Idaho: ITD collects condition and performance data on the entire state highway system and
some of the nonstate highway system federal-aid routes, per HPMS requirements. Some QA procedures have been established in recent years. Some are still to be established.
Iowa: Yes.
Michigan: Michigan DOT has purchased one, and are in the process of implementing it. The
department has it “filled in” for the data that handles capital programming, and for portions of asset data. Michigan DOT has not started the processes of reviewing the adequacy of these.
2a. Have the data sets critical to safety data programs been identified and catalogued? Alaska: The critical safety data sets have been defined as part of the HSIP, SHSP, and the
TRCC. These elements are part of SIRIS and the Crash Data System. The MIRE elements still need a bit of work. A formal catalogue registry will be developed as part of the TAM data business plan.
Idaho: ITD maintains some data items that are vital to crash analysis for the entire federal aid
system (such as AADT), and some data items only on the state highway system and a sampling of the federal aid system beyond that (such as surface type). Crash data is collected for all public roadways.
Iowa: Yes.
Michigan: Yes, MIRE, MIRE FDE, Safety Analyst, HSM, and MAP-21 are considered as
being critical to the safety datasets. Consideration for prioritization is critical at this point and time due to the number of attributes and available resources to collect them. At this point most Michigan DOT roadways contain the MIRE FDE and requirements for MAP-21; however a catalog has not specifically been developed.
Montana: Yes.
Ohio: Yes, the highway safety section works very closely with the transportation management
section.
Rhode Island: No.
Washington State: Washington State DOT has set specific retention schedules for some data
sets. Metadata requirements are outlined for some, but not for all data. The Data or Terms Search application is a catalog that provides data seekers information about the data Washington State DOT owns and maintains. It contains data that describe the content, quality, condition and other characteristics of Washington State DOT’s data assets. The Data or Terms Search contains business terms which describe concepts important to the business and maintained by subject matter experts.
2b. How are the procedures implemented?
Alaska: Formal procedures to implement the data catalogue and registry will be developed as
part of the TAM data business plan and governance work later this year.
Idaho: Data collection is part of the annual process for Roadway Data (to collect traffic
counts) and Asset Management (to collect pavement geometrics and condition). Standards are established for most of these items by AASHTO, FHWA, ASTM, and others. Data reviews are typically part of daily, weekly, or annual processing, depending on the data item in question. For example, traffic data is reviewed upon processing counts, as well as when reviewing monthly and annual reports. Data submitted via HPMS is typically reviewed during the annual submission review. Crash data is submitted using an electronic platform.
Iowa: As needed.
Full Text of State Questionnaire Responses 77
Ohio: Staff from the transportation management section typically complete all of the updates
for the road inventory data. The highway safety section has used staff to collect additional critical elements, mainly for intersections.
Rhode Island: Not applicable. Washington State: Not applicable.
2c. Are new data sets evaluated using a structured process or an ad hoc analysis? Alaska: The TIG is developed a structured process to evaluate new data sets. An essential
piece to the SIRIS data governance plan is to define critical data and to provide guidance to SIRIS operators and users about what comprises critical data. Attempting to govern all data recorded by DOT&PF business units would be an enormous and overwhelming task. Therefore, a certain level of data needed to be defined as critical and governed through an agreed upon process. In order to determine SIRIS critical data, the transition team developed four categories of data shown in Figure 6.
Category 1, Development Data, is not considered critical data. This includes data that is not ready for circulation to others in an official capacity, nor is there intent for the data to be accessed by other systems or users directly, e.g., internal databases, spreadsheet or data files that individuals or groups use for working projects. SIRIS comprises Category 2, Production Data and Published–End User Data. Both are considered critical SIRIS data sets.
Category 3, External to SIRIS Published Data, are also viewed as critical SIRIS data sets if they are data sets that SIRIS components rely upon such as those related to crash, traffic or RDS. Category 4, End User Reports, is not considered critical because it is created for a specific use and is not queried by other systems.
Development Data
(e.g. internal spreadsheets, notes, local files) Data stored in user’s local files
External to SIRIS Published Data
(e.g. ready for user or system consumption)
End User Reports
(e.g. user generated reports or calculations) Data stored on local user computers or networks
SIRIS Production Data
(e.g. data still being edited/reviewed)
SIRIS Published/End User Data
(e.g. ready for user or system consumption) SIRIS CRITICAL DATA SETS CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4
Idaho: Both. Some of ITD’s roadway data systems are new enough that QC procedures have
not been firmly established. Crash data is a combination of structured processes and edits are run annually on all reports from the previous year looking for issues. The ITD also does ad hoc analysis with the crash data.
Michigan: Michigan DOT is not developing new data sets. Data sets that have been collected
in traffic and safety have utilized modules developed by LTAP as part of Roadsoft. The data gets migrated annually with framework and crash updates.
Montana: Currently ad hoc but may be more structured in the future.
Ohio: This is usually a structured process by holding meetings with all parties that may use the
data.
Rhode Island: No.
Washington State: Washington State DOT’s intent is to follow a structured process for new
datasets. DOT relies on voluntary compliance with IT and data management policies and the willingness of the particular business office leading the effort to collaborate with other offices across the department.
3. Are safety-related data collection and management plans, metadata, and standards in