subcommittees; and specific activities supporting the data needs for the DOT safety program.
Alaska: Data governance and data business planning has not been discussed at the Alaska
TRCC in the most recent past. However, the objectives outlined in the TRCC’s Alaska Traffic Records Strategic Plan, available on the TRCC website, would encompass data governance and business planning activities. Department representation on TRCC includes the crash data manager and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) analyst. The FARS analyst serves as the Alaska TRCC administrator. The primary subcommittee is the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) subcommittee. This entity primarily deals with implementation and administration of TraCS hardware and software around the state, and the collection, storage, dissemination, and use of TraCS-generated data.
Idaho: Data governance and data business planning activities are discussed at the TRCC. As a
result of these discussions projects are generated and funded with NHTSA traffic records incentive funds. The TRCC is membership is made up of individuals from:
Full Text of State Questionnaire Responses 37 • Judicial records (Idaho Supreme Court);
• EMS from Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; • Idaho Vital Statistics;
• Idaho State Police;
• Association of Local Law Enforcement; • Roadway Engineering (for roadway elements); • DMV;
• ITD Office of Highway Safety; • FHWA; and
• NHTSA.
The last Traffic Records Assessment was completed in 2011. Idaho has utilized the resultant recommendations for improvement to create projects to support the safety data needs for the highway safety program.
Projects and specific activities supporting the data needs include • Creation and implementation of an electronic citation program; • Feasibility study of a data warehouse;
• Integrating roadway characteristic data with crash data; and • Update systems performance measures.
Iowa: Yes. The statewide TRCC is chaired by the Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau and
attendees include Traffic and Safety, Systems Planning, Motor Vehicle, Research and Analytics, Public Health, Iowa State Patrol, University of Iowa and Iowa State University, EMS, and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Statewide TRCC works to improve data for all purposes. They recently created a centralized website with information on Iowa’s six-pack of safety data, i.e., Iowa DOT Traffic Safety Data and Analysis website.
Louisiana: DOTD staff actively participate on the TRCC which includes other state and local
agencies.
Maryland: Data governance and data business planning activities are being discussed and
created within SHA (for all areas, not just safety) but have not yet been discussed through SHA’s involvement with the TRCC. SHA and the other agencies participating in the TRCC provide routine updates on safety data collection and distribution from the viewpoint of the individual agency responsible for the data being discussed.
Michigan: Many of the TRCC’s activities are focused on data issues across a wide range of
state agencies representing the engineering, legal, medical, and judicial aspects of the crash community. There is a single, statewide crash database that is shared, as needed, among various TRCC participating agencies. Michigan also has a Crash Data Users Group (CDUG) that
actively works on data issues. A Data Linkages Team, which reports to the TRCC, is working to connect state level crash, judicial and medical data across state agencies and on a Crash Progress Redesign that will focus on modernizing the crash data processes and the connections to it. Membership of these will be noted in the TRCC report. Recently, Michigan’s CDUG completed
an update of the Michigan Crash Report form (UD-10) through input from state agencies. The Data Linkages Team, Crash Progress Redesign, and CDUG have all reported back to TRCC.
Montana: To date, the TRCC has not been involved with data governance and data business
planning activities.
Ohio: No data governance has been discussed at the TRCC. The Ohio DOT has received funding
to collect highly accurate centerline information for 90% of the state. The department works with local officials to collaborate on what information would be collected beyond the required state attributes. Ohio DOT working on building an enterprise intersection table with TRCC funds to meet all of the MIRE FDE requirements. (http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ProjectsInitiatives/LBRS.aspx)
Rhode Island: Yes, the TRCC has been involved with both the project to collect the MIRE
elements and the project that will create the database to store collected data and complete the state’s LRS on all public roads. Strategic partners of the TRCC include the following: Office of Highway Safety, Rhode Island DOT, FMCSA, FHWA, Rhode Island DMV, Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal, Rhode Island Department of Health, local–state police, and public–private organizations to improve Rhode Island’s traffic records system. NHTSA 408/405C grant funding is being used to develop the database (complete LRS) and collect pavement, right-of-way, and the majority of MIRE elements on all public roads.
Washington State: No. The Director of Multimodal Planning is a member of the TRCC.
Membership on subcommittees varies and is not coordinated across Washington State DOT. Washington State DOT does work in subcommittee or related groups of the TRCC to address some of these issues. For instance, Washington State DOT, Washington State Traffic Safety Commission, and Washington State Patrol meet periodically to discuss data related issues needs and coordination. These groups are advisory to business owners, but are relatively effective in creating change. The focus of these groups is data integration of hospital and crash records, and development and quality control for crash records.
3. Data sources–streams. Who in your agency is responsible for collecting and managing: