTs to implement. Keeping abreast of all the regulations and mandates is an increasing challenge. ABJ20 hopes to be part of the program to help wade through the information overload. ABJ20 will take a lead on the performance-based transportation service that undoubtedly will be part of the authorization package. The following areas are anticipated to have additional significance for ABJ20:

TRB Committee Healtho AASHTO SCOP Data Task Force – keep the chair of the SCOP Data

Task Force as friend/member of ABJ20. This person provides significant AASHTO related information covering a wide range of activities, plus can provide background on the research needs statements in which we are interested.

o Liaisons – strengthen the Section and committee liaisons with a reporting mechanism for other committees Newsletters – continue expansion of the periodic committee newsletters

o Members – identify potential members that will add breathe of experience, organizational background, and diversity.

o Research - continue an active research program that is vetted through the Section Research coordinator

o Summer meeting – hold the summer meeting on even-numbered years in conjunction with the North American Travel and Monitoring Exhibition (NATMEC) and at the TRB Summer Meeting in odd numbered years.

o Web site – the ABJ20 web site is hosted courtesy of Cambridge Systematics; if this arrangement remains satisfactory it can continue. If not, other opportunities such as the TRB new free Google will need to be explored.

State DOTs. The following areas are anticipated to have additional significance to all State DOTs; there undoubtedly will be activities specific to each one of these areas:

o Transportation authorization – there will be specific State DOT requirements for their data programs. ABJ20 will take the lead on these areas.

o Training - workforce training & knowledge transfer will become a significant issue with retirements, job mobility, new technologies, new information requirements, and third party contractors accomplishing traditional DOT services. Computer based training and distance learning can offer opportunities here.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/home.htm

o Decision support tools - using existing data in new ways or implementing new data collection requires new paradigms to communicate the data. Decision support tools can offer a way to process and package the information for informed decisions.

o Funding - budget allocations in data collection and data management programs will come under increased scrutiny. Communicating the value of data programs will continue to be an important issue. Funding will also impact TRB attendance; web conferencing and webinars offer TRB the opportunity to keep people involved. TRB will have to deal with getting the proper oversight and management of a new program.

o New sensor technologies - collecting data in difference ways, e.g., length based classification, and new technologies, e.g., probe data, will offer DOTs new opportunities and new challenges

o Real-time data – there is an increased need (or maybe even requirement) for real-time traffic, incident, road weather, congestion, and other transportation data under the proposed FHWA Real-Time System Management Information Program. FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM Docket Number FHWA-2006-24219) in January 2009 with the comment period closing in April 2009. A final rule is expected late this year or early in 2010 which may require State DOTs to develop a department-wide plan within two years of the final rule. The NPRM link contains the submitted stakeholder comments.

o Data management – with increased data collection, technology, and data sharing comes the need for better data management. This will require better data management practices, including training and outreach.

o Performance measures – performance-based systems will be a key part of the transportation authorization. This will require State DOTs to develop, if not already there, better Health of the Network reporting for sensor performance, data quality, and data delivery.

5. Committee Organization and Membership

A. Describe the membership gender and racial diversity.

There are 15 male members and 9 female members. The racial composition includes 2 Asian and 22 white. There are two young members, one international member, and one emeritus member.

B. How is membership distributed geographically?

Eastern – 11 Central - 6Western - 6 International - 1

C. How is membership distributed across professional affiliation?

State Government - 14 Federal Government - 3

ABJ20 TSP 2009



http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/safetea/realtimefactsheet.htm

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/safetea/realtimefactsheet.htm

Education - 2 Private Sector - 3Local Government - 0 Nonprofit/Other - 2

D. How many “friends” are associated with the committee? 39

E. List subcommittees and their chairs – none at this time.6. Interaction with Other TRB Committees, Organizations, and Customers

A. List other TRB committees which your committee maintains a formal liaison representation.1) ABJ10 – National Transportation Requirements and Programs2) ABJ35 – Highway Traffic Monitoring3) ABC40 – Transportation Asset Management4) ADA10 – Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning5) AHB70 – Access Management6) ANF10 - Pedestrians

B. List outside organizations which your committee maintains ongoing liaison representation. 1) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)2) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) America3) U. S Department of Transportation4) American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO),

Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP), Data Task Force

C. List shared activities during the past year (examples should include work on cross-cutting issues, information exchange, research, etc.)

a) Aligning Data to Support Transportation Decisions Peer Exchange – Keck Center, Washington, DC May 15 – 16, 2008

b) Data and Information Systems Section Retreat – Beckman Center, Irvine CA, March 19 – 20, 2008

c) Open Architecture to Support Data Integration Peer Exchange – Keck Center, Washington, DC May, 13 – 14, 2008

d) TRB 2009 Spotlight Theme Session – Energy & Climate Change: Transportation Data Needs for Climate Change – Evaluation and Mitigation

e) Materially participated in:a. Data Quality Workshop – FHWA Headquarters, Washington, DC, July 8

– 9, 2008b. North American Travel Monitoring Exposition and Conference

(NATMEC) – Washington, DC, August 6 – 8, 2008c. Federal Surface Transportation Requirements in Statewide and

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Conference – Atlanta, GA, September 3 – 5, 2008

7. Business Meeting Attendance (information from the most recent meeting)

ABJ20 TSP 2009

A. Annual business meeting: Members - 17 Guests - 21

B. Summer business meeting: Members - 8 Guests - 8 NA ___

8. Technology Transfer Activities for Colleagues and Customers

A. Is the committee planning to publish documents within the next two years? ABJ20 collaborated on the three following E-Circulars that are expected to be published in the next two years:

1) Aligning Data to Support Transportation Decisions Peer Review2) Open Architecture Peer Exchange3) Asset Management and GIS Peer Exchange (proposed)

B. Workshops proposed (excluding the TRB Annual Meeting) - None

D. Conferences proposed.

1) Asset Management Conference . 8th National Asset Management Conference (Oct 19 – 21, Portland OR). ABJ20 has developed a Data and Information Infrastructure track to investigate how transportation organizations introduce and use data programs to guide funding and performance-based resource allocation for infrastructure investments, project selection, rehabilitation strategies, and safety improvements. The role of data collection in decision-making and return on data program return on investment is of special interest. There are three highlight areas: data governance and common framework for asset management, data collection assessment and evaluation, and performance measures. ABJ20 will sponsor a 2010 TRB session on the conference highlights.

2) Asset Management & GIS Peer Review . The FHWA Office of Interstate and Border Planning has confirmed that they will fund a follow-on peer exchange to the 2005 Kansas City peer on GIS for asset management. The GIS-T annual survey of DOT GIS managers has identified this as a priority. The idea here is to have a TRB annual meeting workshop to identify and prioritize issues for the peer. Jim Hall, who edited the 2005 circular, will lead the 2010 workshop organization. Coco Briseno is the ABJ20 representative.

E. Other activities (web pages, newsletters, updating of millennium paper, etc.)

1) ABJ20 publishes a Committee newsletter periodically

2) ABJ20 maintains a Committee website (hosted by Cambridge Systematics): http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/home.htm

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/home.htm

http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summary.aspx?e=82b0cb1d-279e-4586-bfd7-3778382e1b69

9. Research Needs and Problem Statements (Of particular interest are problem statements for TRB Cooperative Research Programs, but please list related activities your committee is involved with as well.)

A. How do you determine and select research needs and problem statements?

Practically all research needs statements for which ABJ20 had a role have come out of peer exchanges. The peers offer a great opportunity for State DOTs, education, FHWA, and others that share similar challenges and transportation issues to look at what is being done by their peers, the best practices that in use, and help define what is needed. The peer outcome often involves a clear view of the current capabilities, best practices, and operational shortcomings. Specifically, the peer provides a consensus on research needs and is a great forum to document the needed research for a given area.

B. Number of Research Problem Statements currently under development?

The following six research areas were identified in the Aligning Data to Support Transportation Decisions peer exchange. The research needs statements, along with specific areas of interest, have not been entered in the RNS database:

1) Cost vs. Benefit and Return of Benefit (ROI) for data systemsa. Case studies - data system cost/benefit from other government entities,

quasi-public agencies, and private industryb. Case studies – ROA for Data business plansc. Evaluation methods – covering data programs (for example, CMMI –

Capability Maturity Model Integration)d. Communicate value of data programs – executive understanding of

data programs and their value to the enterprise2) Data Governance Model

a. Best practices in state transportation agenciesb. Structure, roles, and skill sets needed for business plansc. Framework for data programs and decision making

3) Analytical Toolsa. Process for turning data into information support decision toolsb. Assessing current state of data collection and tools to show who uses

data and for whatc. Examine current analytical tools for business intelligence, e.g., BI,

SAS, EIM4) Data Performance Measures (PMs)

a. Case studies on best practicesb. Key data to support enterprise PMsc. Quality assessment best practices – examine state of best practices for

quality control5) Data terminology standards

a. Define what standards are needed and what the format should be

ABJ20 TSP 2009

b. Look at applications of thesaurus, taxonomies, semantics, and metadata should be for transportation data programs

6) Data Sharinga. Define the emerging and existing data interchange standards to share

datab. Best practices for State DOT data sharing

C. List Research Problem Statements funded during last three years?

1) Setting Effective Performance Targets for Transportation Programs, Plans, and Policy

2) Target –Setting Methods and Data Management To Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies

D. Are the statements available to the public (for example, in TRB Research Needs Database, http://rns.trb.org/)?

The following research needs statements are available in the research needs database:

1) ABJ20 Research Problem Statementsi. Geographic Information System Cost/Benefits Analysis Template

ii. Best Practices for Establishing a State Freight Data Frameworkiii. Life Cycle Analysis of Designing Highways for Safetyiv. Incorporating Traffic Safety Rick Management into the Asset

Management Processv. How Do We Convince the Locals to Participate in Statewide Highway

Safety Data Programsvi. Synthesis for Visualizing the Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data

Integrationvii. Open Architecture to Support Data Integration Projects

viii. Guidelines for Conducting Business Process Reviews for Successful Data Integration Projects to Support Asset Management and Safety Management Systems

ix. Highway Safety as an Asset: Incorporating Safety Performance Metrics in State Level Planning and Programming

2) Collaboration with other committeesi. Open Source Community for Open Architecture

ii. Common List of Services for State DOT Information Systemsiii. Common Framework for State DOT Information Systems

Architecture – Scoping Studyiv. Collaboration Site for Transportation Open Architecture Communityv. Open Architecture Primer

vi. Case Studies for Open Architecturevii. Explore Hosting Models for State DOT’s to Use for New Applications

10. General Remarks and Comments Offered by the Committee

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://rns.trb.org/

http://rns.trb.org/

A. Should your committee continue in its present form with its present title? Absolutely!

B. Should it be merged with one or more other committees? No

D. Any other comments considered appropriate by the committee.

A strong liaison between committees with similar ongoing initiatives is imperative to maintain and expand the TRB goals. The Data and Information Systems (ABJ00) Section has strong leadership; the committees are doing a reasonably good job sharing information. Still, there is more that can be done in collaborating on research needs and annual meeting programs. James Hall has taken on the research for the Section, so this area is in good hands. What we need is for coordination among the committees on the research needs statements to get the hard-hitting statement we need.

There is really good coordination on the annual meeting program within the Section. I have received fairly good response to annual meeting sessions within the Policy and Organization Group as well. Getting dialogue outside of the Group remains a challenge.

There have been a few very good efforts about collaborating across Groups, particularly on conference and peer review organization. The meeting outcomes sometimes lag or just do not get done, e.g., the 2005 GIS and Asset Management Peer Review initiatives (perhaps this is a good thing that a 2nd peer is being planned) There is also a fairly robust data and safety breakfast each year at TRB, but that is far as it goes. There is little that I can tell that happens after the annual meeting.

What would be good is for the organizing group to revisit any TRB activity, say six months down the road, to follow up on outstanding issues. This is especially true for the research needs statement database. Many times multiple committees collaborate on research needs statements as an outcome of a workshop or peer review. A specific committee typically is assigned to input some or all the write-ups in the FNS database. Keeping track of these statements overtime is something we can do better. We also want each contributing committee to get credit for their work and also to continue monitoring these reports. Since they are listed under other committees, each committee’s research contact should key a list of all the research needs for which their committee contributed. From the ABJ20 perspective, there are three issues here: (1) updating or removing needs statements based on current activities, (2) combining similar type needs statements, and (3) using the needs statements to direct current activities, e.g., using the 2005 GIS and Asset Management Peer Review research needs statements as a starting point for the planned future peer review. Having James Hall as the Section Coordinator is great. Each committee can work with him on reviewing the needs statements.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

11. Annual Reports of Committee Activities (Please attach last three years of annual reports and supporting documents).

2 AtchABJ20 prioritiesABJ20 last 3 years annual reportsABJ20 Research needs statements

ABJ20 TSP 2009


Annual Report of Committee Activities

Each year, TRB staff fills in items below from TRB databases for committee review and editing. The committee chair submits the Annual Report to the Section Chair by March 1 of each year.


Committee Chairperson: Anita Vandervalk

Year: 2007

1. Current Committee Scope: The scope includes research and technology transfer activities pertaining to statewide transportation planning data and information systems for all modes of transportation. A primary concern is the capability of information systems to integrate various transportation related data sources into a strategic multimodal information database for statewide transportation planning. The committee serves as a forum for discussion of current planning data activities.

2. Committee Membership (See member distribution chart attached.)

A. Number of members at current time.1. Total 222. Young 0 3. Emeritus 1 4. International 1

3. Paper Review:

A. Number of papers reviewed during the last year 15B. Number of papers recommended for publication 4

4. Annual Meeting Sessions Sponsored (Lists of sessions for the last year are attached.)

A. Number of paper or conference sessions at the last annual meeting 1B. Number of workshop sessions at the last annual meeting 1C. Number of poster sessions at the last annual meeting 1D. Number of co-sponsored sessions at the last annual meeting 5E. Number of published sessions at the last annual meeting 1F. Number of unpublished sessions at the last annual meeting 0

ABJ20 TSP 2009

5. Research Problem Statements (Problem statements submitted in last year are attached.)

A. Number of problem statements submitted last year __

6. List of Critical and Cross-Cutting Issues (Issues the committee plans to address are attached.)

7. Other Activities Sponsored During the Last Year:

8. Appendix – Annual Meeting Sessions:

ABJ20 - Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Paper or Conference Session (S)s 373 (TPS07-023)Monday, January 22, 2007, 3:45pm- 5:30pm, Hilton, Georgetown EastHighway Performance Monitoring System Reassessment Update David R. Winter, Federal Highway Administration, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on National Transportation Data Requirements and Programs; Committee on Travel Survey Methods; Committee on Highway Traffic Monitoring; Committee on Urban Transportation Data and Information Systems

The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)is currently undergoing a reassessment to ensure that it best meets the goals of its users and customers in 2010 and beyond. The reassessment is intended to respond to current and future business needs, address new data needs in SAFETEA-LU, capitalize on changing technology, and where possible address resource constraints and institutional changes. This session highlights the recommended changes to HPMS including structure of the database, data items, data quality, and process improvement.

Federal Data User Perspective (P07-1054)

Edward Crichton, Federal Highway Administration

ABJ20 TSP 2009

AASHTO Perspective (P07-1055)

Janet Oakley, American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsState Perspective (P07-1056)

William R. Cloud, Montana Department of Transportation

Workshop (W)s 163 (TPW07-005)Sunday, January 21, 2007, 1:30pm- 5:00pm, Hilton, Monroe EastBenchmarking for Data Stewardship in Asset Management Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Information Systems and Technology; Committee on Transportation Asset Management

Effective management of enterprise data is the cornerstone for any optimized decision making related to asset management. During the 2006 TRB Annual Meeting, the workshop Data Stewardship: Meeting the Challenges of Enterprise Data Management demonstrated the technical elements of data stewardship and helped to identify the major challenges. The current workshop will build on that work and focus on the best practices in managing data stewardship. The workshop includes benchmarking best practices from other industries and a synthesis of initiatives and findings from other industries related to data stewardship. Relating the lessons learned, pitfalls, and best practices that can be implemented into the transportation domain will be explored.

Published Meeting - Committee (M)sTPM07-010Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 8:00am-12:00pm, Hilton, CaucusStatewide Transportation Data and Information Systems Committee Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

ABJ20 Cosponsored Sessions (only editable by the primary committee sponsor)

TPS07-005 Monday, January 22, 2007, 8:00am- 9:45am, Hilton, Lincoln EastSafety Management and Asset Management Thomas Maze, Iowa State University, presiding

SAFETEA-LU requires the development of state Strategic Highway Safety

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Plans, which include safety analysis for all public roads. There is clearly a need for better coordination and integration of data and decision making from various asset management systems within states. This session explores approaches to integrating safety management and asset management and reports on discussions at a recent peer exchange focusing on data integration. Integrating Safety and Physical Assets in the Financial Decision-Making Process (P07-0065)

Lowell R. Clary, Florida Department of TransportationWhat Needs to Take Place at the National Level to Integrate Resource Decision Making Across Safety and Other Asset Categories (P07-0066)

Anthony R. Kane, American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsIntegration of Safety Information with Physical Asset Information for Decision Making (P07-0195)

C. Douglass Couto, Michigan Department of Information TechnologySafety Management Data and Asset Management Data Integration Peer Exchange (P07-0196)

James P. Hall, University of Illinois, Springfield

TPS07-008 Monday, January 22, 2007, 7:30pm- 9:30pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastAgile Data Standards Development: Pipe Dream or Possibility? Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presiding

Challenges and Opportunities (P07-0035)

Frances D. Harrison, Spy Pond PartnersArchived Data User Service (P07-0036)

Shawn M. Turner, Texas Transportation InstituteTraffic Management Data Dictionary (P07-0037)

Robert Rausch, TransCoreThe Case for Standardizing Household Travel Surveys (P07-1337)

Chester G. Wilmot, Louisiana State University

TPS07-010 Monday, January 22, 2007, 10:15am-12:00pm, Hilton, Georgetown WestBuilding a Business Case for Data Programs: Barriers, Successes, and Expanding the Success Patricia S. Hu, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, presiding

Resource allocation and investment decisions that are based on accurate

ABJ20 TSP 2009

and timely data can save time and resources in the long run. That said, the development and sustenance of data programs continue to be absent in the business plans and strategies of many organizations. Since data programs require significant funding and enterprise-wide support, it is essential to build a business case for data programs. A data program with objectives clearly linked to performance measures and business results and backed with a solid business case is less vulnerable to budget cuts.

This session will share successful examples of how public agencies and industry have built a business case for their data programs.

Do We Really Need Transportation Data? (P07-1042)

Ed Christopher, Federal Highway AdministrationLeading with Data (P07-1006)

David S. Ekern, Virginia Department of TransportationData in Managing a Multi-Billion-Dollar Transportation Enterprise (P07-1007)

Randell H. Iwasaki, California Department of TransportationData-Driven Strategies to Improve Motor Carrier Safety (P07-1008)

Terry T. Shelton, Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationPanel Discussion: Road to More Success (P07-1043)

TPS07-012 Monday, January 22, 2007, 10:15am-12:00pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastImproving Highway Safety Through Better Crash Data Systems Anthony R. Kane, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, presiding

Each state currently collects, captures, maintains, and analyzes traffic accident data to improve safety through highway engineering, law enforcement, emergency medical services, and driver education. SAFETEA-LU includes resources for making investments in individual state systems and creating a national data repository to improve the richness of available data and raise the utility of safety investments. This session looks at where we are in building better data systems, grants available for these initiatives, the elements of successful awards, and state needs. Participants will discuss progress made the past year and future safety data system needs.Safety Data Improvement Grants from SAFETEA-LU (P07-0832)

Jack Oates, National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationStrategic Highway Safety Plans and Data Needs to Support Them (P07-0833)

Robert Pollack, Federal Highway AdministrationSafety Data Systems Task Group of AASHTO Subcommittee on

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Safety (P07-0831)

Tom Michael Welch, Iowa Department of TransportationHighlights of TRB Safety Peer Exchange (P07-0839)

Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

TPS07-028 Monday, January 22, 2007, 3:45pm- 5:30pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastSemantic Data Models: Building a Foundation for Data Sharing Frances D. Harrison, Spy Pond Partners, presiding

This session presents the latest research into developing a new generation of transportation data models that will provide the future foundation for data sharing across the World Wide Web. Participants will gain an appreciation for how formal semantic modeling can open up new possibilities for improved search and visualization applications. They will also gain an understanding of the critical challenges involved and have the opportunity to discuss future research and application needs.

Transportation Asset Management and Visualization Using Semantic Models and Google Earth (07-0570)

Michael T. Darter, University of California, Davis Ty A. Lasky, University of California, Davis Bahram Ravani, University of California, DavisSemantically Interoperable Transportation Data Model: Methodology and Application (07-1132)

Sung-Gheel Jang, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Tschangho John Kim, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignOntology Engineering for Management of Data in the Transportation Domain (07-1549)

Adolfo Benjamin Matamoros, University of Kansas

ABJ20 TSP 2009



Each year, TRB staff fills in items below from TRB databases for committee review and editing. The committee chair submits the Annual Report to the Section Chair by March 1 of each year.


Committee Chairperson: Anita Vandervalk

Year: 2008

1. Current Committee Scope: The scope includes research and technology transfer activities pertaining to statewide transportation planning data and information systems for all modes of transportation. A primary concern is the capability of information systems to integrate various transportation related data sources into a strategic multimodal information database for statewide transportation planning. The committee serves as a forum for discussion of current planning data activities.


B. Number of members at current time.1. Total 222. Young 0 3. Emeritus 1 4. International 1

4. Paper Review:

C. Number of papers reviewed during the last year 4D. Number of papers recommended for publication 4

4. Annual Meeting Sessions Sponsored (Lists of sessions for the last year are

ABJ20 TSP 2009

attached.)

A. Number of paper or conference sessions at the last annual meeting 2

B. Number of workshop sessions at the last annual meeting 2C. Number of poster sessions at the last annual meeting D. Number of co-sponsored sessions at the last annual meeting 6E. Number of published sessions at the last annual meeting 1F. Number of unpublished sessions at the last annual meeting 0


A. Number of problem statements submitted last year __

9. List of Critical and Cross-Cutting Issues (Issues the committee plans to address are attached.)


11. Appendix – Annual Meeting Sessions:ABJ20 - Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Paper or Conference Session (S)s 372 (TPS08-026)Monday, January 14, 2008, 3:45pm- 5:30pm, Hilton, CabinetSimple Solutions to Complex Roadway Data Collection: Capture Versus Collection Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Geographic Information Science and Applications

Iowa DOT Data Partnerships (P08-1002)

Peggi Knight, Iowa Department of TransportationUsing Digital Imaging to Meet Multiple Asset Data Collection Requirements (P08-1065)

Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Creating a State and Regional Road Data Collection Partnership in the Atlanta Urbanized Environment (P08-1069)

Jane H. Smith, Georgia Department of TransportationData Collection: Gateway to Asset Management (P08-1182)

Omar Smadi, Iowa State UniversityBuilding Data Collection into Business Processes (P08-1183)

Ronald L. Vibbert, Michigan Department of Transportation

408 (TPS08-031)Monday, January 14, 2008, 7:30pm- 9:30pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastSustaining Information Resources to Support Transportation Decisions Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Information Systems and Technology; Committee on National Transportation Data Requirements and Programs

More and more transportation agencies are viewing information and data programs as strategic business assets. This session will explore how and why information and data are becoming more critical to planning, policy, and program decisions. State department of transportation and national association speakers will share approaches to building cooperative and collaborative information programs that align with and support transportation decision making. Making the Case for Information Assets (P08-1072)

Joseph L. Schofer, Northwestern UniversityCoordinating Data Business Plans with IT Plans: Building a Cooperative Framework (P08-1075)

C. Douglass Couto, Michigan Department of Information TechnologyState Perspectives from Virginia (P08-1076)

Catherine McGhee, Virginia Transportation Research Council Jeff Price, Virginia Department of TransportationNational Perspectives and Visions for Information and Data Programs (P08-1078)

Janet Oakley, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Workshop (W)s 121 (TPW08-001)Sunday, January 13, 2008, 8:30am-12:00pm, Hilton, Jefferson WestChanges to U.S. Department of Transportation National Crossing

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Inventory File and Certain State Initiatives Tim Baker, Colorado Department of Transportation, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

The National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory File database is a source governmental agencies, railroads, and independent researchers can use to research the 277,000 crossings in the nation. Combined with the Crossing Accident-Incident File, the inventory file identifies the most risky crossings for improvements by using the Accident Prediction Model. This workshop will cover the background and purpose of the file, how it works, and how to access data. Changes to the DOT National Crossing Inventory File and Proposed Changes (P08-1082)

Thomas P. Woll, Federal Railroad AdministrationNew Mexico DOT HiiRide Railroad Inventory Database (P08-1751)

Henry R. Gonzales, New Mexico DOT Dinetha Thompson, ATTVenture LimitedOklahoma DOT Railroad Crossing Inventory System (P08-1753)

Brann Greager, Jacobs Carter Burgess Joe R. Kyle, Oklahoma Department of TransportationComprehensive Rail Crossing Inventory File Upgrade: Illinois Experience (P08-1084)

James P. Hall, University of Illinois, Springfield

172 (TPW08-003)Sunday, January 13, 2008, 1:30pm- 5:00pm, Hilton, Jefferson WestRecommended Revisions to AASHTO Guidelines for Traffic Data Programs David W. Gardner, Ohio Department of Transportation, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Highway Traffic Monitoring

An update to the AASHTO Guidelines for Traffic Data Programs, first published in 1992, was recently completed as an NCHRP study. The objective of the guidelines is to improve the quality of the traffic information that supports decisions at all levels of the transportation profession. This workshop will provide an overview of the recommended guidelines and discussion of the new guidelines.Overview of New Guidelines (P08-1017)

Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Travel Monitoring Guidelines: FHWA Perspective (P08-1089)

Harshad R. Desai, Federal Highway AdministrationTraffic Data Guidelines: State Perspective (P08-1093)

David W. Gardner, Ohio Department of Transportation

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Published Meeting - Committee (M)sTPM08-008Tuesday, January 15, 2008, 8:00am-12:00pm, Hilton, CaucusStatewide Transportation Data and Information Systems Committee Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems


TPP08-003 Monday, January 14, 2008, 9:30am-12:00pm, Hilton, International CenterSpectacular Data Mega Session William L. Eisele, Texas Transportation Institute, presiding

Sensor Locations on a Network to Predict Travel Times (08-0798)

Pitu B. Mirchandani, University of Arizona Yang He, University of ArizonaWork and Home Location: Possible Role of Social Networks (08-3073)

Nebiyou Yonas Tilahun, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities David Matthew Levinson, University of Minnesota, Twin CitiesQuantifying and Measuring Travel Time Reliability for In-Vehicle Navigation Systems (08-1688)

Ioannis Kaparias, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Michael G.H. Bell, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Heidrun Belzner, BMW Group, GermanyIdentifying Spatial and Temporal Congestion Characteristics Using Passive Mobile Phone Data (08-1534)

Shlomo Bekhor, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Moshe Hirsh, ROM Transportation Engineering, Israel Saleem Nimre, ITIS Traffic Services, Israel Israel Feldman, ITIS Traffic Services, IsraelThree-Dimensional In-Vehicle Navigation Using Photorealistic Urban Model for Intelligent Transportation System (08-0392)

Guoqing Zhou, Old Dominion University Linbing Wang, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityEffects of Controlling Parameters on Performance of a Decision-Rule Map-Matching Algorithm (08-1019)

Carola Blazquez, Universidad Nacional Andres Bello, Chile

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Alan P. Vonderohe, University of Wisconsin, MadisonAspace: An Open Source Toolkit for the Centrographic and Home-Range Estimation of Activity Spaces (08-0380)

Ron Buliung, University of Toronto, Canada Tarmo K Remmel, York University, CanadaUse of Global Positioning System Data Collected from Bus Automatic Vehicle Location Systems to Determine Location of Bus Stops in London (08-0472)

Steve Robinson, Transport for London, United KingdomDEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A SOFTWARE TOOL THAT INTEGRATES GPS AND VIDEO DATA FROM A ROAD ALIGNMENT TO PERFORM ROAD CONDITION, SAFETY AUDITS AND INVENTORY SURVEYS (08-0113)

Kelvin Roberto Santiago-Chaparro, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Benjamín Colucci-Rios, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Alberto M. Figueroa Medina, University of Puerto Rico, MayaguezGIS-Based Travel Demand Modeling for Estimating Traffic on Low-Class Roads (08-1098)

Ming Zhong, University of New Brunswick, CanadaUsing Incomplete Archived ITS Data to Calculate Annual Average Traffic Statistics: How Much Missing Data Is Too Much? (08-1146)

Shawn M. Turner, Texas Transportation Institute Eun Sug Park, Texas Transportation InstituteUsing Paratransit Global Positioning System Data to Evaluate Impacts of Emergency Vehicle Signal Preemption (P08-1117)

Hualiang Teng, University of Nevada, Las VegasOptimizing Archived Electronic Transportation Engineering Data (08-1904)

Laith Alfaqih, University of Alabama Carlos Sanchez, University of Alabama Andrew J. Graettinger, University of Alabama David Hale, University of AlabamaAmending the Incentive for Strategic Bias in Stated-Preference Studies: Case Study on Users' Valuation of Rolling Stock (08-1678)

Hui Lu, University of Leeds, United Kingdom Anthony Fowkes, University of Leeds, United Kingdom Mark Wardman, University of Leeds, United KingdomMeasuring Effects of Different Experimental Designs and Survey Administration Methods Using Atlanta Managed-Lanes Stated-Preference Survey (08-2670)

Stephane Hess, Imperial College London, United Kingdom Colin Smith, Resource Systems Group, Inc. C. Stacey Falzarano, Resource Systems Group, Inc. Jevan Stubits, Resource Systems Group, IncSix-Wave Odometer Panel for Evaluation of Voluntary Travel

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Behavior Change Programs (08-1424)

Peter R. Stopher, University of Sydney, Australia Natalie Swann, University of Sydney, AustraliaBayesian Updating of Transferred Household Travel Data Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation with Gibbs Sampler (08-1389)

Yongping Zhang, University of Illinois, Chicago Abolfazl Mohammadian, University of Illinois, ChicagoApproach for Collecting Internal Truck Travel Data: Lessons Learned from Maricopa Association of Government’s Internal Truck Travel Study (08-2577)

Arun R. Kuppam, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Vladimir Livshits, Maricopa Association of Governments Lavanya Vallabhaneni, Maricopa Association of Governments Mia Zmud, NuStats, LLC Julie Wilke, NuStats, LLC Rebecca Elmore-Yalch, Northwest Research Group, Inc. Michael J. Fischer, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Microsimulation of Household Travel Survey Data (08-3098)

Yongping Zhang, University of Illinois, Chicago Abolfazl Mohammadian, University of Illinois, ChicagoRetrospective Surveys: Some Experiences in the Context of Measuring Life-Cycle Events (08-2358)

Marloes Verhoeven, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Theo Arentze, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Harry J .P. Timmermans, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Peter J.H.J. Van der Waerden, Eindhoven University of Technology, NetherlandsNational Data Warehouse: How the Netherlands Is Creating Reliable, Widespread, and Accessible Data Bank for Traffic Information, Monitoring, and Control of Road Networks (08-2650)

Francesco Viti, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Serge Hoogendoorn, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser, AVV Transport Research Centre, Netherlands L. H. Immers, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium Chris Tampere, Catholic University Leuven, BelgiumA comparison of GPS and travel diaries to characterize walking behavior (08-0607)

Gihyoug Cho, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Daniel A. Rodriguez, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Kelly J. Clifton, University of Maryland, College Park Kelly Evenson, University of North Carolina, Chapel HillExamining Common Distributional Assumptions of Travel Characteristics for Data Simulation (08-1430)

Yongping Zhang, University of Illinois, Chicago

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Abolfazl Mohammadian, University of Illinois, ChicagoDeciding When or If Transport Survey Data Should Be Updated (08-2146)

Nariida Carolyn Smith, Meyrick and Associates, Australia Marcus Ramsay Wigan, Oxford Systematics, Australia

TPS08-005 Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 2:30pm- 4:00pm, Marriott, Thurgood Marshall WestLocal and Statewide Coordination in Safety Data Programs Anthony R. Kane, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, presiding

To make highway safety improvements, good integrated safety information allows for better problem identification, countermeasure development, and evaluation of implementations. However, most states maintain roadway and traffic data only for state-owned roadways. With advancements in information technology and coordination between local and state entities, these data for local roads can be reasonably collected and integrated. Example from State Perspective (P08-0025)

Peggi Knight, Iowa Department of Transportation Tom Michael Welch, Iowa Department of TransportationMetropolitan Planning Organization Perspective (P08-0026)

Michael Briggs, Mid-America Regional CouncilLocal Perspective (P08-0027)

Stanley F. Polanis, City of Winston-Salem

TPS08-015 Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 10:15am-12:00pm, Hilton, Lincoln WestTravel Data Users Forum: How Will the Changing Cost of Energy Affect Personal Travel? Ed Christopher, Federal Highway Administration, presiding

The 4th Annual Travel Data Users Forum explores one of the most important questions facing the transportation community and examines what data are needed to answer the question. Attendees will gain information to begin to shape and refine their own answers to this most important question. Setting the Energy Cost Stage (P08-0360)

David L. Greene, Oak Ridge National LaboratoryWhat is the MPO Perspective? (P08-0188)

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Charles L. Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation CommissionState Department of Transportation Perspective (P08-0206)

Nathan S Erlbaum, New York State Department of TransportationIs Transit Part of the Equation? (P08-1681)

Steven E. Polzin, University of South FloridaView form a Traffic Data Perspective (P08-1682)

David W. Gardner, Ohio Department of Transportation

TPS08-019 Monday, January 14, 2008, 3:45pm- 5:30pm, Hilton, MilitaryFindability of Transportation Information Frances D. Harrison, Spy Pond Partners, presiding

This session will bring together providers and users of both structured datasets and unstructured information related to transportation to discuss strategies for improving our ability to find information when it is needed. First, we will hear from representatives of information sharing initiatives. Then, we will facilitate a discussion with the audience about their unsuccessful attempts to find transportation information, and what is needed to improve findability. One-Stop Shopping for Regional Transportation Data: iNYMTC Information Gateway Vision and Progress (P08-0822)

Kuo-Ann Chiao, New York Metropolitan Transportation CouncilMaking Information Findable: State Department of Transportation Experience (P08-0916)

Ellen Oman, Washington State Department of TransportationMaking Information Findable: National Initiatives (P08-0961)

Amanda J. Wilson, Research and Innovative Technology AdministrationImproving Access to Transportation Documents: Roles of Repositories, Thesauri, Metadata, and Automated Keyword Generation (08-1064)

Marcus Ramsay Wigan, Oxford Systematics, Australia

TPW08-002 Sunday, January 13, 2008, 8:30am-12:00pm, Hilton, Monroe WestData Stewardship: Lessons Learned and Benefits Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presiding

Data stewardship is key to successful and efficient decision making, especially in road inventory and asset management. This workshop aims

ABJ20 TSP 2009

at showcasing actual cases of data stewardship in state departments of transportation, including data stewardship organizational architectures, technologies used, and implementation practices. The role of metadata and data standards in the successful implementation of data management systems will be highlighted.Data Stewardship: A Trilogy (P08-1179)

Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public FacilitiesVirgina Department of Transportation Approach to Data Stewardship (P08-1180)

Jeff Price, Virginia Department of TransportationFlorida Enterprise Geographic Information System and Unified Base Map: Lessons Learned (P08-1214)

Anita Vandervalk, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Kansas Department of Transportation Experience with Asset Management and Its Supporting Data (P08-1508)

Richard W. Miller, Kansas Department of TransportationSustainable Infrastructure: Techniques, Tools, & Guidelines (P08-1748)

Dana Vanier, National Research Council of CanadaOregon Department of Transportation Approach to Data Stewardship (P08-1749)

Jerri L. Bohard, Oregon Department of Transportation

TPW08-007 Sunday, January 13, 2008, 1:30pm- 5:00pm, Hilton, Georgetown EastRemote Sensing Technologies for Transportation Applications Robert Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, presiding

This workshop considers practical uses of satellite and airborne collected remotely sensed data, derived information, and attendant geographic information system-based algorithms and software tools for use in transportation department functions. Results of the Transportation Applications of Restricted Use Technology Study will be discussed with an emphasis on lessons learned and next steps. Case studies will demonstrate the broader application of these emerging tools. Remote Sensing for Transportation Fundamentals (P08-0047)

Robert A. Shuchman, Michigan Tech Research InstituteCase Study: Michigan Department of Transportation Study on Transportation Applications of Restricted Use Technologies (P08-0049)

Colin Brooks, Michigan Tech Research InstituteRemote Sensing and Spatial Information Technologies for Transportation Corridor and Environmental Planning (P08-0050)

Charles O'Hara, Mississippi State UniversityCase Study: Airfield Site Selection Using Visualization Tools (P08-0051)

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Robert Walker, U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCase Study: Rapid Airfield Damage Assessment (P08-0205)

Andrew Kopeikin, Air Force Research LaboratoryCase Study: Freight Flow Modeling at Border Crossings for Congestion Mitigation (P08-0052)

Mark R. McCord, Ohio State UniversityEmerging Tools for Visualization (P08-0053)

Tyler Erickson, Michigan Tech Research InstituteInternet Map Services (P08-0054)

Colin Brooks, Michigan Tech Research Institute




Committee Chairperson: Jack Stickel

Year: April 15, 2008 to April 15, 2009

1. Current Committee Scope: Research and technology transfer activities pertaining to transportation data and information systems for statewide planning covering all modes of transportation. A primary concern is the capability for data management and information systems to integrate various transportation data sources to support a strategic intermodal statewide transportation planning function. The committee serves as a forum for discussion of current planning data activities.


C. Number of members at current time.1. Total 20

ABJ20 TSP 2009

2. Young 2 3. Emeritus 1 4. International 1

5. Paper Review:

E. Number of papers reviewed during the last year 3F. Number of papers recommended for publication 1

4. Annual Meeting Sessions Sponsored (Lists of sessions for the last year are

attached.)

A. Number of paper or conference sessions at the last annual meeting 3

B. Number of workshop sessions at the last annual meeting 1C. Number of poster sessions at the last annual meeting 1 D. Number of co-sponsored sessions at the last annual meeting 5E. Number of published sessions at the last annual meeting 1F. Number of unpublished sessions at the last annual meeting 0


ABJ20 collaborated on research needs statements from two peer exchanges: (1) Aligning Data to Support Transportations and (2) Open Architecture to Support Data Integrations. These problem statements were entered in the RNS database by the ABJ50 Committee – Information Systems and Technology Committee. The research needs are list below and the problem statements are attached.

A. Number of problem statements submitted last year (cooperative) - 7a. Open Source Community for Open Architectureb. Common List of Services for State DOT Information Systemsc. Common Framework for State DOT Information Systems

Architecture – Scoping Studyd. Collaboration Site for Transportation Open Architecture

Communitye. Open Architecture Primerf. Case Studies of Open Architectureg. Explore Hosting Models for State DOT’s to Use for New

Applications

B. Problem statements waiting entry:

ABJ20 TSP 2009

a. Cost vs. Benefit Value and Return of Investment for data systems

b. Effective data governance frameworkc. Analytical tools – turning data into information to support

decisionsd. Performance measures for datae. Data terminology standards – which standards are needed and

type: thesaurus, taxonomy, semantics, or just definitions

12. List of Critical and Cross-Cutting Issues:a) Data governance – align data programs with the agencies transportation

decisionsb) Climate change – evaluate the specific impacts of climate change on

transportation systems and define the transportation data requirements to support the program

c) Data quality – ensure quality data and data availability for information needs, decision-making, and enterprise performance measures

d) Data as an investment - quantify the value of data as a transportation investment and communicate the importance of data systems to achieve adequate funding for data systems

e) Highway safety – establish data programs and analytical tools for highway safety that incorporate roadway elements, asset management, geographic information system, and vehicle crash data

f) Knowledge management – capture enterprise experience and knowledge transfer both within and across the organization

g) Open architecture – create open information technology systems for transportation data systems within and across organizations

h) Performance measure – establish a framework for effective transportation data program performance evaluation for data and agency programs

i) Real-time data management systems – create an enterprise plan to meet the final rule for SAFETEA-LU Section 1201 requirements


a) Aligning Data to Support Transportation Decisions Peer Exchange – Keck Center, Washington, DC May 15 – 16, 2008

b) Data and Information Systems Section Retreat – Beckman Center, Irvine CA, March 19 – 20, 2008

c) Open Architecture to Support Data Integration Peer Exchange – Keck Center, Washington, DC May, 13 – 14, 2008

d) Materially participated in:d. Data Quality Workshop – FHWA Headquarters,

Washington, DC, July 8 – 9, 2008e. North American Travel Monitoring Exposition and

Conference (NATMEC) – Washington, DC, August 6 – 8,

ABJ20 TSP 2009

2008f. Federal Surface Transportation Requirements in Statewide

and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Conference – Atlanta, GA, September 3 – 5, 2008

14. Appendix – Annual Meeting Sessions:

ABJ20 - Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Paper or Conference Session (S)s 369 (TPS09-028)Monday, January 12, 2009, 3:45pm- 5:30pm, Hilton, Lincoln WestReturn on Investment: Costs and Benefits of Collecting Safety Data Anita Vandervalk-Ostrander, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Geographic Information Science and Applications; Committee on Safety Data, Analysis and Evaluation; Committee on Transportation Safety Management

What is the value of data? Over 40,000 people are killed each year on US highways. To reduce these numbers, there is national consensus that decisions must be driven by data, especially geospatial data. It is possible to quantify the cost of collecting and maintaining data, but what is the value of these data? This session focuses on assessing the benefits of crash, roadway inventory, and driver behavior data to support safety analysis. Benefits of Geospatial Applications for Safety Analysis (P09-1097)

James P. Hall, University of Illinois, SpringfieldReturn on Investment of Safety Data from a State Perspective (P09-1100)

Jake Kononov, Colorado Department of TransportationIntegrating Behavioral, Crash, and Inventory Data: Benefits from a Research Perspective (P09-1101)

Shauna Hallmark, Iowa State UniversitySafety Data: Reaction from a State Department of Transportation CEO (P09-1103)

Susan Martinovich, Nevada Department of Transportation

771 (TPS09-030)Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 4:30pm- 6:00pm, Hilton, Georgetown EastPromising Applications of New Private Traffic Data Sources in Operations and Planning

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Anita Vandervalk-Ostrander, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Update on I-95 Vehicle Probe Project: Data Applications (P09-1112)

Stanley E. Young, University of Maryland, College ParkNational Traffic Scorecard and Its Implications (P09-1113)

Rick Schuman, INRIXThe Future of Traffic Data from Cell Phones: Where Are We Going? (P09-1114)

Quinn Jacobson, NokiaFederal Highway Perspective on Private Data Sources: Uses and Issues (P09-1115)

James S. Pol, Federal Highway Administration

316 (TPS09-031)Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:30pm- 3:15pm, Hilton, Lincoln WestTransportation Data Needs for Climate Change Evaluation and Mitigation Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Recent studies have highlighted the potential impacts of climate change on the multimodal transportation infrastructure and societies' quality of life. The global greenhouse gas contribution is being widely discussed, but there are other potential impacts as well. What multimodal transportation data can contribute to the overall climate change evaluation? This session explores what data a transportation agency should be collecting and sharing for climate change study and mitigation. Data and Analytic Methods Needed to Address GHG Emissions (P09-1708)

Richard A. Margiotta, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Data Needed to Formulate Climate Change Transportation Policy (P09-1117)

Cynthia J. Burbank, PB Americas, Inc.AASHTO Primer on Transportation and Climate Change (P09-1118)

Bill Malley, Perkins Cole LLPState Department of Transportation Approaches to Climate Change (P09-1124)

R. Gregg Albright, California Department of TransportationTransportation Data Input In Climatological Modeling (P09-1709)

Ahsha Tribble, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Workshop (W)s 158 (TPW09-008)Sunday, January 11, 2009, 1:30pm- 4:30pm, Hilton, MilitaryAligning Data Programs to Meet Transportation Agency Needs Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Transportation Asset Management; Committee on Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning

With the increasing complexity and cost of data programs, a data management framework can help meet the requirements for interoperability, access, and exchange. This workshop focuses on identifying short- and long-term strategies to guide states in aligning transportation data and information programs with investment decisions. Three states will lead discussions on achieving sustainable support for strategic information assets and data system resource needs through data business plans.Michigan's Approach to Aligning Data Programs (P09-1099)

Ronald L. Vibbert, Michigan Department of TransportationVirginia's Approach to Aligning Data Programs (P09-1102)

Jeff Price, Virginia Department of TransportationAligning Data and Information to Support Transportation Decisions in Minnesota (P09-1104)

Matt Koukol, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Published Meeting - Committee (M)sTPM09-005Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 8:00am-12:00pm, Hilton, CaucusStatewide Transportation Data and Information Systems Committee Jack R. Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, presidingSponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Published Meeting - Gathering (G)sTPG09-004Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:15pm- 1:15pm, Hilton, FarragutTransportation Infrastructure Preservation and Management Conference Planning Committee (members only)Joseph L. Schofer, Northwestern University, presiding

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Sponsored by Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems


MMS09-019 Monday, January 12, 2009, 10:15am-12:00pm, Hilton, International WestExecutive Information Needs and Data Availability Frances D. Harrison, Spy Pond Partners, presidingSponsored by Committee on Strategic Management; Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Performance Management Needs (P09-0433)

Pete Rahn, Missouri Department of TransportationQuestions from a City Executive (P09-0434)

Dan Tangherlini, District of Columbia Department of TransportationAsset Management Needs (P09-0435)

Michael Bridges, Louisiana Department of Transportation and DevelopmentRespondents (P09-0436)

Jonette Kreideweis, Minnesota Department of Transportation Jeff Price, Virginia Department of Transportation Catherine Theresa Lawson, State University of New York, Albany

MMW09-017 Sunday, January 11, 2009, 9:00am-12:00pm, Hilton, MilitaryDeveloping Transportation Data Quality Standards Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada, presidingSponsored by Committee on Transportation and Sustainability; Committee on Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems; Committee on Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning; Committee on Transportation Asset Management

This workshop explores ways to improve transportation-related data quality, particularly a research program to develop international standards for data collection and distribution. Transportation-related data include statistics on transport facilities, vehicles, activities, and impacts suitable for research and planning. Data quality factors include the accuracy, consistency, and availability of such data, especially the ability to compare data between jurisdictions.Overview of Transportation Data Quality Issues (P09-1327)

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, CanadaData for What? (P09-1535)

Martin E. H. Lee-Gosselin, Laval University, CanadaInternational Perspectives on Transportation Data Quality (P09-1328)

Lee Schipper, University of California, BerkeleyA Roundtable Discussion of Current U.S. Activities (P09-1330)

Johanna P. Zmud, NuStats, LLC Michael S. Griffith, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration David R. Winter, Federal Highway Administration Augustus "Chip" Chidester, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TPP09-003 Monday, January 12, 2009, 9:30am-12:00pm, Hilton, International CenterDetecting Traffic Steven Jessberger, Federal Highway Administration, presiding

These are posters on detecting traffic, evaluating detectors, imputation, data fusion, and more. Come and talk with the authors!Video-Based Vehicle Detection and Tracking Using Spatiotemporal Maps (09-1580)

Yegor Malinovskiy, University of Washington Yao-Jan Wu, University of Washington Yinhai Wang, University of WashingtonEvaluating the Health of California's Loop Sensor Network (09-1728)

Ram Rajagopal, University of California, Berkeley Pravin Varaiya, University of California, BerkeleyPortable Loop Fault Diagnosis Tool Development for Control Cabinet Level (09-1649)

Xiao-Yun Lu, University of California, Berkeley ZuWhan ZuWhan Kim, University of California, Berkeley Meng Cao, University of California, Berkeley Pravin Varaiya, University of California, Berkeley Roberto Horowitz, University of California, Berkeley Joe Palen, California Department of TransportationPractical Algorithm for Identifying and Correcting Single-Loop Sensitivity Problems (09-0930)

Patikhom Cheevarunothai, INCA Engineers Inc. Yinhai Wang, University of WashingtonVehicle Detector Evaluation for Securing Traceability (09-0459)

Jinhwan Jang, Korea Institute of Construction Technology Namchul Baik, Korea Institute of Construction TechnologyToward Improved and Transparent Imputation Techniques for Online Traffic Data Streams and Archiving Applications (09-1559)

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Rafael J. Fernández-Moctezuma, Portland State University Robert Lawrence Bertini, Portland State University David Maier, Portland State University Kristin A. Tufte, Portland State UniversityManaging Travel Time Data: Analysis of Fusion and Archiving Challenges (09-1301)

James Richardson, University of Virginia Brian Lee Smith, University of VirginiaPaso Del Norte Regional Mobility Information System: Creating Archived Transportation Data User Services and Advanced Traveler Information System (09-3184)

Rajat Rajbhandari, Texas A&M University Rafael Manuel Aldrete, Texas Transportation InstituteDevelopment and Application of Weather Factors for Accurate Estimation of AADT from Short Duration Counts (09-2358)

Sandeep Datla, Alberta Transportation, Canada Satish Sharma, University of Regina, Canada

TPS09-020 Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:30pm- 3:15pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastFaster Information Technology in State Departments of Transportation: Promises and Challenges of Open Architecture Frances D. Harrison, Spy Pond Partners, presiding

Summary Report: TRB Peer Exchange on Open Architecture (P09-0538)

James P. Hall, University of Illinois, SpringfieldTransforming Enterprise Information Integration at VDOT: Vision and Progress to Date (P09-0541)

Murali Rao, Virginia Department of Transportation

TPS09-021 Monday, January 12, 2009, 7:30pm- 9:30pm, Hilton, Lincoln EastTravel Data Users Forum: Focus on Vehicle Miles Traveled Ed Christopher, Federal Highway Administration, presiding

VMT is one of the most widely used transportation data metrics, yet its use can bring the ire of data analyst when it is used incorrectly or out of context. But how can VMT as a performance metric be so ubiquitous yet so controversial? Attendees will gain a better understanding of where VMT comes from, when and how to use it, and why it can be so controversial. Bring your questions. This session will mark the 5th Annual Travel Data Users Forum.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Vehicle Miles Traveled 101: What Is VMT? How Is It measured? What Are the Sources? (P09-0551)

Don H. Pickrell, Volpe National Transportation Systems CenterThe "Official" VMT Estimate (P09-0552)

Tianjia Tang, Federal Highway AdministrationPanel Perspectives on VMT (P09-0553)

Jon D. Fricker, Purdue University Guy Rousseau, Atlanta Regional Commission Frank Southworth, Oak Ridge National Laboratory James Whitty, Oregon Department of Transportation

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Research Needs StatementsABJ20 – Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

Table of Contents

Geographic Information System Cost/Benefit Analysis Template.........................................................2

Best Practices for Establishing a State Freight Data Framework......................................................4

Real-Time Transfer of Information to the Customer.........................................................................6

Data Models for Visualizing Spatial Information..............................................................................8

Standardization of Spatial Symbologies...............................................................................................9

Temporal Issues for Asset Management............................................................................................10

Life Cycle Analysis of Designing Highways for Safety.....................................................................11

Incorporating Traffic Safety Risk Management into the Asset Management Process..........................14

How do we Convince the Locals to Participate in Statewide Highway Safety Data Programs?.............17

Synthesis for Visualizing Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data Integration...............................................20

Open Architectures to Support Data Integration Projects...................................................................22

Guidelines for Conducting Business Process Reviews for Successful Data Integration Projects to Support Asset Management and Safety Management Systems..........................................................24

Highway Safety as an Asset: Incorporating Safety Performance Metrics in State Level Planning and Programming....................................................................................................................................27

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Geographic Information System Cost/Benefit Analysis Template

Objective

To develop a cost/benefit template to assess risk and prioritize potential Geographic Information System products for program development. Research NeedFrom a program development standpoint, incorporating Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities intuitively makes sense with increased access to information and the development of spatial analysis tools and outputs to improve decision making. However, the individual GIS product development can be complex with the need to access information across, and externally to, the organization. There are often multiple options for GIS project selection with limited organizational resources including budgetary, time and personnel. Challenges to state DOT managers are determining the feasibility of potential projects, assessing the integration with ongoing Information Technology efforts, and deciding where to deploy resources. Key factors to minimize risk are the identification of high benefit and high interest projects with a high likelihood of implementation. GIS capabilities may simply make existing tasks more efficient or may result in the complete redesign of some organizational processes. It is often difficult to assess risk in terms of organizational, economic and technological feasibility. Risk assessment entails the identification of costs and the quantification of tangible and typically intangible benefits in some manner. Primary costs are for hardware/software, data preparation, staffing, and coding of GIS applications. Depending on the specific product, there may already be elements of the necessary GIS infrastructure in place. It is important to identify and build on the existing GIS infrastructure. The identification of benefits should be on an individual product basis and encompass both tangible and intangible benefits. Tangible benefits result from improvements to existing tasks such as reducing travel or enabling quicker preparation of cartographic products. The more substantial benefits of better decision-making are usually less obvious and quantifiable, especially since GIS will enable new ways to view and analyze information. An example is better identification of the causes of accidents to develop effective countermeasures in roadway program development. Benefit analysis requires further investigation in the decision-making process of staff, management, and stakeholders. Benefits identification should not only be from a DOT/user perspective but also from a stakeholder perspective (traveling public, public agencies, MPOs and the environment). The focus should be on improving decision making – what are the impacts of better decisions?

ABJ20 TSP 2009

State agencies often require a cost/benefit analysis of proposed Information Technology projects. This research would supplement this analysis by investigating specific applications in leading states in spatial analysis techniques and developing a framework focusing on the typical benefits to program development personnel. The research would include an investigation of Information Technology project assessment techniques of other agencies.

The overall objective of this research is to develop a template to perform a cost/benefit analysis of GIS applications. This tool will help DOTs better evaluate proposed GIS projects and understand likely payoffs for technology investment. This template would include the following components:

1. Framework to assess organizational, technological and economic feasibility

2. Identification of typical costs

3. Identification of typical tangible benefits 4. Methodologies to identify and quantify traditionally intangible benefits. 5. Framework to prioritize potential projects

This research and investigation would yield a template for state DOT personnel and the GIS community to perform risk assessment and prioritize potential spatial analysis products.

Costs$50,000

TimeframeSix Months

Subjects

Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysIntermodalPlanning and Forecasting

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=23::Planning%20and%20Forecasting

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=4::Intermodal

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=3::Highways

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=13::Data%20and%20Information%20Technology

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=11::Administration%20and%20Management

Best Practices for Establishing a State Freight Data Framework

Objective

To investigate best state practices in linking freight data sources and customer needs to support statewide transportation planning.

Research Need

In July 2005, the TRB Statewide Transportation Data and Systems Committee sponsored a peer exchange to investigate state transportation agency collection and use of freight data. The peer exchange included a fourteen state survey of freight data practices. Survey results and subsequent peer exchange discussions highlighted the increasing importance of freight information for planning studies and modal analysis. State agencies indicated there were major deficiencies in freight data accessibility, quality and usability. However, several agencies revealed creativeapproaches to acquiring and providing freight data to meet customer needs.

The focus of this research is to investigate best practices of freight-active statetransportation agencies in three areas:

1. Identification of high priority freight information needs of transportation planners and customers (stakeholders) including the industry.

2. Identification of major national, state and local data sources.

3. Processes used to integrate data from these sources to meet decision-making needs. This would include the reasoning process and resultant benefits. 4. Describe an underlying framework used that could be used by other state DOTs in incorporating freight data for planning and analysis.

ABJ20 TSP 2009

The study would build on the recently started NCHRP project ?-?? to identify best organizational practices for state DOTs in support of freight planning.The study would also provide a starting point in identifying customer needs and data gaps.

Costs

$70,000

TimeframeSeven Months

Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Freight Data for State Transportation Agencies Peer Exchange

July 11, 2005, Boston, Massachusetts

Sponsoring TRB Committee: Statewide Data and Information Systems (ABJ20)

Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C080Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Freight handling, Freight traffic, Freight transportation, Best practices, Customers, Transportation planning, Accessibility, Freight data, State departments of transportation, Usability, Subjects Administration and ManagementHighwaysIntermodalOperations and Traffic ManagementPlanning and Forecasting

ABJ20 TSP 2009


http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=21::Operations%20and%20Traffic%20Management




http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?i=&n=ABJ20%2C+Statewide+Transportation+Data+and+Information+Systems&ddlType=RNS&orgType=S&status=&date_params=&lower_date=1900&upper_date=2099&sb=&so=a%3A%3AAscending&f1=k%3A%3AKeywords+(Title+or+Description)&t1=&selOrgs=c&txtOrgs=ABJ20%2C+Statewide+Transportation+Data+and+Information+Systems&sc=xx%3A%3AAll+Categories

Real-Time Transfer of Information to the Customer Problem:

Transportation agencies have the ability to collect considerable data about how a transportation facility is performing. As technology becomes more and more sophisticated, transportation agencies have the ability to make real-time performance date available to the customer. Research is needed to determine costs and benefits of real-time transfer of performance data to the customer.

Specifically, research is needed to determine the effectiveness of real-time data to influence travel decisions of individuals, passenger transportation service providers, and freight haulers. This research is especially important for influences on travel among regions and states to support the development of effective data exchanges among states under section 1201 of SAFETEA-LU.

Objectives:

Research the best practices and cost-benefit of real-time transfer of performance data to the customer.

Document the success of real-time data as influence on individual travelers to adjust travel patterns based on the availability of data.

Determine what information is needed and how to make it available to the customer in a useful framework that will contribute to the spread of demand between modes to optimize system capacity.

Research how quickly travelers can absorb and change choices. Key Words: Real-time; Performance measures Related Work:

NCHRP IDEA – Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis. NCHRP and TCRP have a number

ABJ20 TSP 2009

of ongoing research projects focused on the best use of performance data to improve system efficiency and maximize capacity. FHWA and FTA sponsor the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program

Urgency/Priority:

As financial resources to expand transportation infrastructure capacity diminish, the ability to use data and technology to maximize capacity is critically important.

SAFETEA-LU requires within 2 years of enactment the establishment of data exchange formats to ensure that the data provided by highway and transit monitoring systems, including statewide incident reporting systems, can be readily exchanged to facilitate nationwide availability of information. Data exchange formats should be based on the types of information deemed useful to interstate travelers and this important to share.

Cost: Estimate cost for the research $225,000 User Community:

The primary audiences for this research are the chief operating officers and informational technology (IT) managers for transportation agencies.

Implementation

Information needs to be put forward in a useful toolkit approach for use at an applications level. Effectiveness

This research can help determine how to use data and technology to provide information to the customer that may influence travel behavior.

Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Challenges of Data for Performance Measures Workshop

July 8, 2006, San Diego, California

Sponsoring TRB Committees: Data and Information Systems Section (ABJ00)Performance Measurement Committee (ABC30)

Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C115Author: Linda Cherrington, Texas Transportation InstituteOn behalf of the “Challenges for Performance Measures Workshop”This proposal was generated by the Challenges of Data for Performance Measures Workshop held on July 8, 2006. The concept was to bring both performance measures and data professionals together to share experiences and identify key issues relating to the data sources used to support performance measures. A total of 25 state and MPO representatives participated in active discussion groups, along with 13 others. This proposal was ranked #4 in importance by the workshop planning committee that was led by Randy Halvorson of Minnesota DOT.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Real time information, Real time control, Information dissemination, Information systems, Information technology, Data collection, Passenger transportation, Customer service, Customers, Performance measurement, Travel data, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysIntermodalPlanning and Forecasting

ABJ20 TSP 2009







Data Models for Visualizing Spatial Information Data modeling and visualization are important capabilities of spatial technologies. However, many agencies are searching for effective ways to analyze, model and display information to assist in complex asset management decision making. The spatial access to information can be overwhelming with conflicting views of how to use the data. It is important for agency personnel develop methods to view the data for decisions on trade offs, gap analysis and network condition. Basic questions that agencies should ask is what is asset management in my agency and what are we trying to model. This will help address the types of modeling to support specific functions. For example, forecasting mechanisms for condition assessment and program development can be powerful tools. However, many agencies are struggling to model the complexities of available data. There is a need to take spatial data to the next level and produce outputs that answer complex questions and assist in programmatic choices. Current efforts for modeling are at a smaller level of integration and agencies are using an incremental approach to develop products. However, with the increasing trend towards the enterprise integration of asset management related spatial data, there is a need to develop corresponding analytical and modeling tools and techniques. There is also a need to investigate what other agencies are using and to portray differences between state and local agencies.

Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems

ABJ20 TSP 2009


Source Info: Developed from the Spatial Information Technologies for Asset Management Peer Exchange

October 30-31, 2005, Kansas City, Missouri

Sponsoring TRB Committees: Transportation Asset Management Committee (ABC40)Spatial Data and Information Science Committee (ABJ60)

Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C108Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Data collection, Databases, Data models, Visualization, Spatial analysis, Information technology, Asset management, Decision making, Condition assessment, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysIntermodalPlanning and Forecasting

Standardization of Spatial Symbologies With advances in spatial technologies, and applications accessible via the Intranet/Internet, spatial views of information are growing in use across many transportation, government and public functions. The breadth of applications include program development, pavement management, and safety management. There is a need for standardization of spatial symbologies to represent features to assist in understanding across a broad base of users, practitioners and managers. The symbology should incorporate a higher level view and more detailed query or feature classes. Standard symbols should also have portability among multiple agencies such as states and local government agencies. Examples include the spatial display of multi-lane facilities, traffic categories, traveler information, congestion, and roadway crash characteristics in commonly accepted symbology formats. A research synthesis would provide potential sources to guide this symbology development including cartographic legends, international standards, FHWA mapping guidelines, and utilities. The symbology should also accommodate persons with disabilities and meet appropriate standards. Other potential symbology sources include the ITS community, design standards (CADD), leading transportation agencies, natural resource agencies and possibly AASHTO standards. Since many transportation agencies are currently developing these types of accessible spatial applications, standardized symbologies will enable agencies to address these issues early in the development process. Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Spatial Information Technologies for Asset Management Peer Exchange

ABJ20 TSP 2009









Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C108Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Standardization, Spatial analysis, Symbology, Intelligent transportation systems, Pavement management systems, Safety management, Traveler information and communication systems, Traffic congestion, Transportation departments, Multilane highways, Design standards, Subjects Data and Information TechnologyHighwaysIntermodalPavementsPlanning and Forecasting

Temporal Issues for Asset Management Asset management activities include the analysis of assets over time, in particular for performance assessment and forecasting purposes. As such, access to a spatially enabled historical information resource is needed. Asset management related data attributes have a time period for which they are valid (more than just time stamping) and base maps are frequently used as snapshots to depict data from a given time. There is also a need to communicate resource requirements within the framework of what agencies plan to do and what they have accomplished. Temporal issues also have a future component. Agencies need the capability to show the implications of decisions on the future conditions of assets. In short, agencies need to know where they are now; they need to know how they got there; and most importantly from an asset management perspective, they need to know how they will get to where they want to be in the future. There was also discussion on the appropriate level of temporal data for asset management. Through examples, the participants noted that the intended uses of the data changed the degree of precision needed for temporal attributes. For instance, the timing of pothole repairs for an operations group might need to be recorded to the day or hour of the work for scheduling purposes. On the other hand, a budgeting group might only need temporal data recorded by month, quarter or year. Some of the benefits of having temporal capabilities included legal implications. An example is fixing tripping locations on a sidewalk where the incident under litigation occurred 7 years prior. Transportation agencies need to be able to turn back the clock and know the condition of assets (and the corresponding

ABJ20 TSP 2009


http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=22::Pavements




liabilities) at that time. Finally, the peer discussed the need to investigate if anyone has already solved or partially solved the temporal issues with asset management related data. One suggestion was to look at other areas such as utilities to see if they have developed transferable solutions to these types of problems.

Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Spatial Information Technologies for Asset Management Peer Exchange



Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C108Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Asset management, Temporal analysis, Forecasting, Data collection, Information technology, Information systems, Decision making, Litigation, Temporal data, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysIntermodalPlanning and Forecasting

ABJ20 TSP 2009







Life Cycle Analysis of Designing Highways for Safety Problem Statement Facilities may become less safe as traffic volumes and other conditions change. For example, for at-grade intersections on multi-lane, median divided, minor road stop controlled highways, safety performance decreases with increasing minor road volumes. When minor roadway volume is low (say less than 1,000 vehicles per day), such a two-way stop-controlled intersection generally operates very safely. As minor traffic volume rises to above 2,000 vehicles per day, the intersection should be examined for improvement to grade separation or other less conventional improved geometry. At 4,000 vehicles per day minor road volume, the safety benefits of building an interchange almost always exceed its cost of construction. In addition, there are number of design improvements that can be made throughout this type of intersection’s life cycle to improve safety (see NCHRP 15-30). Understanding how traffic volumes, mix, traffic patterns (percentage trucks, turning movement volumes, etc.) and adjacent land use impact the safety of an intersection or highway segment can facilitate the provision of guidance for improvements across the facility’s life cycle. Improvements can be pro-active in anticipation rather than reactive after poor safety performance occurs. In other words, by considering the relationship between geometry, operations, control and safety performance throughout a facility’s life cycle, safety problems can be prevented. This project will structure an approach for planning facility improvement throughout the lifecycle of highway links and intersections. In conjunction with a project panel, three types of common intersection geometry and two types of highway segment geometry will be selected for framing a safety lifecycle analysis. Once the five typical geometries have been identified, Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) will be identified for each from the literature. The SPFs and example costs of typical countermeasure (taken from such sources as the NCHRP 500 series) will be used to define thresholds for when countermeasure may become cost beneficial. For example, along a five-lane arterial street with continuous two-way left-turn lane, at what driveway density, speed, and volume do driveway consolidation, frontage roads, or back roads become cost effective from a safety standpoint? Because each “real-world” situation is unique, this analysis can only result in general thresholds. However, the analysis can provide corridor managers and highway planners with a structure for planning for the safety lifecycle of a facility as well as thresholds to use for guidance. Research Objectives Principally, the objective of this research is to develop a structure for planning for the lifecycle of a facility. While focusing on five common types of intersection and roadway segment geometries, a secondary objective of the research is to provide guidance on when geometric improvement for safety should be considered. The structure developed should be flexible such that individual agencies can use the research as guidance to develop their own lifecycle planning guidelines which fit their own unique characteristics. Specific tasks to support this objective include:

Review the literature to identify several roadway segment and intersection types with common geometry that have sufficient prior safety statistical analysis to support the research identified in future tasks.

Identify several common geometries for roadway segments and intersections and present the pros and cons of each for further analysis. Support the panel’s selection of the final five common types.

Develop a list of design, access management, traffic control, etc. strategies that can be used at each of the five typical geometries over their lifecycle and develop a typical cost estimate for each (see http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC/PDF/Counter_Measures.pdf for example costs of counter measures).

For each of the five selected geometries, use the SPFs from the literature to identify thresholds for when safety performance has decreased enough to make selected crash counter measures

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC/PDF/Counter_Measures.pdf

cost effective. Within each analysis, perform sensitivity analysis so that the report can identify to what extent local conditions will change the timing of when each improvement is justified.

Develop guidelines for transportation agencies to adopt and modify the lifecycle thresholds and lifecycle planning their own unique applications.

Conduct a daylong workshop with transportation agency corridor managers and systems planners to introduce concepts, train in their use, and to obtain feedback for the final manual/report.

Draft the final manual/report. Key Words Safety Analysis, Countermeasure, Lifecycle planning, Corridor planning, Related Work NCHRP 15-30 is a project that has identified several safety improvements to intersections of rural median divided highways that may be applied throughout the lifecycle of this type of intersection. While the NCHRP 500 series has developed guidance on countermeasures at intersections and highway segments, it does not provide guidance for planning and programming these improvements throughout the lifecycle of the facility. Urgency/Priority This project should be started as early as possible as NCHRP 500 is complete and 15-30 is nearing completion. User Community State agencies, MPOs, local government, FHWA, AASHTO Implementation Provide instruction for the implementation and adaptation of lifecycle planning guidelines for immediate application by agencies. Effectiveness Results will allow corridor managers and highway planners to take into account the safety needs of roadway segments and intersections throughout the life of the facility and facilitate aggressive national safety goals. Estimated Cost $300,000, 18 months

Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange

November 1-2, 2006, Washington, D.C.

Sponsoring TRB Committees: Transportation Asset Management Committee (ABC40)Statewide Transportation Data and Information Systems Committee (ABJ20)Geographic Information Science and Applications Committee (ABJ60)

Published in TRB Electronic Circular E-C111

ABJ20 TSP 2009


Priority Rank: Number 7 of 7.Authors: Tom Maze and Reginald Souleyrette, Iowa State University, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”

This proposal was generated and identified as a priority by the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange held on November 1-2, 2006. The concept was to bring both data and highway safety professionals together to share experiences and identify key issues relating to integrating data sources used to support safety management and introducing asset management concepts into the highway safety management arena.

A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Tom Maze and Reginald Souleyrette of the Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Life cycle analysis, Highway design, Highway safety, Traffic volume, Divided highways, Transportation corridors, Highway operations, Two way stop controlled intersections, Medians, Intersections, Intersection elements, Subjects Administration and ManagementFinance and EconomicsHighwaysOperations and Traffic ManagementSafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=25::Safety%20and%20Human%20Factors

http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=21::Operations%20and%20Traffic%20Management


http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=16::Finance%20and%20Economics


Incorporating Traffic Safety Risk Management into the Asset Management Process Problem Statement Risk management is the practice of identifying potential losses, estimating their impact and probability of occurrence, mitigating or minimizing the highest risks, and working toward addressing lower risks. Jurisdictions that have thoroughly embraced transportation asset management (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and selected U.S. States) have included risk in their management systems (see proceedings of the 2006 International Asset Management Scanning Tour). However, current methodologies are largely a function of the economic or social risk associated with the failure of the transportation system. This problem statement addresses the need to include safety in the risk management process. For example, when a highway segment fails to perform as planned or its performance is degraded by congestion, not only will the failure increase travel time cost and reduce economic opportunity, it will also reduce the safety performance of the facility. The congestion may also divert traffic to facilities with inferior safety performance (e.g., from a congested freeway to a local street or two lane highway). The framework and tools for assessing the traffic safety risk in the transportation asset management process do not exist. Research Objective The objective of this research is to generate a framework for assessment of risk in the asset management process, identify an analytical tool (or tools) for incorporating risk into the asset management process practiced by state transportations agencies and by local transportation agencies, and provide examples of their use. Specific tasks include:

Review the state of the practice of safety risk management in other industries and the international experience within transportation.

Develop a theoretic framework for a methodology to incorporate safety risk management into asset management.

Develop a practical framework for a methodology to incorporate safety risk management into asset management.

Conduct a workshop with interested stakeholders from agencies across the U.S. This could be held in conjunction with another meeting that involves state safety engineers. With input from the workshop, appropriately modify the methodology for safety risk management.

Develop a case study of the implementation of the methodology for a realistic but fictitious jurisdiction or a limited application to a jurisdiction.

Provide examples of how risk management should be taken into account in resource allocation along side other performance measurement systems and system goals.

Estimate the costs of full application of the methodology to a state. Provide step-by-step instructions for the application of the methodology. Conduct a small workshop for a likely implementer of the system. Use comments received in the

workshop to fine tune the methodology. Recommend further improvements and research required to make the methodology more robust.

Key Words Risk Management, Asset Management, Safety Management, Safety Performance, Traffic Safety Related Work

ABJ20 TSP 2009

NCHRP 20-74 is a project to develop an asset management system for the interstate highway system. Part of that project involves the incorporation of risk management into the interstate highway system asset management system. Methods developed in 20-74 and the project described here must be compatible and consistent. Urgency/Priority This should be initiated following the partial completion of 20-74. This project should be started by the beginning of the calendar year 2008 User Community State agencies, MPOs, local governments, FHWA, AASHTO Implementation Provides a realistic case study, a cost assessment for a full-scale implementation, and step-by-step instructions on implementation. Effectiveness Results allow the inclusion of traffic safety risk in asset management decisions. Estimated Cost $500,000





Priority Rank: Number 6 of 7.

Authors: Tom Maze and Reg Souleyrette, Iowa State University, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”


A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Tom Maze and Reginald Souleyrette of the Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Traffic safety, Risk management, Asset management, Traffic congestion, Safety

ABJ20 TSP 2009


performance, Two lane highways, Travel time, Travel costs, Methodology, Transportation planning,

Subjects Administration and ManagementFinance and EconomicsHighwaysPlanning and ForecastingSafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009




http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=16::Finance%20and%20Economics


How do we Convince the Locals to Participate in Statewide Highway Safety Data Programs? Problem Over the years, it has been fairly well documented that States having good crash, roadway, and traffic data can make major inroads in reducing the number and severity of vehicular crashes. To make highway safety improvements, having good integrated information allows for better problem identification, countermeasure development, and evaluation of implemented actions. However, most States only maintain roadway/traffic data for state-owned roadways such as AADT, roadway width, number of lanes, urban/rural, access control, type of surface, surface condition, etc. The lack of this type of data for local roads hampers the State’s overall ability to define problems and improve safety. Not fully analyzing crashes that occur on local roads leaves a major part of the puzzle missing. With advancements in information technology, and in particular, geographic information systems (GIS) techniques, the collection and integration of roadway/traffic data for local roads can be reasonably accomplished from the technical standpoint. However, having the locals capture and maintain that road information may prove to be a greater problem than amassing all the necessary hardware and software. With the increased emphasis on homeland security and severely constrained budgets, local governments face many challenges in finding resources to do what is needed. Everyone should understand that capturing this data is no small task. Are there techniques or equipment that can make this job easier? Are there ways municipalities can band together to get the job done? Are there alternatives? In conclusion, the question that needs to be answered is “How do the States convince the locals to participate in statewide highway safety programs by providing that necessary data? How is it shown “what’s in it for them?” Objective To develop strategies to help States convince local governments to participate in the collection and maintenance of roadway/traffic data on their roads and forward it to the States for use in developing highway safety programs. Typically, studies of this kind include surveys, telephone interviews, focus groups, etc. of State highway safety officials to define the problem and its scope. A literature search is then conducted to find potential solutions. These are then confirmed with more surveys and/or focus groups with local officials. Key Words Local roadways, traffic data, roadway data, highway safety Related Work Unknown Urgency/Priority A major portion of the information needed for State highway safety professionals to assess crash

ABJ20 TSP 2009

problems and develop countermeasures is missing. While development may take some time, the sooner it is started, the better chance there is to meet State and Federal fatality reduction and safety goals. Cost Since this effort will undoubtedly require surveys, focus group activities, and travel, it is estimated that this project will cost approximately $500,000.

User Community State governments and all levels of local governments – in addition the following should be included: FHWA, NHTSA, FMCSA, and Highway Safety Offices Implementation Preliminary report should be submitted for review and comment to the project managers within six months of the beginning and the entire effort should be completed within one year of inception. Effectiveness Each year thousands of lives are lost on our nation’s highways. Efforts to curb that loss by using effective data and techniques to address the consequences of that loss should be undertaken. Integrated crash, roadway, and traffic data from all types of roads will allow a more complete analysis of the problem and permit actions to be implemented that consider all aspects of highway safety and traffic management.






Author: William G. Hunter, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”


A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Jack Stickel of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Vicki Miller of the Federal Highway Administration.Date Posted: 06/20/2007

ABJ20 TSP 2009


Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Highway safety, Public participation, Local government agencies, Traffic data, Information technology, Geographic information systems, Integrated systems, National security, Local transportation, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysPlanning and ForecastingSafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009






Synthesis for Visualizing Roadway, Traffic, and Crash Data Integration Problem State transportation agencies are at various stages for inventorying road centerlines and transportation features, developing an integrated database, and deploying a geographic information system for their highway safety improvement programs. A significant increase in data availability comes with these advances in capabilities. Visualizing crash trends, patterns, and other value-added crash analyses can serve both the highway safety staff and management level proactive safety analyses. Effective visualization of roadway, traffic, and crash data integration at the enterprise level can also assist in funding allocation for transportation projects and highway safety improvement evaluation. Many state transportation agencies have developed excellent techniques for visualizing roadway, traffic and crash data integration for the internet/intranet. Other state agencies could benefit from these web applications. Objective The objective of this proposal is to perform a synthesis of successful visualization techniques that state transportation agencies have used to integrate roadway, traffic, and crash data for making resource allocations and countermeasure decisions. Key Words Countermeasure decisions, data integration, decision support, resource allocation, visualization Related Work The first work effort would be to survey state transportation agencies to identify highly effective visualization techniques for both internal and public dissemination. The next step would be to define what questions the agencies are trying to answer with their visualization. Urgency/Priority Peer reviews and workshops can bring together several state transportation agencies to share innovative visualization techniques. This process, although quite effective, is costly and will not work for most states. Surveying a wide number of transportation agencies could provide a starting point for a highly effective synthesis of state transportation agency visualization practices. Estimated Cost $175,000 User Community

State transportation agenciesAAHSTOFHWANHTSAHighway Safety Offices

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Emergency Medical ServicesInjury Prevention Centers

Implementation

A detailed synthesis report of innovative visualization techniques which includes detailed examples, hardware/software requirements, and transportation agency contact information

Selected web presentations on selected topics Effectiveness Real-time collection, highway effectiveness quality checking processes, and increased data collection presents transportation agencies with ever-increasing data sets with which to perform safety analyses. The objective then is to provide decision-makers with better analysis tools, which includes visualization techniques. Providing transportation agencies with a toolbox of innovative and effective visualization techniques can significantly benefit the resource allocation and project decisions for other state transportation agencies.






Author: Jack Stickel, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”


A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Jack Stickel of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Vicki Miller of the Federal Highway Administration.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Integrated systems, Center lines, Traffic data, Visualization, Crash analysis, State departments of transportation, Highway safety, Accident data, Value added services, Countermeasures, Decision making, Decision support systems, Resource allocation, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysPlanning and Forecasting

ABJ20 TSP 2009






Safety and Human Factors

Open Architectures to Support Data Integration Projects Problem Ownership of data, proprietary file formats and the lack of interoperability present significant challenges to transportation data integration projects. At the same time, the need to migrate away from mainframe legacy systems, the data needs of initiatives in asset management and safety management, and the promise of information transparency in enterprise wide GIS systems are putting increasing pressure on agencies to address data integration. The challenge is how to develop projects, specifications and products that support an open architecture that serves both our current and future needs. Objective The objective is to develop open architecture concepts to support data integration projects. The project will involve identifying relevant stakeholders and progress to date. The project will also produce a “Primer” on open architecture concepts including a checklist of issues to consider. It is intended that these concepts will lead to subsequent projects that will develop standards and specifications to support this process. Key Words Interoperability, asset management, safety management, information technology, Related Work Other industries have addressed these issues. For example, the Building Information Model (BIM) is evolving as the standard in CAD for the architectural industry to ensure that architects, engineers and fabricators can communicate. Similarly, work by the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc provides a rich source on standards for GIS and location referencing that should be addressed. Urgency/Priority As more agencies move to enterprise wide GIS, it is important that agencies do not get locked into a technology or a single vendors solution to a problem. Addressing this issue soon is important. Estimated Cost Suggest $75,000 or $100,000 User Community AASHTO, FHWA Implementation Individual agencies will use the results of this project to develop their own standards and specification. FHWA and AASHTO will use the results of this project to determine how they want to be involved in standard setting.

ABJ20 TSP 2009


Effectiveness While this project is intended to improve the delivery of IT projects, it will also extend the life cycle of IT projects as it will build in flexibility and focus projects on delivering solutions that are transferable. It will also reduce the need for custom interfaces that require specialized knowledge to develop and an ongoing commitment to maintain.

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Information_Modeling (Access 11/4/06) or http://www.aia.org/tap_a_0903bim (Accessed 11/4/06) for a description of BIM.






Author: Sue McNeil, University of Delaware, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”


A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Sue McNeil of the University of Delaware and Robert Pollack of the Federal Highway Administration.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Interoperability, Asset management, Highway safety, Information technology, Integrated systems, Architecture, Data integration, Data collection, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyHighwaysHistorySafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009


http://rns.trb.org/advanced_project.asp?sc=91::History





http://www.aia.org/tap_a_0903bim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Information_Modeling

http://rns.trb.org/FCKEditor/editor/fckblank.html#_ftnref1

Guidelines for Conducting Business Process Reviews for Successful Data Integration Projects to Support Asset Management and Safety Management Systems. Problem Data integration is critical to the successful development of asset management and safety management systems as both are data driven processes using data not necessarily owned or controlled by the organization or unit developing or using the system, and requires continuous improvement due to emerging and evolving technology. Successful data integration projects have conducted a business process review. A business process review is the analysis and design of workflows and processes with and between organizations. The review helps to understand what data is needed, who the stakeholders are in the process, the need to cross organizational boundaries, and how the data will be used. This includes data to support model development, decision making and reporting. Transportation organizations are generally not familiar with business process reviews. Nor have they historically viewed activities such as data integration as part of the cost of doing business. Providing guidelines to agencies for conducting business process reviews will help to provide a context for this process and focus attention on the outcomes, thus helping to ensure that the needs of stakeholders are reflected in the plan for action. Objective The objective of this project is to develop guidelines for transportation agencies to conduct business process reviews to support data integration projects for asset management and other management systems, particularly safety management systems. The guidelines will also include strategies for using technical assistance teams to help conduct the business process review. Key Words Asset management, safety management Related Work The recently completely peer exchange “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange” (November 2006) serves as a resource for the proposed project. Other resources to be reviewed include:

Environmental Spatial Information for Transportation: A Peer Exchange on Partnerships,” a summary of Workshop[1] held in 2003.

“Developing Business Plans to Support Transportation Decision-making” TRB Statewide Transportation Data Committee Peer Exchange, June 27, 2004, Draft 9/19/04[2].

“Challenges of Data for Performance Measures” Workshop, held July 8 2006. Research Needs Statements were also generated[3]. Urgency/Priority SAFETEA-LU requirements for Safety Management Systems and increasing interest in Asset

ABJ20 TSP 2009

http://rns.trb.org/FCKEditor/editor/fckblank.html#_ftn3



Management mean that this project is high priority. Organizations are overwhelmed by data issues and need help developing a systematic process by which to develop and manage a data integration plan. Estimated Cost $100,000User Community AASHTO, FHWA, State DOTs Implementation Individual state DOTs will implement the guidelines. Data integration is an ongoing process and even states that have implanted enterprise-wide GIS systems and have largely integrated much of their data must undergo a continuous improvement process in response to new and evolving technology. The proposed project should include a task for an agency to pilot the use of the guidelines to conduct a business process review. Effectiveness Data integration is intended to enhance decision making by supporting tools that evaluate the impacts of decisions based on data. While it is difficult to evaluate the impacts of better decisions, the benefits of better data, easier access to data and more informed decision making as they related to management systems have been discussed in the Asset Management Guide and various conferences and presentation. More importantly, data integration will have positive impacts beyond safety and asset management. Public sector agencies are facing pressures to be more accountable, and more transparent. Easier access to data supports these functions.

[1] http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/reports/cpw_1.pdf (Accessed 11/4/06)

[2] http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/peerex06-27-2004.htm (Accessed 11/29/06)

[3] http://www.trb.org/conferences/jointsummer/2006/NCHRP%20proposal.pdf (Accessed 11/29/06)






Author: Sue McNeil, University of Delaware, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”

This proposal was generated and identified as a priority by the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange held on November 1-2, 2006. The concept was to bring both data and highway safety professionals together to share experiences and identify key issues relating to integrating data

ABJ20 TSP 2009


http://www.trb.org/conferences/jointsummer/2006/NCHRP%20proposal.pdf


http://webservices.camsys.com/trbcomm/peerex06-27-2004.htm


http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/reports/cpw_1.pdf


sources used to support safety management and introducing asset management concepts into the highway safety management arena.

A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Sue McNeil of the University of Delaware and Robert Pollack of the Federal Highway Administration.Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Asset management, Safety management, Data integration, Technical assistance, Decision making, Guidelines, Subjects Administration and ManagementIntermodalPlanning and ForecastingSafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009





Highway Safety as an Asset: Incorporating Safety Performance Metrics in State Level Planning and Programming Problem Statement While safety is a principal goal of nearly every transportation agency, it is treated reactively. Classical approaches include before and after studies and other project level analysis. High crash locations are identified and mitigated. Safety audits look for low cost opportunities to improve safety along with reconstruction and maintenance. However, there is no direct and predictable linkage between the deployment of all of these approaches and the attainment of system safety performance goals. The study of this linkage is better understood in the management of physical assets. Pavement and bridge conditions may be reliably forecast as a function of past and current conditions and future allocation of resources using asset management systems and techniques. Research Objective The objective of this research is to investigate the extensibility of conventional asset management approaches to the highway safety arena at the state planning level. New tools and processes are being explored as part of a rising interest in safety conscious planning. One implementation is the NCHRP PLANSAF project. Fundamentally, PLANSAF is a program (procedure and software) that allows planning level (regional) incorporation of safety in transportation infrastructure development decisions. It uses aggregate system input measures to predict safety performance of several crash types. Prime drivers are demographics, road extent and road class fractions. While not specifically intended for statewide application, measures for its application are potentially available at the state level. While the PLANSAF model is not likely to be directly implemented, the concepts appear extensible. PLANSAF utilizes regression models to forecast safety performance. Conventional asset management methods also apply categorical analysis and Markov Chain Processes, among others, to forecast system performance. Models are sensitive to policy options – this project should develop a procedure for systems safety planning that is also sensitive to these options, and be readily implemented in a number of states. Evaluation of the procedure(s) and models developed could include:

Data requirementsLogic of structure and conceptual appealEase of calibrationEffectiveness of the modelFlexibility in applicationTypes of available outpostsOperational costsCompatibility with other models and model types Key Words

ABJ20 TSP 2009

Asset Management System Safety Safety Planning Performance measures Transportation system performance data Related Work NCHRP 8-44: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning Urgency/Priority This proposal reflects the impetus of the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange held November 1-2, 2006. Given safety is a top priority for FHWA and many states, and given the aggressive safety goals of the USDOT (National highway safety goal of reducing the roadway fatality rate from 1.5 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to 1.0 by 2008), this proposal is of urgent priority. User Community State agencies, FHWA, AASHTO Implementation Incorporating safety performance metrics in state level planning and programming requires implementation by state DOTs and the leadership of AASHTO. Changes in State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) are the logical manifestations of project outcomes. The deliverables of this project would be guidance to states and a model program. Implementation is state choice and responsibility. Effectiveness Engineering is one of four key areas (Education, Enforcement and Emergency Response) for improving highway safety performance. The effectiveness of this program will be closely linked to the effectiveness of projects and programs in each of these other three areas. Model inputs need to reflect these exogenous factors. Effectiveness of the regional PLANSAF program concept can be used to benchmark. Estimated Cost $350,000 Sponsoring Committee: ABJ20, Statewide Transportation Data and Information SystemsSource Info: Developed from the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange




Author: Reginald R. Souleyrette, Iowa State University, on behalf of the “Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange”

This proposal was generated and identified as a priority by the Integrating Roadway, Traffic and Crash Data Peer Exchange held on November 1-2, 2006. The concept was to bring both data and highway

ABJ20 TSP 2009


safety professionals together to share experiences and identify key issues relating to integrating data sources used to support safety management and introducing asset management concepts into the highway safety management arena.

A total of 17 state agency representatives and 12 other federal, university, and private agency representatives participated in active discussion groups. This proposal was identified as a priority by the discussion group led by Tom Maze and Reginald Souleyrette of the Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University.

Date Posted: 06/20/2007Date Modified: 06/20/2007Index Terms: Highway safety, Safety performance, State departments of transportation, Asset management, System safety, Highway planning, Transportation system management, Performance measurement, Subjects Administration and ManagementData and Information TechnologyIntermodalPlanning and ForecastingSafety and Human Factors

ABJ20 TSP 2009






PrioritiesStatewide Transportation Data and Information Systems ABJ20

Topic Sub-topicCustomers Develop outreach techniques

Expand data marketing. Showcase usage of high profile data.

Data Professionals Get people with the skills necessary to run these data programs Identify a common set of skill sets. Introduce professional development within the data community Explore solutions for lack of qualified personnel Establish knowledge transfer Explore national expert panel solutions Deploy knowledge management for standard packages:

bibliography, thesaurus, taxonomy, semantics, metadataValue of Data/ Data Collection Cost

Determine return on investment (ROI) for data programs Establish benefit vs cost for data programs Mainstream data collection into Department operations Continue research for cost effective data collection methods Determine cost to run data programs

Data Management Tie different data systems together – data fusion Get into IT tissues – storing and accessing own data. Explore open architecture in web services potential Incorporate Section 1201 real-time management systems Explore alternative data sources Expand discussion on performance measures and data quality Communicate importance of data management to executives Establish tools & processes to make decisions from data Establish business case for data collection

Cooperation/Sharing/Communication

Create one source/clearinghouse Partner with local agencies to share data. Develop effective partnering/outreach techniques Maximize most efficient data collection thru partnerships Create a National Expert Panel Stay on top of all mandates & issues Develop tools to share best practices & successful projects with

states Develop distance learning for data programs – would be good idea

to create a course through a pooled Fund Study Develop an updated list of Data contacts in other states Develop techniques to distill data into a message and tell the story Review potential of a Data Management handbook Compile repository of data sources and definitions, including fact

sheets Establish a handbook/manual on core data systems Explore establishing a “Wiki” type site to share and validate

information

ABJ20 TSP 2009