THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24777 SHARE

   

Data Management and Governance Practices

DETAILS

53 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-38996-9 | DOI 10.17226/24777

CONTRIBUTORS

GET THIS BOOK Nasir Gharaibeh, Isaac Oti, David Schrank, and Johanna Zmud; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program; Transportation Research Board;
FIND RELATED TITLES National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine


Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts


Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 508

Data Management and
Governance Practices

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Consultants
Nasir Gharaibeh
Isaac Oti
David Schrank
and
Johanna Zmud
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas

S ubscriber C ategories
Administration and Management  •  Data and Information Technology  •  Highways

Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

2017

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 508

Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to Project 20-05, Topic 47-05
solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. ISSN 0547-5570
Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be stud- ISBN 978-0-309-38996-9
ied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with Library of Congress Control No. 2017932237
their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems
of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best
studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Associa-
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will
receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
Administration, United States Department of Transportation. or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Acad- expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research material, request permission from CRP.
practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many rea-
sons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; NOTICE
TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation
industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences,
objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in Engineering, and Medicine.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are
highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessari-
directly to those in a position to use them. ly those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identi- Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors.
fied by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and trans- The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences,
portation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative
the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers.
Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are con-
on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are
sidered essential to the object of the report.
proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies.
Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP,
and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted propos-
als. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the
responsibilities of the Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation prob-
lems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program,
however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or
duplicate, other highway research programs.

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from

Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of
whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies
including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested
in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

Topic Panel 47-05

CHAD T. BAKER, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
JAMES P. HALL, University of Illinois—Springfield
DAVID HURST, VHB, Richmond, VA
PEGGI KNIGHT, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames
LISA LOYO, Transportation Research Board
ARLENE MATHISON, University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, Minneapolis
THOMAS PALMERLEE, Transportation Research Board
BENITO O. PEREZ, District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
JACK R. STICKEL, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau
JOSHUA CLAY WHITAKER, Florida Department of Transportation, Gainesville
KATHERINE A. PETROS, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
TIANJIA TANG, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)

Synthesis Studies Staff

STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs
JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies
MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer
JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer
THOMAS HELMS, Consultant
GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer
TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant
DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor
CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant
DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant
DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate

Cooperative Research Programs Staff

CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications

NCHRP Committee for Project 20-05

Chair
BRIAN A. BLANCHARD, Florida Department of Transportation

Members
STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University
SOCORRO “COCO” BRISENO, California Department of Transportation
DAVID M. JARED, Georgia Department of Transportation
CYNTHIA L. JONES, Ohio Department of Transportation
MALCOLM T. KERLEY, NXL, Richmond, VA
JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University
ROGER C. OLSON, Minnesota Department of Transportation (retired)
BENJAMIN T. ORSBON, South Dakota Department of Transportation
RANDALL R. PARK, Utah Department of Transportation
ROBERT L. SACK, New York State Department of Transportation
FRANCINE SHAW WHITSON, Federal Highway Administration
JOYCE N. TAYLOR, Maine Department of Transportation

FHWA Liaison
JACK JERNIGAN

TRB Liaison
STEPHEN F. MAHER

Cover figure: The transportation project/asset life cycle. Data are collected and produced at every phase,
and good data are key to each phase’s success. Source: Consultants’ rendering.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor-
mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac-
tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat-
ing the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evalu-
ating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through the mecha-
nism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the Transpor-
tation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-5,
“Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and synthesizes
useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on
specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of
Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.

PREFACE The objective of this study was to develop a collection of transportation agency data
By Tanya M. Zwahlen management practices and experiences. The report demonstrates how agencies currently
Consultant access, manage, use, and share data. This information can be used by transportation agen-
Transportation cies to learn about, and ultimately advance, the current state of the practice in transportation
Research Board data management and governance.
The information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a review of the litera-
ture, a two-phase online survey, and follow-up interviews with four agencies. All 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico were invited to participate in the surveys. The
surveys also were distributed to municipalities and metropolitan planning organizations
through the National Association of City Transportation Officials and the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Nasir Gharaibeh, Isaac Oti, David Schrank, and Johanna Zmud, Texas A&M Trans-
portation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, collected and
synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are
acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document
that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge
available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues,
new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

CONTENTS

1 Summary

3 Chapter One  Introduction
Background, 3
Synthesis Scope and Methods, 3
Terminology, 5
Report Organization, 6

7 Chapter Two   Review of Literature on Transportation Data

Overview of Transportation Data, 7
Nationally Mandated Transportation Data, 9

12 Chapter Three  Review of Literature on Data Management

and Governance
Data Governance, 12
Data Integration and Warehousing, 16
Data Quality, 18

20 Chapter Four  State Departments of Transportation

Practices and Experiences
Data Governance, 20
Data Warehousing and Cloud Computing, 24
Data Integration and Sharing, 25
Data Quality, 30

32 Chapter Five  Local Transportation Agencies’ Practices

and Experiences
Data Governance, 32
Data Warehousing and Cloud Computing, 32
Data Integration and Sharing, 34
Data Quality, 36

37 Chapter Six   Conclusions and Future Research

Conclusions, 37
Future Research, 38

39 References

A-1 Appendix A Survey Questionnaires and Responses (web only)

B-1 Appendix B Survey Respondents

C-1 Appendix C Integration of Data Sets

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to
grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org)
retains the color versions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

Data Management and Governance Practices

Summary Data-driven processes and technological advances have led to a steady increase in the amount and
complexity of data collected and managed by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local
transportation agencies, such as municipalities and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
Examples of these data include asset inventory and condition data, usage data from traffic counts,
roadway design and construction data, and financial data. These data reside in attribute databases,
geospatial databases, computer-aided design (CAD) files, three-dimensional models, multimedia
files (e.g., image, video), and other forms. Increasingly, transportation agencies are viewing these
data as assets that should be managed systematically and effectively, as physical infrastructure assets
are managed.

Although data provide opportunities to facilitate decision making at transportation agencies, there
are challenges involved in managing large and diverse data that serve multiple business needs.
These challenges are manifested in various aspects of data management, such as data quality assur-
ance, integration, and access. This synthesis provides information on current practices in data gover-
nance, data warehousing and cloud computing, data integration and sharing, and data quality assurance.
This information can be used by transportation agencies to learn about and ultimately advance the
current state of the practice in transportation data management and governance.

The information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a review of the literature, a
two-phase online survey, and follow-up interviews with a sample of four agencies. All 52 DOTs
(50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) were invited to participate in the surveys. The
surveys also were distributed to municipalities and MPOs through the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(AMPO). Forty-three DOTs responded to the Phase 1 survey, and 34 DOTs responded to the follow-up
survey, representing response rates of 83% and 65%, respectively. Of local agencies, 19 responded
to the Phase 1 survey and 11 responded to the follow-up survey. The surveys were conducted through
NCHRP in cooperation with AASHTO. AASHTO provided an e-mail distribution list to members of
the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) and members of SCOP’s Data Subcommittee.

In the data governance area, the study found that a pyramid-shaped data governance structure is
commonly used in the literature. This structure consists of (1) an upper-level council or committee
providing oversight and strategic direction, (2) enterprise data stewards providing coordination across
business units, and (3) stewards accountable for the quality and use of individual information tech-
nology. Data stewards, coordinators, and custodians hold various positions in their business areas, such
as planners, engineers, and geographic information system (GIS) specialists. Interviews conducted as
part of this study with a sample of transportation agencies indicated that key motivations and early
benefits of implementing data governance include (1) improved accountability to produce high quality
and reliable data (sources of truth), (2) ensuring that the data are accessible and integrated using a
common linear referencing system, and (3) engaging business areas within transportation agencies
in their data, rather than viewing data as strictly an information technology (IT) issue.

Currently, a bottom-up approach for data management appears to be taking place. A more top-down
data governance approach could help recognize and leverage the value of data generated and/or stored
in various agency silos and could spur increased data integration. In most cases, DOTs have data

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

2

stewards and data coordinators for managing individual data sets and coordinating data management
across multiple data sets within a business area (e.g., asset management, safety). However, most
agencies indicated they do not have a data governance council or board (responsible for policy
making and coordination at the enterprise level) and do not have a document that describes their data
governance model and serves as a guide. Most survey respondents described the following as major
factors in limiting progress toward implementing data governance: (1) lack of staffing, (2) other
mission-related issues are more pressing, and (3) lack of resources.

With respect to data warehousing and cloud computing, the study found that most DOTs store and
manage data collected during the operation and monitoring phases of roadway systems (e.g., roadway
inventory, condition, and performance) in data warehouses or marts. Conversely, data collected at
the early phases of the asset/project life cycle are more likely to reside in disparate files and data-
bases. Although there is a general agreement in the literature that transportation agencies collect and
manage large amounts of data, most DOTs and local agencies do not have reliable estimates of the
amount of data they maintain. The use of cloud computing services for storing and managing data
is expected to grow; however, most DOTs and local agencies are uncertain about the magnitude
of this growth in their agencies.

Transportation agencies are using multiple linear and geographic referencing methods in their
data sets, indicating that incompatibility among these methods remains an impediment to increased
data integration within these agencies. The use of a common referencing system that unifies these
methods can potentially facilitate data integration within transportation agencies.

Most survey respondents indicated that the following strategies have major effects on improving
data sharing and access: (1) increased use of web-based data storage and access, (2) improved data-
base management systems, and (3) reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized
(e.g., proprietary) data formats.

The study addressed seven data quality dimensions: accuracy, completeness, timeliness, relevancy,
consistency, accessibility, and access security. Most survey respondents indicated that these data quality
dimensions are evaluated in at least some data areas in their agencies. For DOTs, timeliness, accuracy,
and access security are most commonly evaluated. Conversely, consistency is the data quality dimen-
sion least evaluated by DOTs. Slightly more than half of the DOT respondents indicated their agencies
have mechanisms in place for incorporating feedback from data users into the data collection process.
These feedback mechanisms include ad hoc meetings, surveys, steering committees, web forms, and
direct e-mails.

Finally, this study identified several areas of future research, including development of a data
management and governance guidebook and training materials; identifying the benefits, costs, and
risks (e.g., security risks) of adopting cloud computing services for transportation agencies; develop-
ment of methods and metrics for evaluating data quality considering multiple quality dimensions;
development of guidance and framework for integrating data within transportation agencies; case
studies to assess the magnitude and complexity of data managed by transportation agencies; and
development of methods and case studies for mining archived data at these agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 3

chapter one

Introduction

Background

Data-driven processes and technological advances have led to a steady increase in the amount and
complexity of data collected and maintained by state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local
transportation agencies, such as municipalities and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
Examples of these data include asset inventory and condition data, usage data from traffic counts,
roadway design and construction data, and financial data. Data reside in attribute databases, geo-
spatial databases, computer-aided design (CAD) files, three-dimensional models, multimedia files
(e.g., image, video), and other forms. Increasingly, transportation agencies are viewing these data as
assets to be managed systematically and effectively, in a manner similar to how physical infrastructure
assets are managed (Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc. 2015a). A rule of thumb often used in
the private sector is that the volume of corporate data doubles every 18 months (Bhansali 2013),
indicating the ever-increasing volume of data in today’s world.

Although data provide opportunities to facilitate decision making at transportation agencies, there
are challenges involved in managing large and diverse data that serve multiple business needs. These
challenges are manifested in various aspects of data management, such as data quality assurance,
integration, and access. The literature suggests that these challenges are more widespread in manag-
ing data across, rather than within, organizational units at transportation agencies (Spy Pond Partners,
LLC and Iteris, Inc. 2015a). Data maintained by a specific unit within the agency often need to be
shared with multiple users and integrated with multiple data sets. For example, traffic monitoring data
are used for conducting safety analyses, developing transportation improvement programs, designing
pavement, and developing asset management plans. As a result, it is important that traffic data be inte-
grated with multiple data sets to serve multiple business needs (e.g., integration of traffic volume data
with pavement condition data to develop pavement management plans). However, currently these data
often reside in a collection of modern and legacy databases that are difficult to integrate (Cambridge
Systematics, Inc. et al. 2010). These difficulties in integrating disparate data can lead to collecting
data that already exist within other parts of the agency. An area prime for reducing the duplication of
data is the creation of digital as-builts from three-dimensional models used in design and construction.
However, the integration of these as-builts into legacy data management systems remains a challenge.

This synthesis provides information on current practices in data governance, quality assurance,
integration and sharing, and warehousing at transportation agencies. This information can be used
by transportation agencies to learn about, and ultimately advance, the current state of the practice in
data management and governance.

Synthesis Scope and Methods

The information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a review of the literature, a survey of
state DOTs and local transportation agencies, and follow-up interviews with a sample of four agencies.

The survey was conducted in two phases, as follows:

• Phase 1—This phase of the survey focused on practices pertaining to:

–– Agencywide data governance and management.
–– Data warehousing, stewardship, and archival for 17 data areas that are inclusive of most data
sets maintained by transportations agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

4

• Phase 2—This follow-up survey focused on detailed practices pertaining to:

–– The extent to which data quality is evaluated by transportation agencies.
–– Data integration and sharing, including data sets that are integrated or would be beneficial to
integrate, consistency of location referencing systems within agency, strategies for improving
data sharing and access, and methods for sharing data with outside users (public or private
entities).
–– Use of data warehousing and cloud computing for storing and maintaining data.

The surveys were conducted through NCHRP in cooperation with AASHTO. AASHTO provided
an e-mail distribution list to members of the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) and members
of SCOP’s Data Subcommittee. All 52 DOTs (50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) were
invited to participate in the surveys. The survey questionnaires also were distributed to municipali-
ties and MPOs through the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO).

The survey methodology consisted of the following steps:

• Step 1: NCHRP sent an initial invitation to SCOP members, NACTO, and AMPO through e-mail.
• Step 2: Approximately 2 weeks later, e-mail reminders were sent to invitees of state DOTs that
had not responded to the initial invitation.
• Step 3: Approximately 2 weeks later, follow-up phone calls were made to invitees of state DOTs
that had not responded to the second invitation.
• Step 4: NCHRP staff sent follow-up e-mail messages and made phone calls periodically to
invitees to encourage participation.

Forty-three DOTs (83%) responded to the Phase 1 survey, and 34 DOTs (65%) responded to
the follow-up survey. In accordance with NCHRP guidelines regarding survey response rates, data
obtained from the Phase 1 survey are expressed as a percentage of the responses received, whereas data
obtained from Phase 2 survey are expressed as the number of responses received. For local agencies,
19 agencies responded to the Phase 1 survey and 11 agencies responded to the follow-up survey. Fig-
ures 1 and 2 show maps of DOTs and local agencies that responded to the survey.

Participated in survey

Did not participate

FIGURE 1  Map of DOTs that participated in the survey.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 5

Planning organization

Municipality

FIGURE 2  Map of local agencies that participated in the survey.

Three state DOTs (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Nebraska Depart-
ment of Roads, and Iowa DOT) and one local agency (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning)
were interviewed regarding their data governance experiences and practices. The results of these
interviews are presented throughout this report.

Terminology

Key terms used in the survey instrument and in this report are defined as follows:

• Access security: Ability to restrict access to data to maintain security.

• Accessibility: Ability of authorized users to access the data.
• Accuracy: Closeness between a data value and the real-world value that it represents.
• Cloud computing: Date are stored and managed on remote computers “in the cloud.” These
computers are owned and operated by others and connect to users’ computers by means of the
Internet.
• Completeness: Absence of missing values in the data set.
• Consistency: Degree to which the data item is presented in the same format across agency.
• Data governance board/council/steering committee: Group that institutes policies and oversees
activities regarding data governance throughout the organization. Data governance is defined
as “the execution and enforcement of authority over the management of data assets and the
performance of data functions” (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2010).
• Data coordinator: Individual or committee that coordinates the organization, sharing, access,
and use of multiple data sets within a business area (e.g., asset management, safety).
• Data warehouse/mart: A data warehouse is a unified repository of current and historical data
obtained from multiple sources. A data mart is a scaled-down version of a data warehouse.
• Data steward: Individual who is accountable for assuring the quality of a specific data set,
ensuring compliance with data rules and regulations, defining metadata, and relaying the appro-
priate use of the data.
• Data custodians: Cross-functional group of individuals, vendors, and data managers who are
responsible for day-to-day execution of the governance rules and data management activities.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

6

• Data archiving: The process of moving electronic data that are no longer actively used to a
separate storage device for long-term retention (Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc. 2015b).
• Enterprise data stewards: Group of individuals who facilitate cross-subject area and cross-
business unit priorities, projects, and agreement, and act as champions of data governance within
their program areas.
• Geographic coordinates: Geospatial coordinates, such as latitude and longitude, or state plane
coordinates.
• Linear referencing systems (LRS): Location systems that define a known starting point and
reference locations of objects at a linear distance from that point (Olsen et al. 2013).
• Location referencing method (LRM): A mechanism for finding and stating the location of an
unknown point by referencing it to a known point (Adams et al. 2001).
• Multilevel linear referencing system: Includes multiple linear referencing methods and trans-
formation mechanism to a common one (Pierce et al. 2013).
• Relevancy: Data are applicable and useful for the task at hand.
• Route mile point: Distance from the beginning of the route.
• Route reference post: Distance and direction from a physical mile marker posted on the route.
• Route street reference: Distance and direction on one street from its intersection with another
street.
• Timeliness: How up-to-date the data are with respect to the task at hand.

Other terminology in this synthesis and in the literature review should be interpreted in context. The
meanings generally will be clear from the definitions provided, the discussions presented, or through
examples.

Report Organization

This synthesis of practice is organized into six chapters:

• Chapter one—Introduction. The chapter introduces the synthesis by providing background

information and summarizing the scope and organization of the synthesis report.
• Chapter two—Review of Literature on Transportation Data. The findings from the literature are
summarized and presented. The chapter describes categories of data collected and generated
at various phases of the transportation project/asset life cycle. It also includes a discussion of
transportation data assembled by state DOTs to meet reporting and compliance requirements.
• Chapter three—Review of Literature on Data Management and Governance. The chapter pro-
vides a review of the literature on data governance, data warehousing and integration, and data
quality.
• Chapter four—State Departments of Transportation Practices and Experiences. The chapter
summarizes and discusses the findings of the surveys of state DOTs.
• Chapter five—Local Transportation Agencies’ Practices and Experiences. The chapter summa-
rizes and discusses the findings of the surveys of local transportation agencies.
• Chapter six—Conclusions and Future Research. The synthesis concludes with key observations
and findings and suggestions for future research and outreach to advance the data maintenance
state of practice within state DOTs and local transportation agencies.
• Appendices—Appendix A appears only in the web version of this report. It provides the question-
naire that was distributed electronically to the participants along with a summary of responses.
Appendix B provides a list of respondents. Appendix C summarizes responses to data integration
questions.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 7

chapter two

Review of Literature on Transportation Data

Overview of Transportation Data

Various types and items of data are collected and produced at every phase of the transportation project/
asset life cycle (Figure 3). An overview of the categories of data collected or produced at various
phases of the transportation project/asset life cycle is provided next.

• Planning and programming: In this phase, multiple categories of transportation data (e.g., travel,
system inventory, systems condition) are used to determine long- and short-range transportation
improvement priorities and help identify candidate projects for improving facility conditions,
enhancing safety, and mitigating congestion. The primary outcomes of this process include
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and state transportation improvement programs
(STIPs). These improvement programs usually are accompanied by a financial plan that describes
the cash flow and feasibility of the candidate projects (Sinha and Labi 2007). TIPs, STIPs, and
accompanying financial plans [such as statewide long-range transportation plans (LRTPs)] in
themselves turn to data that need to be maintained. For example, North Carolina DOT maintains
a publicly available web-based geographic information system (GIS) for its STIP (Figure 4). Data
items available for each project include STIP number, TIP number, route/city, project description,
project costs, and construction year. The data in this system are usually updated every 2 years,
after decisions have been made on projects to include in the program.
• Environmental analysis and preliminary design: In this phase, project location and scope are
defined and alternative preliminary designs are evaluated to assess their potential social and
environmental impacts. This process involves the collection and analysis of data related to these
impacts. Data produced in this phase include environmental impact and compliance data and
preliminary design plans.
• Design: In the design phase, many documents, drawings, and data sets are created in electronic
format. Examples of these data include construction plans and drawings, right-of-way plans,
digital terrain models, schedules of quantities, and spreadsheets of various data. Many state DOTs
use electronic document management systems (e.g., ProjectWise) to organize, store, and share
design data.
• Construction: Data generated in the preconstruction and construction phases include real
estate data (e.g., appraisal document, acquisition date, demolition contract), procurement data
(e.g., bid documents, bid tabulations), and field data (e.g., material samples and test results,
payment data, daily work reports, change orders). State DOTs are beginning to embrace elec-
tronic collection, review, approval, and distribution of construction data and documents in
a paperless environment; this process is known as e-Construction. This process has resulted
in less use of paper documents but an increase in electronic data. Table 1 shows data and data
management systems used in e-Construction at a sample of state DOTs. In addition, civil inte-
grated management is emerging as a shift from document-based project delivery and manage-
ment to a system based on three-dimensional models enabled by technologies such as light
detection and ranging (Lidar) (Sankaran et al. 2016).
• Operations and safety: Transportation operations consists of a range of activities necessary for
the proper functioning of a system, including routine traffic and transit operations, public safety
responses, incident management, snow and ice management, network–facility management,
planned construction disruptions, and traveler–shipper information (Neudorff et al. 2012).
NCHRP Synthesis 460: Sharing Operations Data among Agencies (Pack and Ivanov 2014) identi-
fied numerous groups of operations data. These data are related to traffic incidents, traffic flow,
weather, transit, computer-aided dispatch, connected vehicles, signal systems, and more.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

8

Planning & Programming

Monitoring Preliminary Design &

Environmental Impact Analysis

Maintenance Design

Data

Construction
Operations & Safety

FIGURE 3  Transportation project/asset life cycle.

FIGURE 4  Example of a web-based data system for STIP, North Carolina DOT (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/
State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx) (last accessed 7/16/2016).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 9

Table 1
Data and Document Management Systems Used in E-Construction

State DOT Electronic Document Management System Field Data Management Software

Florida ProjectSolveSP SiteManager

Michigan ProjectWise FieldManager

ProjectWise for contract plan and job special provision storage
Missouri SiteManager
SharePoint for document storage
ProjectWise for document storage and minor workflow items
Texas SiteManager
Dropbox for file transfer
Utah ProjectWise MasterWorks

Traffic safety is a key component of transportation operations. A TRB peer exchange on improv-
ing safety programs through data governance and data business planning (Hall 2015) suggested
that crash data typically are used to identify and evaluate countermeasures and perform predictive
analysis. The peer exchange also indicated that how crash data are collected, stored, analyzed, and
disseminated differ from state to state. For instance, in Iowa crash data records are collected by law
enforcement personnel using the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) for all crashes involving
at least one fatality, one injury, or at least $1,500 property damage (all vehicular and nonvehicular
property). The Iowa DOT’s Motor Vehicle Division maintains crash data for the state’s roadway
system. The data consist of crash environment (e.g., date, time, severity, weather), roadway char-
acteristics (e.g., road classification), driver details (e.g., age, gender, condition), vehicle descriptors
(e.g., vehicle configuration, cargo body type, vehicle year), injured person details (e.g., age, gender,
injury status), and nonmotorist information. Crash data are analyzed to produce various forms of crash
reports and analytics (Figure 5), which are maintained and made available to the public on the Iowa
DOT website.

• Maintenance: A 2015 survey of state DOTs found that most have a maintenance quality
assurance (MQA) program in place or intend to implement a program within the next 5 years
(Zimmerman 2015). As part of these MQA programs, state DOTs collect roadway condition
data for pavements, roadsides (e.g., vegetation), drainage features (e.g., culverts, ditches), traffic
features (e.g., signs, signals, guardrails), bridges, and special facilities (e.g., rest areas, tunnels).
Typically, these data are collected annually through field surveys (Zimmerman 2015). In addi-
tion, many state DOTs track the cost and work history of highway maintenance activities in
computerized maintenance management systems. Data collected through such systems and
MQA programs are used for the planning, budgeting, and scheduling of maintenance activities.
• Monitoring: This phase involves the collection of data on the in-service performance and use of
the transportation system. Increasingly, these data are collected through automated means that
include sensors, nondestructive testing devices, and wired and wireless communication net-
works. For example, automated and semiautomated pavement condition surveys are conducted
to collect data on surface distress, roughness, and friction. State DOTs commonly conduct these
surveys annually or once every 2 years (Pierce et al. 2013). The collected data are stored in the
agency’s pavement management database along with other data categories, such as structural
evaluation data collected through nondestructive testing, inventory, use (e.g., traffic volume),
and pavement layer characteristics. Transportation agencies use these data to measure pavement
performance and inform pavement maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation decisions.
In addition, pavement management data are the source of the pavement data reported to the
highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) and will be used to meet the performance
management reporting requirements established in MAP-21.

Nationally Mandated Transportation Data

In addition to data collected and generated throughout the project/asset life cycle, state DOTs assemble
transportation data to meet reporting or compliance requirements. Examples of these data programs
are described next.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

10
Rate per 100 Million Vehicle Miles of Travel

FIGURE 5  Example analysis of crash data from Iowa DOT.

Highway Performance Monitoring System

The HPMS is a national-level highway information system that integrates data on system inventory,
asset condition, and operating characteristics. These data are used by FHWA, as mandated by Con-
gress, to assess the extent, condition, investment needs, and changes brought about by improvement
programs for the highway system. Although HPMS includes all of the nation’s public road mileage
as certified by the states’ governors regardless of ownership, it covers in greater detail the National
Highway System. Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 420.105(b) requires the states to
provide data that support the FHWA’s responsibilities to the Congress and the public. Thus, HPMS
data are collected and reported annually by all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and to
a lesser extent U.S. territories. The HPMS Field Manual (FHWA 2015) states that “although there
may be other participants in the collection and reporting process, the ultimate responsibility for the
accuracy and timely reporting of HPMS data lies with the State highway agency.”

The data required for the annual submittal of HPMS are categorized as full extent data (limited
data items on all public roads), sample panel data (detailed data for designated sections of the arte-
rial and collector functional systems), summary data (areawide information for urbanized, small
urban, and rural areas), and linear referencing system data that provide a spatial reference for the
full extent and sample panel data on selected highway functional systems. Authorized state person-
nel can use the HPMS software to upload, analyze, and process HPMS data for their agencies.

FHWA maintains web-based tools for downloading and viewing HPMS data by the general
public, including shapefiles, containing 26 data items for each state. A shapefile is a preparatory

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 11

vector data storage format developed by Esri for storing the location, shape, and attributes of geo-
graphic features.

The National Bridge Inventory

The National Bridge Inspection Standard, implemented in 1971, requires states to regularly inspect
highway bridges in the United States. This inspection is required for all bridges and culverts with a
minimum length of 20 ft that are on public roads. The data are collected by state highway agencies
and provided to the FHWA. The FHWA compiles and manages the database and makes it available to
the public on the Internet. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database contains inventory and con­
dition data for highway bridges and culverts since 1992. The 2015 NBI database has 611,845 bridge
records, and each record contains 116 attributes (data fields).

The electronic NBI database was first assembled in 1972. Since then, the FHWA has changed its
policies regarding public disclosure of NBI data several times to improve transportation security.
Therefore, in some periods of time, research on NBI was conducted by the FHWA or other agencies
that had access to the database for official use only. Currently, all elements of NBI data (inspected
after 1992) are available publicly online.

Real-Time System Management Information

Title 23 CFR 511 requires state DOTs and other transportation agencies to establish real-time systems
management information programs for traffic and travel conditions. These provisions are to be
implemented in two stages: all U.S. Interstates by November 2014 and other metropolitan routes of
significance by November 2016. Routes of significance are to be identified by states in collaboration
with local agencies.

In 23 CFR 511, traffic and travel conditions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Road or lane closures because of construction, traffic incidents, or other events;

• Roadway weather or other environmental conditions restricting or adversely affecting travel;
and
• Travel times or speeds on limited access roadways in metropolitan areas that experience recurring
congestion. Metropolitan areas are defined as the geographic areas designated as metropolitan
statistical areas with a population exceeding 1,000,000 inhabitants.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

12

chapter three

Review of Literature on Data Management

and Governance

NCHRP Report 666 (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2010) defines data management as “the
development, execution and oversight of architectures, policies, practices, and procedures to man-
age the information life-cycle needs of an enterprise in an effective manner as it pertains to data
collection, storage, security, data inventory, analysis, quality control, reporting, and visualization.”
The Inter­national Organization for Standardization (2003) offers a more concise definition of data man-
agement as “the activities of defining, creating, storing, maintaining and providing access to data and
associated processes in one or more information systems.” This synthesis focused on data governance,
integration, sharing, warehousing, and quality.

Data Governance

Data governance deals with ensuring that the data are managed properly. It is the establishment,
execution, and enforcement of authority over the management of data assets (Cambridge Systematics,
Inc. et al. 2010; Ladley 2012). The terms “data governance,” “data management,” and “data business
planning” are often used interchangeably or as components of one another (Stickel and Vandervalk
2014). Ladley (2012) suggested there should be a distinction between managing data (i.e., data man-
agement) and ensuring that data are managed properly (i.e., data governance) (Figure 6).

Transportation data are maintained by various business units (often called “data management areas”)
within transportation agencies. NCHRP Report 814 (Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc. 2015a)
uses the terms “data management area” and “data program” interchangeably, defining them as an
organizational function that is responsible for scoping, collecting, managing, and delivering a par-
ticular category or form of data. NCHRP Project 08-36 (Task 100) proposed a framework and conceptual
design to develop a resource to help transportation agencies assess the adequacy, direction, and manage-
ment of their data programs. Task 100 grouped transportation data into seven categories in developing
the framework: travel data, system inventory data, system condition data, safety data, operational data,
financial data, and customer relations data. NCHRP Report 814 (Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris,
Inc. 2015a) provides a guidebook for transportation agencies to implement the self-inspection process,
including self-assessment case studies of data management programs at Michigan DOT and Utah DOT
for specific business areas: mobility/congestion, facilities management, maintenance, project scoping,
and design. That guidebook can be useful for evaluating and improving the value of data for decision
making and data-management practices.

In most cases, data governance is in the early stages of implementation; thus, its long-term ben-
efits have not been measured. However, interviews conducted as part of this study with a sample
of transportation agencies indicated that key motivations and early benefits of implementing data
governance include:

1. Improved accountability to produce high-quality and reliable data (sources of truth).

2. Ensuring that the data are accessible and integrated using a common linear referencing system.
3. Engaging business areas within transportation agencies in their data, rather than viewing data
as strictly an information technology (IT) issue.

During the past 10 years, several state DOTs have developed data business plans that describe
data governance procedures, bodies/roles, and responsibilities. A recent TRB peer exchange empha-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 13

Data
Life Cycle

FIGURE 6  V-shaped illustration used to distinguish

between data governance and data management.
Source: Adapted from Ladley (2012).

sized that data governance models be evaluated and assessed periodically (Hall 2015). An overview
of data governance practices in three agencies (Florida DOT, Minnesota DOT, and U.S.DOT) is
provided next.

Florida DOT

Florida DOT (FDOT) is implementing the ROADS (reliable, organized, and accurate data sharing)
initiative for enterprise information management and data governance. The goal is to improve data
reliability and simplify data sharing across FDOT so the agency has readily available and accurate
data to make informed decisions.

In the FDOT ROADS project, data governance is the practice of managing information assets and
realizing value with a set of standards, processes, and technologies executed through a well-defined
governance structure to achieve business goals and objectives. As part of the ROADS project, a list of
data/information gaps was identified throughout FDOT. The ROADS project consists of key elements
related to people, process, and technology developed to address and close those data/information
gaps. The following sections provide an overview of each of these key elements:

People: The FDOT ROADS project includes a data governance body consisting of a data governance
steering committee, enterprise data stewards, data stewards, and data custodians. The responsibilities for
each group are outlined in Figure 7.

• Data governance oversight

Steering • Provide strategic direction to the organization
Committee
• Facilitate cross-subject area/cross-business unit priorities and projects
Enterprise • Lead the data steward working group meetings to better understand data/information
Data Stewards issues and get agreement within the business functions
• Act as champions of data governance within their program/function area

• Business-focused individuals accountable for data integrity/quality

Data Stewards • Recommend operational changes needed to improve data governance

• Technical-focused individuals focused on the day-to-day execution

Data Custodians of the governance rules and management activities
• Receive direction and guidance from the responsible data steward

FIGURE 7  FDOT’s data governing body.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

14

Process: The FDOT data governance initiative consists of six categories of data governance
processes/procedures, as follows:

• Business needs assessment: These procedures deal with collecting and documenting business
requirements for each new business intelligence (BI) solution or data-related enhancement.
BI technologies transform daily operational data into information that facilitates decision making.
For instance, a roadway maintenance management system is a BI solution.
• Data standards update: These procedures are for updating the data and metadata standards
based on ad hoc feedback from business users. Examples include adding, changing, or deleting
data or metadata items.
• Data standards approval and maintenance: These procedures are for adding new standards,
reviewing current ones, or deleting old and obsolete ones in response to requests submitted by
business users.
• Education/Data guidance: These procedures are for providing training and guidance in response
to requests submitted by business users.
• Quality monitoring: These procedures deal with establishing data quality agreements that specify
the expected level of data quality, profiling data to determine base quality, cleansing data, and
monitoring data entities to ensure quality agreements are kept.
• Road map: FDOT is organized by functions, and each function should have a road map that will
align to the department’s high level road map.

The data process/procedures identified are applied to the data governance components shown in
Figure 8. A similar model is adopted by the Data Management Association International (Sullivan
and Stickel 2015).

Technology: As part of the ROADS initiative, tools and technologies will be implemented to
support the ROADS goal of leveraging and sharing data across the agency to help FDOT make better
informed decisions. These capabilities are needed to support the rollout of the ROADS data gover-
nance initiatives that are under way and critical for FDOT to improve the quality and accessibility
of data. These tools will support master data management; metadata recording and sharing; extract,
transform, and load operations; and reporting efforts across the enterprise.

FIGURE 8  FDOT’s data governance component model.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 15

Table 2
Data Domains Used in Minnesota DOT Data Governance Model
No. of
Data Domain Domain Description
Subject Areas
Data on the interface with external stakeholders with whom MnDOT has
Business stakeholder/
business or customer relationships and data about internal and external 10
customer
communications
Financial Data related to receiving, managing, and spending funds 14
Human resources Data about individual employees 10
Data on the basic facilities that make up or interface with the
Infrastructure 13
transportation system
Planning, programming,
Data that provide direction for and management of projects 11
and projects
Data on time-based occurrences that take place on the transportation
Recorded events 19
system or that affect the transportation system
Regulatory Data on topics that are controlled or directed by legal requirements 20
Data that define locations on earth or in space, including GIS, CAD,
Spatial 5
latitude/longitude, xyz coordinates, sections of roadway, or boundaries
Data on all items that affect or support the transportation system (e.g.,
Supporting assets 12
building and facility, fleet, communications towers)

Minnesota DOT

Minnesota DOT’s current data governance structure consists of nine data domains (with a steward
identified for each domain) and five to 20 subject areas within each domain (with a data steward
identified for each subject area). Table 2 describes these domains. Table 3 describes the subject areas
within the infrastructure data domain, as an example, where a steward is identified for each data
subject area.

Table 3
Data Subject Areas within Minnesota DOT Infrastructure Data Domain

Subject Area Description

Airport data Data on the publicly owned system of Minnesota airports.
Data on bicycle facilities within Minnesota’s transportation system, including existing/future
Bicycle data data on state bikeways and U.S. bicycle routes, shared-use paths, protected bike lanes,
bike lanes, shared lane markings and bicycle boulevards.
Data on the design, construction, and maintenance of bridges, including bridge condition and
Bridge data load ratings. Data can be contained within Pontisa and structure information management
system (SIMS).
Drainage structure data Data on hydraulic features such as culverts, channels, storm tunnels, retention ponds, and drains.
Data that describe the location of roadway intersections, the location of specific portions
Interchange,
(sections) of roadway, and the location of places where two roadways cross (intersect)
intersection, and
designed to permit traffic to move freely from one road to another without crossing another
section data
line of traffic.
Parking facility data Data on the ABC distributor ramps and other facilities in Minneapolis.
Data on the highway rail grade crossings and characteristics where roadways and railroad
Rail crossing data
tracks intersect.
Right of way and Data on the acquisition (purchase, lease) and management of real estate/property in
contaminated transportation corridors or as part of the state rail bank, which is owned by or up for purchase
property data by MnDOT.
Data on location, jurisdiction, classification, surface type and width, reference points,
Roadway data cross sections, control sections, oversize/overweight/twin trailer routes, and project history
for the statewide highway system.
Data on the guardrails, median barriers, railings, crash cushions, roadway lighting, rest areas,
Safety feature data
and similar hardware or facilities that are used to improve safety on the road system.
Data on pedestrian accommodations within MnDOT’s transportation system, including
Sidewalk data Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance data on sidewalks, curb walks, and
pedestrian bridges.
Smooth road data Data on the ride rating (smooth ride) of the roadways.
Data on all signs, signals, markings, and other devices used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic,
Traffic control
placed on, over, or adjacent to state trunk highways. Data on all of the devices covered by
device data
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
a
Pontis has been updated to bridge management software (BrM).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

16

Table 4
Stakeholders Defined in U.S.DOT Data Business Plan
Role Responsibility
Mobility Data Coordination Group Finalize data coordination framework with input from data working groups
and internal community of interest
Develop and approve U.S. Mobility Data Coordination Group charter
Individual data working groups Address stakeholder needs related to respective group area
Infrastructure/Inventory Identify and address gaps and redundancies in respective group area
Travel data Devise “rules of engagement” regarding collaboration and coordination
Climate (weather) data Develop data standards and stewardship recommendations for consideration
Modal data by the U.S.DOT Mobility Data Coordination Group
Connected vehicle data capture
Community of interest—internal Coordinate with the data working groups to:
Address data gaps and overlaps
Share current activities and best practices in data management
Coordinate resources and cost sharing strategies to reduce redundancy in
data collection, integration, and data systems
Facilitate sharing of data with internal/external stakeholders
Identify how current and planned data from the connected vehicle
initiative can support existing roadway travel mobility data programs
Identify how data from roadway travel mobility data programs within
U.S.DOT and FHWA can support the connected vehicle initiative
Identify existing/future data inventory and data structures/policies/
governance practices that could be applicable to the Research Data
Exchange
Community of interest—external Not defined

U.S.DOT

In 2013, the U.S.DOT published a data business plan to help achieve two goals (Vandervalk et al. 2013):

• Improve the coordination and communication mechanism across U.S.DOT and FHWA offices
involved with roadway travel mobility data.
• Improve the coordination of the data capture activities associated with sponsored research at
the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office in wirelessly connected vehicle
technologies.

A key component of the U.S.DOT data business plan was a data coordination framework. The
framework defines a set of data management practices (such as data governance, quality, standards,
privacy, and security) and stakeholder groups that are responsible for coordinating these practices
(Table 4).

Data Integration and Warehousing

The terms “data warehouse,” “data mart,” and “operational database” are related but refer to different
kinds of systems. Because most readers are familiar with the term “database,” the first item of business
is to compare data warehouses and data marts to operational databases.

An operational database is designed to support day-to-day operations of a particular application

and has limited or no analytical capabilities. In contrast, a data warehouse is a repository that integrates
data originating from multiple sources and various time frames. The integrated data are organized in
a unified schema and reside in a single site. A data mart is a scaled-down version of a data warehouse.
Both data warehouses and data marts have data analysis and decision-support capabilities.

Figure 9 depicts common architectures for data warehouses and data marts. The bottom tier
consists of operational databases that contain data on day-to-day activities and operations of the
agency, such as asset inventory and condition, crash records, and traffic counts. Normally, the data in
these databases are too detailed and raw to be easily used for decision making. The data warehouse
integrates data originating from multiple operational databases and various time frames. The data
mart is linked to a single or limited number of operational databases and has fewer data integration
and analytical capabilities. For transportation agencies, data marts appear to be more common than
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Data Management and Governance Practices

 17

Maps Analysis Reports

Maps Analysis Reports

Query
OLAP Query
Mining OLAP
Mining

Metadata Data Repository

Metadata Data Repository

Extract
Clean Clean
Transform Transform
Load Load
Refresh Refresh

Multiple Operational Databases Limited Operational Database

(Data Warehouse) (Data Mart)

FIGURE 9  Architecture for data warehouses (left ) and data marts (right ).

enterprise data warehouses. The data repository in a warehouse or mart (middle tier) is constructed
through a process of data cleaning, integration, transformation, loading, and periodic refreshing
(Han et al. 2012). These processes are defined as follows (Han et al. 2012):

• Data extraction: gathering data from multiple, heterogeneous, and external sources.
• Data cleaning: detection of errors in the data and rectifying them when possible.
• Data transformation: conversion of data from legacy or host format to warehouse format.
• Data loading: sorting, summarizing, consolidating, checking integrity, and organizing the data
in a unified schema.
• Refreshing: propagation of updates from the data sources to the warehouse repository.

The top tier of this architecture consists of data processing and analysis tools, including:

• Information processing: The warehouse or mart processes the data by means of querying, basic
statistical analysis, and presentation (e.g., tables, graphs).
• Analytical processing: The warehouse or mart processes the data by means of online analytical
processing—that is, analysis techniques with functionalities such as summarization and drilling
down. For instance, one can drill down on yearly weather data to obtain monthly data. Similarly,
one can roll up on performance data stored for roadway sections to obtain data summarized by
county, district, or state.
• Data mining: The warehouse or mart is equipped with in-depth data mining capabilities, such
as data clustering, outlier detection, and prediction.

Transportation data warehouses and marts often are equipped with GIS capabilities for visual-
ization and spatial analysis. For example, Utah DOT (UDOT) uses the ArcGIS Online platform to
access and share transportation data through the agency’s open data portal (UGATE) and mapping
application (UPlan) (http://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html). UPlan contain multiple data
categories, including safety and crash, roadway functional classification, access categories, mainte-
nance stations, structure and bridge locations, planned and current construction projects, mile posts,
pavement management, transit vehicles and dispersed funding, fiber-optic network, and freight
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Data Management and Governance Practices

18

planning and operations data. Other state DOTs have embraced this approach for data access and
sharing (e.g., Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania).

In recent years, there has been increased interest in using cloud services to improve data manage-
ment. The premise of this approach is that storing data in off-site data centers (the cloud) provides
a degree of standardization and access that often is difficult to achieve in on-site data warehouses.
Cloud computing resources are provided to individuals or organizations remotely through the
Internet rather than directly on one’s own computer. Some of the benefits of cloud computing include
(Lei et al. 2012):

• Integrated computing and storage: The cloud computing model integrates computing power and
storage. Computing resources can be abstracted from agencies. This eliminates the burdens of
setting up hardware and software to store collected/generated data and perform computations.
• Ease of information provision: The degree of standardization and access offered by the web-based
service model facilitates data integration and information sharing within agency and across
agencies.
• Scalable and customized computing: Cloud computing provides a flexible storage and comput-
ing environment that allows agencies to rent storage and computing power as the need for such
services fluctuates.
• Performance and security: Cloud computing service providers address many of the vital perfor-
mance and security issues that ensure data integrity. Agencies can focus on using data maintained
in clouds for business delivery.

Data Quality

Data quality is a multidimensional concept (Wang et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2002; Batini and Scannapieca
2006). Accuracy, timeliness, consistency, and completeness are examples of these dimensions. The
literature consistently organizes these quality dimensions in four categories: intrinsic, contextual,
accessibility, and representational (Wang and Strong 1996; Pipino et al. 2002; Hazen et al. 2014).
Intrinsic dimensions (e.g., accuracy) describe the quality of objective and native data. Contextual
dimensions (e.g., relevancy) are dependent on the context in which the data are used. Representational
dimensions refer to data understandability and conciseness. Accessibility refers to data sharing and
security. Figure 10 shows the data quality dimensions considered in this study.

Accuracy
Accessibility

Consistency
Access Data
Security Quality

Relevancy
Timeliness

Completeness

FIGURE 10  Data quality dimensions considered in this study.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 19

Previous studies (such as NCHRP Report 666 and NCHRP Report 814) suggest that the use of
structured methods and instruments for gathering feedback from data users and data managers across
agencies can help improve the quality of data maintained by transportation agencies. Depending
on the size of the agency, methods that can be used include surveys, focus group meetings, data pro-
gram workshops, and research studies (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2010). NCHRP Report 814
(Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc. 2015a) provides a detailed self-assessment guide and tools
for continuing data improvement.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

20

chapter four

State Departments of Transportation Practices

and Experiences

This chapter summarizes and discusses the findings of the surveys and follow-up interviews of
representatives of state DOTs. It includes the experiences and practices of DOTs in the following
topics:

• Data governance;
• Data warehousing and cloud computing;
• Data integration and sharing; and
• Data quality assurance.

To facilitate responses to the survey, the surveys addressed these topics as they apply to 17 data
categories. These categories are sufficiently specific, without being overly detailed, and can be linked
to the business functions and project/asset life cycle at transportation agencies. As mentioned, 43 DOTs
responded to the Phase 1 survey and 34 DOTs responded to the follow-up survey, representing response
rates of 83% and 65%, respectively.

Data Governance

An important step in data governance is the establishment of a data governance board or council
(a group that institutes policies and oversees activities regarding data governance throughout the
organization). Interviews with a sample of agencies indicated that this group normally consists of
agency executives (e.g., division heads or directors).

Figure 11 shows that data governance boards/councils remain rare in DOTs. Of 43 responses
received to this question, only eight agencies (19%) indicated the existence of a data governance
board/council. However, 16 agencies (37%) indicated that a data governance body is in the develop-
ment stage, signifying progress toward implementing data governance.

Most of the DOTs that have designated data governance boards and those in the process of devel-
oping ones provided a brief description of these boards/councils. The descriptions reveal different
names for these bodies, including:

• Drive Team—Maine DOT;

• Data Governance Committee—Arkansas DOT;
• Data Governance Working Group—District of Columbia DOT;
• Reliable Organized Accurate Data Sharing (ROADS) Steering Committee (for data sharing)—
Florida DOT;
• Enterprise Data Sharing and Storage Committee—Kentucky DOT; and
• Enterprise Information Governance Group—Washington State DOT.

In addition, most DOTs (e.g., Minnesota, New York, Maine, Michigan, Kentucky, Arkansas, and
Washington State) have committees or are in the process of designating committees made up of
members from different areas of the agency to provide leadership and support in making policies for
data-related issues. Some agencies that do not have a fully functional agencywide governance board
have structured governance policies for specific data programs. Other agencies designate the responsi-
bility of data governance to a single program area (e.g., in Virginia DOT, data governance is managed
by the policy division).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 21

Does your agency have a designated data governance

board/council?
19% (8 agencies)

37% (16 agencies)

Yes

No

In development

44% (19 agencies)

FIGURE 11  Data governance boards/councils at DOTs.

Data coordinators are individuals or committees that coordinate the organization, sharing, access,
and use of multiple data sets within a business area (e.g., asset management, safety). Figure 12 shows
that 26 (60%) responding agencies have data coordinators. Eleven (26%) agencies indicated they are
in the process of establishing designated data coordinators, and only six (14%) agencies indicated
they do not have data coordinators.

Agencies who reported having a data governance council/board indicated they also have data
coordinators or are in the process of designating one.

Respondents from Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New York indicated they have
designated individuals in different business areas performing the assignments of data coordinators
for data sets within their units. In some DOTs, such as Minnesota, Nebraska, and Utah, data stewards
perform the assignment of data coordinators. Some respondents mentioned specific data sets with
data coordinators, including:

• Roadway inventory—Louisiana and Texas DOTs;

• Crash and safety data—Iowa, Arizona, and North Dakota DOTs;
• Traffic monitoring—North Dakota and Louisiana DOTs;
• HPMS—Arizona and Puerto Rico DOTs;
• Asset, bridge, and pavement condition—Iowa, Louisiana, North Dakota DOTs; and
• Maintenance—Iowa and Louisiana DOTs.

The survey asked the respondents to identify data sets (from a list of 17 data sets) for which their
agencies have designated stewards. Figure 13 show the data sets and the percentage of DOTs that
have designated stewards for the data sets. These results indicate that data collected during the system

Does your agency have designated data coordinators?

26% (11 agencies)

Yes
No
In development
14% (6 agencies)
60% (26 agencies)

FIGURE 12  Presence of designated data coordinators at DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

22

What data in your agency have designated stewards?

Pavement inventory and condition data

HPMS
Roadway inventory
Bridge inventory and condition data
Crash data
Traffic monitoring data
Contracts/procurement data
Financial data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Project construction data
Environmental impact and compliance data
Transportation improvement programs data
Bridge work history data
Real estate data
Travel modeling data
Pavement work history data
Project design and materials data
Others
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of DOT respondents

FIGURE 13  Presence of designated stewards for data sets at DOTs.

monitoring phase, specifically pavement inventory and condition, HPMS, and roadway inventory,
are more likely to have designated data stewards than are data collected at earlier phases of the
asset/project life cycle. Of note is that data sets that reside in data warehouses or marts (discussed in
the following section of this synthesis) tend to have data stewards. Conversely, data sets that tend to
reside in disparate files (as opposed to data warehouses or marts) are least likely to have designated
stewards; examples include real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-owned), pavement
work history data, project design and materials data (e.g., design plans, structural design, mix design),
and travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin–destination).

Some respondents indicated their agencies have designated data stewards for other data not
listed in the survey. For example, Puerto Rico DOT provides a steward for historical aerial data,
and Alaska designates stewards for road weather information systems (RWIS) used to support
winter weather maintenance decisions, seasonal weight restrictions, and travel decisions for the
511 traveler information systems. Arkansas has a steward for all public roads LRS and city/county
boundaries data.

The follow-up interviews indicated that the data coordinators and stewards tend to be subject
matter experts in their business areas (e.g., operations, safety, materials, research, design and engi-
neering services, and project development). These individuals hold positions or titles in their busi-
ness units such as transportation planner, pavement management engineer, and GIS specialist. One
respondent indicated the agency had informal internal training for its data stewards and coordinators.
The other interviewed agencies indicated they do not have any training or certification program for their
data stewards and coordinators.

The development of a document describing the data governance model can serve as a reference
and thus assist directly or indirectly in the implementation of data governance. Figure 14 shows that
11 responding agencies (26%) have such a document and 12 (28%) are in the process of developing one
(totaling 23 agencies or 54%). However, 20 responding agencies (46%) do not have such a document
and are not currently developing one.

The survey participants were asked to describe the effect of four factors on limiting progress
toward the implementation of data governance in their agencies. These factors are: (1) other mission-
related issues are more pressing, (2) hard to justify cost and effort, (3) lack of resources, and (4) lack
of staffing.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 23

Does your agency have a document that describes its current data
governance model?

28% (12
26% (11 agencies)
agencies)

Yes

No

In development

46% (20 agencies)

FIGURE 14  DOT practices in documenting data governance models.

Lack of staffing, “other mission-related issues are more pressing,” and lack of resources were
commonly described as major factors in limiting progress toward implementing data governance,
with 21, 19, and 16 respondents, respectively (Figure 15). Only six of 32 respondents indicated
difficulty in justifying cost and effort as a major factor. These results clearly show that lack of staffing
is an important factor, whereas difficulty in justifying cost and effort appears to be a much less limiting
factor in progress toward data governance at DOTs.

Respondents were given the opportunity to list at most two other factors. Other factors that
respondents mentioned include lack of departmentwide compliance; lack of enterprise solutions;
historic focus on projects (not underlying data); lack of formal governance policies, manuals,
standards, and procedures; lack of leadership; lack of understanding of technical needs (geospatial/
data integration/mapping) and how they should be envisioned for the enterprise; and lack of under-
standing the magnitude of data being managed by the agency.

Finally, the follow-up interviews identified the following hurdles that state DOTs faced while
implementing data governance:

• Difficulty in getting the business areas to commit staff and time for the data governance working
group;
• Staff turnover;
• Organizational restructuring; and
• Difficulty in reaching consensus within the data governance working group.

To what extent do the following factors limit progress on instituting data

governance in your agency?

Other mission-related issues are more

19* 11 3
pressing
Major
Hard to justify the cost and effort 6 14 12 factor
Minor
Lack of resources 16 14 2 factor
Not an
Lack of staffing 21 10 1 issue

No. of respondents
*Indicates number of respondents

FIGURE 15  Factors limiting progress on implementing data governance in DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

24

Data Warehousing and Cloud Computing

In response to questions about the use of data warehouses or marts, a wide range of practices across
the 17 data sets used in the survey were identified, as shown in Figure 16. Most respondents indicated
maintaining system inventory, condition, and performance data in warehouses or marts. These data
tend to be collected during the system operation and monitoring phases. Conversely, data collected at
the early phases of asset/project life cycle (e.g., real estate data, pavement work history data, project
design and materials data, travel modeling data) are less likely to be stored in data warehouses or
marts. As noted, data that are likely to be stored in data warehouses or marts tend to have designated
stewards.

Few other DOTs, such as those in Puerto Rico, Indiana, Alaska, and Arkansas, indicated they
maintain other data sets in warehouses or marts. Some of these data sets include historical aerial data
maintained by Puerto Rico and RWIS maintained by Alaska.

A related question was included in the survey to determine what data are archived to retain historical
information. Figure 17 shows that most respondents archive the 17 data sets used in the survey, with the
exception of real estate data and travel modeling data. A clear majority of respondents (70% or more)
archive the following types of data: pavement inventory and condition, roadway inventory, traffic
monitoring, HPMS, project construction, crash, and bridge inventory and condition.

The respondents identified other data sets that are archived systematically in their agencies, includ-
ing fleet management systems database (Oregon DOT), RWIS (Alaska DOT), and historical aerial
data (Puerto Rico DOT).

When asked about the volume of data being maintained, the survey revealed that most DOTs do
not have reliable estimates. Twenty-six of the 31 responses to this question indicated that such an
estimate is not available. This may be because of the use of data silos, which makes it difficult to
track all data within an agency as a whole. A few respondents mentioned that their agency has less
than 2.2 terabytes of data; whereas, one respondent indicated the agency maintains about 50 terabytes
of data. This wide range of data volume may be attributed to differences in the size of the agencies.

The use of cloud computing for maintaining transportation data is emerging but is in its infancy,
as demonstrated in Figure 18. Of the 31 DOTs that responded to a question about the use of cloud

What data in your agency are maintained in data warehouses or marts?

Roadway inventory
Bridge inventory and condition data
Traffic monitoring data
Crash data
HPMS
Financial data
Pavement inventory and condition data
Transportation improvement programs data
Project construction data
Bridge work history data
Contracts/procurement data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Pavement work history data
Environmental impact and compliance data
Travel modeling data
Project design and materials data
Real estate data
Others
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of DOT respondents

FIGURE 16  Data sets maintained in data warehouses or marts at DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 25

What data in your agency are archived systematically to retain historical information?
Pavement inventory and condition data
Traffic monitoring data
HPMS
Roadway inventory
Project construction data
Crash data
Bridge inventory and condition data
Financial data
Project design and materials data
Contracts/procurement data
Pavement work history data
Transportation improvement programs data
Bridge work history data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Environmental impact and compliance data
Real estate data
Travel modeling data
Others
0 20 40 60 80 100
% DOT respondents

FIGURE 17  Use of data archiving to retain historical information at DOTs.

computing, 22 estimated that 1% to 10% of their data (as a whole) are being stored and managed
in the cloud. Six agencies indicated that cloud computing is not being used or its use is unknown.

When asked about their predictions of the future use of cloud computing for storing and managing
transportation data, the responses suggest that this practice is likely to grow in the future (Figure 19).
Fourteen of 31 agencies expect that, in the next 5 years, more than 10% of transportation data in their
agencies will be stored and managed in commercial cloud computing services. However, the same
number of respondents indicated that making this prediction is not possible.

Data Integration and Sharing

The survey included questions to assess the level of data integration across the 17 data sets discussed.
The survey also asked the participants to identify methods and tools used for integrating and sharing
data within their agencies and with external stakeholders.

In all, the respondents identified 120 pairs of data sets that are integrated in their agencies to serve
various business requirements. Figure 20 shows pairs of data sets that the majority (16 or more) of

Approximately what percentage of your agency’s transportation-related data

is currently stored and managed using commercial cloud computing services?
2 agencies
3 agencies
1 agency
3 agencies 21–50%

11–20%

1–10%

None

Unknown

22 agencies

FIGURE 18  Use of cloud computing services at DOTs for storing and managing data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

26

In the next 5 years, what percentage of your agency’s transportation-

related data is anticipated to be stored and managed using commercial
cloud computing services?
4 agencies

5 agencies More than 50%

14 agencies 21–50%
11–20%
1–10%
Unknown

5 agencies
3 agencies

FIGURE 19  Future use of cloud computing services for storing and managing
transportation data owned by DOTs.

the 31 respondents identified as being integrated in their agencies. The extended form of this figure
(showing all pairs of data sets) is presented in Appendix C. In most cases, these integrated pairs
involve roadway inventory and another data set collected during system monitoring and operations.
In fact, six of the seven most integrated pairs of data sets involve roadway inventory (data set A).

Participants were asked to identify pairs of data sets that would be beneficial for their agencies to
integrate. Figure 21 shows pairs of data sets which the majority (16 or more) of the 31 respondents
identified as potentially beneficial for their agencies to integrate. The extended form of this figure

Which of these data sets are integrated in your agency to serve various business needs?

A&E
A&G
A&C
A&B
A&I
A&J
B&C
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents

A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification, geometrics)

B. Crash data
C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin–destination)
E. Pavement inventory and condition data
F. Pavement work history data
G. Bridge inventory and condition data
H. Bridge work history data
I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g., traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
J. Transportation improvement programs data
K. Environmental impact and compliance data
L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans, structural design, mix design)
M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments, schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-owned)
P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues, expenditures, budgets)

FIGURE 20  Pairs of integrated data sets at a majority of responding DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 27

FIGURE 21  Pairs of data sets that would be beneficial to integrate, as identified by the majority
of responding DOTs.

(showing all identified pairs of data sets) is presented in Appendix C. All of these pairs involve road-
way inventory (data set A). These results demonstrate the importance of roadway inventory data to
multiple business functions at DOTs. However, these results are to be viewed within the context of
many of the survey respondents being planners or analysts/managers of planning data, jobs for which
roadway inventory plays a major role.

The integration of transportation data from different sources requires a common LRM or automated
means for converting different LRMs to be compatible. Thus, the survey asked the participants to
identify the LRMs used in existing data sets at their agencies. Six LRMs were given: route mile point,
route reference post, link-node, route street reference, multilevel linear referencing system, and geo-
graphic coordinates. Figure 22 shows that all of these LRMs are being used by state DOTs in various
data sets. However, geographic coordinates (e.g., longitude-latitude or state plane coordinates) and

What location referencing methods are used in your agency?

32
No. of agencies

24

16

0
Geographic Route Link–node Route Route street Multilevel Other
coordinates mile point reference reference LRS
post

FIGURE 22  LRMs used by DOTs in at least one data set.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

28

route mile point are the most commonly used LRMs. The wide use of geographic coordinates
may be because of the prevalence of Global Positioning System (GPS) in current data collection
technologies. The route mile point LRM is used to represent attributes (called events) on linear
features (called routes). Table 5 shows that a similar conclusion can be made about the use of these
LRMs for individual data sets. Comments made by some respondents indicated that some agencies
use other LRMs, especially for contract/procurement data, project construction data, and travel
modeling data.

To evaluate agency data sharing methods with external stakeholders, including public and private
entities, five options were provided to the respondents to select from: online open access, online
preauthorized access, upon request (e.g., data sent by e-mail or a file-sharing service), not shared
outside the agency, or data shared through other methods. Some DOT respondents indicated more
than one sharing method for some data sets.

Figure 23 shows the use of these methods for all data sets, and Table 6 shows the use of these
methods for each data set individually. Each responding DOT indicated the use of a combination of
these methods to share data with external users. However, the online open access and “upon request”
methods are used by most of the responding DOTs (Figure 23). Table 6 shows that online open access
and upon request methods are consistently most common when the results are divided by individual
data sets. Table 6 also indicates that the most shared data sets through online public access are traffic
monitoring, TIPs, and roadway inventory. All respondents indicated that their agencies share roadway
inventory and traffic monitoring data sets outside their agencies. Conversely, travel modeling and
bridge work history are the data sets least shared with external entities.

Table 5
DOTs’ Usage of LRMs in Individual Data Sets
(by number of respondents)

What location referencing Route Route

Geographic Route Multilevel
methods are used in your Link–node reference street Other
coordinates mile point LRS
agency? post reference

Roadway inventory
17 27 7 8 8 13 1
Crash data
22 20 4 7 7 9 0
Traffic monitoring data
12 24 5 6 4 9 1
Travel modeling data
7 9 9 2 2 1 4
HPMS
14 26 7 5 6 11 0
Pavement inventory and
condition data 17 25 5 8 2 8 0
Pavement work history data
7 17 2 4 1 5 1
Bridge inventory and
condition data 24 23 3 8 2 9 0
Bridge work history data
13 14 2 5 1 7 3
Inventory and condition data
for other assets 19 19 4 8 5 7 1
Transportation improvement
programs data 7 18 0 7 1 8 3
Environmental impact and
compliance data 12 12 0 6 1 2 3
Contracts/procurement data
6 15 0 8 1 3 8
Project construction data
7 14 0 7 2 4 7

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 29

How does your agency share data with outside users (public and private entities)?

32
No. of agencies

24

16

0
Online Upon request Not shared Online Other
(open access) outside agency (preauthorized
access)

FIGURE 23  Data sharing methods used by DOTs for at least one data set.

Respondents were asked to identify strategies that would improve or have improved data sharing
and access at their agencies. Four strategies were presented to the respondents: improved metadata,
increased use of web-based data storage and access, improved data management systems, and reduced
use of hardware and software that require specialized data format. The respondents were asked to
describe these strategies as having major effect, minor factor, no effect, or not applicable. Respondents
were also given the opportunity to list two other strategies.

Table 6
Methods Used By DOTs for Sharing Individual Data Sets With External Users
(by number of respondents)

How does your agency share Not shared Online

Online Upon
data with outside users outside (preauthorized Other
(open access) request
(public and private entities)? agency access)

Roadway inventory
20 25 0 7 2
Crash data
10 16 3 8 2
Traffic monitoring data
22 18 0 2 3
Travel modeling data
2 17 5 0 5
HPMS
10 21 4 3 1
Pavement inventory and
condition data 10 22 1 4 1
Pavement work history data
7 17 3 3 1
Bridge inventory and
condition data 15 21 1 6 2
Bridge work history data
5 14 5 4 3
Inventory and condition data
for other assets 8 17 4 5 3
Transportation improvement
programs data 20 16 0 6 1
Environmental impact and
compliance data 6 16 4 5 4
Contracts/procurement data
11 15 3 5 2
Project construction data
7 16 4 6 0
Financial data
5 15 4 6 2

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

30

What strategies would improve (or have improved) data sharing and access within your agency?

Improved metadata 15* 15 1 Major effect

Increased use of web-based data storage Minor factor

23 4 2 3
and access

Improved database management systems 23 6 2

No effect

Reduced use of hardware and software Not applicable

16 10 3
that require specialized data format
No. of DOT respondents
*Indicates number of respondents

FIGURE 24  Strategies for improving data sharing and access at DOTs.

Most respondents indicated that two of these strategies have a major effect on improving data
sharing and access: (1) increased use of web-based data storage and access, and (2) improved database
management systems (Figure 24).

Other strategies mentioned by respondents include implementation of data governance, establish-

ment of standards and requirements for sharing, implementation of civil integrated management,
having a data registry, use of enterprise-level business intelligence vendor products, and the presence
of a senior management champion.

Respondents also listed data management tools most useful for accessing and sharing data within
their agencies. These tools can be generally grouped into:

• GIS and geospatial and mapping tools;

• Tools for integrating different location referencing systems;
• Specific tools, such as Structured Query Language (SQL) Server Reporting Services (SSRS),
SharePoint, Excel, SAP Business Objects Suite, and Oracle Business Intelligence Suite;
• Data warehouses, including cloud storage;
• Representational State Transfer (REST) services (the software architectural style of the World
Wide Web); and
• ER/Studio (identified by one of the interviewed agencies). This is a commercially available
software tool for managing data assets, including documenting data elements and objects; show-
ing their sources, interactions, and dependencies; and setting permissions for access controls.

Data Quality

The participants were asked to identify the extent to which various data quality elements are evalu-
ated in their agencies. The quality elements provided in the survey included accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, relevancy, consistency, accessibility, and access security. Table 7 summarizes the responses

Table 7
Evaluation of Data Quality at DOTs
(by number of respondents)

Access
Quality Element Accuracy Completeness Timeliness Relevancy Consistency Accessibility
Security

Evaluated in all or
most areas 14 13 13 12 7 8 16
Evaluated in some
areas 17 16 21 17 13 19 13
Evaluated in a few
areas 3 5 0 5 14 7 5

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 31

Does your agency have mechanisms in place for incorporating feedback

from data users in your agency into the data collection process?

15 agencies Yes
No

15 agencies

FIGURE 25  Presence of mechanisms for incorporating users’ feedback

into the data collection process.

received. No respondents indicated that any of these data quality elements is entirely ignored in their
agencies. Most respondents indicated that all of these data quality elements are evaluated in at least
some data areas in their agencies. Timeliness, accuracy, and access security are most commonly
evaluated. Consistency is the data quality element least evaluated by DOTs.

Because it can be reasonably assumed that feedback from data users would improve data quality,
the survey participants were asked to specify if their agencies have mechanisms in place for incor-
porating users’ feedback into the data collection process. Figure 25 shows that 15 of 30 respondents
indicated that their agencies have mechanisms in place for incorporating this type of feedback. The
respondents described these feedback mechanisms as ad hoc meetings, surveys, steering committees,
web forms, and direct e-mails.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

32

chapter five

Local Transportation Agencies’ Practices and Experiences

This chapter summarizes and discusses the findings of the surveys of local transportation agencies
(MPOs and cities). It is important that these results be considered preliminary because of the small
number of responding agencies. Similar to the discussion of the DOTs’ surveys (chapter three), this
chapter includes the experiences and practices of local agencies in the following topics:

• Data governance;
• Data warehousing and cloud computing;
• Data integration and sharing; and
• Data quality assurance.

Data Governance

Of 19 local agencies that participated, only one reported having a data governance board; however,
five respondents indicated their agencies have data coordinators, and two respondents indicated
their agencies are in the process of designating data coordinators. The remaining 12 respondents
indicated their agencies do not have data coordinators. Additional inputs from respondents who
indicated their agencies have data coordinators indicated the coordinators are GIS staff, transporta-
tion planners, or data management specialists. No respondents indicated their agency has a document
describing its data governance model.

The survey asked the respondents to identify data sets (from a list of 17) for which their agencies
have designated stewards (Figure 26). These results indicate that data collected during the planning
phase (particularly data about travel modeling and transportation improvement programs) are more
likely to have designated data stewards at local transportation agencies than are data collected at later
phases of the asset/project life cycle.

Survey participants were asked to describe the extent of the effect of four factors on limiting
progress toward implementing data governance in their agencies. As shown in Figure 27, lack of
staffing and “other mission-related issues are more pressing” were commonly described as major
factors, with eight and seven responses, respectively. These results are consistent with the results
obtained from the DOTs’ surveys.

Data Warehousing and Cloud Computing

Results of the survey question about the use of data warehouses or marts indicate that most local
agencies do not use data warehouses or marts for managing their transportation data (Figure 28).
However, the results also indicate that road inventory data, crash data, traffic monitoring data, travel
modeling data, and TIPs are more likely than other data sets to be managed in data warehouses
or marts.

A related question was included in the survey to determine what data are archived at local agencies
to retain historical information. Figure 29 shows that most responding agencies do not archive their
transportation data. However, the results also show that travel modeling and TIPs data at local agencies
are more likely to be archived than are other data sets.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 33

What data in your agency have designated stewards?

Travel modeling data

Transportation improvement programs data
Roadway inventory
Crash data
Financial data
Traffic monitoring data
Pavement inventory and condition data
Contracts/procurement data
Bridge inventory and condition data
Environmental impact and compliance data
Real estate data
Others
Pavement work history data
Bridge work history data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Project design and materials data
HPMS
Project construction data
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE 26  Designation of data stewards at local agencies.

To what extent do the following factors limit progress on instituting data governance in your agency?

Other mission-related issues are more pressing 7* 3 1

Major factor

Hard to justify the cost and effort 4 4 2 Minor factor

Lack of resources 5 4 2 Not an issue

Lack of staffing 8 2 1

No. of respondents
*Indicates number of respondents

FIGURE 27  Factors limiting progress toward implementing data governance in local agencies.

What data in your agency are maintained in data warehouses or marts?

Roadway inventory
Traffic monitoring data
Travel modeling data
Transportation improvement programs data
Crash data
Bridge inventory and condition data
Pavement inventory and condition data
HPMS
Environmental impact and compliance data
Contracts/procurement data
Financial data
Bridge work history data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Real estate data
Others
Pavement work history data
Project design and materials data
Project construction data
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE 28  Use of data warehouses or marts at local agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

34

What data in your agency are archived systematically to retain historical information?

Travel modeling data

Transportation improvement programs data
Crash data
Financial data
Pavement inventory and condition data
Contracts/procurement data
Roadway inventory
Real estate data
Traffic monitoring data
Bridge inventory and condition data
Environmental impact and compliance data
Project design and materials data
Others
HPMS
Pavement work history data
Bridge work history data
Inventory and condition data for other assets
Project construction data
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE 29  Use of data archiving to retain historical information at local agencies.

When asked about the volume of data they maintain, eight of nine respondents answered
“unknown,” indicating that most local agencies do not have reliable estimates of the amount of data
they maintain.

Of nine agencies that responded to a question about the use of cloud computing services for
managing data, five indicated that the services are not used by their agencies, one indicated that the
answer is unknown, and three indicated that 1% to 10% of their data are stored and managed using
cloud computing services.

When asked to estimate the percentage of their transportation data stored and managed using
cloud computing in the next 5 years, four respondents could not provide an estimate, two estimated
the amount to be 1% to 10%, two estimated the amount to be zero, and one estimated the amount
to be more than 50%. These results indicate that local agencies are uncertain how cloud computing
would affect their data management practices in the future.

Data Integration and Sharing

The survey included questions to assess the level of data integration at local agencies across the 17 data
sets discussed. In all, the respondents identified 37 pairs of data sets that are integrated in their agencies
to serve various business needs (Figure C3 in Appendix C). Fifty percent of the respondents indicated
that their agencies integrate the following data sets:

• Roadway inventory data and traffic monitoring data;

• Roadway inventory data and travel modeling data; and
• Environmental impact and compliance data and project design and materials data.

The respondents identified 80 pairs of data sets that would be beneficial for their agencies to
integrate (Figure C4 in Appendix C). Fifty percent of local agency respondents indicated their
agencies would benefit from integrating the following pairs of data sets:

• Roadway inventory data and crash data; and

• Roadway inventory data and travel modeling data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 35

What location referencing methods are used in your agency?

8
7
No. of agencies

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Geographic Other Route mile point Link–node
coordinates

FIGURE 30  Use of LRMs at local agencies.

The survey examined the use of six LRMs by local agencies, including route mile point, route
reference post, link-node, route street reference, multilevel LRS, and geographic coordinates. The
results of eight responses related to this issue are shown in Figure 30. These results show that
multiple LRMs are being used by local agencies in various data sets. However, local agencies use
fewer LRMs than do DOTs. Geographic coordinates appear to be the most commonly used LRM
at local agencies, followed by the route mile point and link-node methods. As discussed, the use of
GPS in current data collection technologies may have contributed to the increasing use of geographic
coordinates as an LRM. The survey further shows that the route street reference, route reference
point, and multilevel LRS are not used in the surveyed local agencies. A similar conclusion can be
made about the use of these LRMs for individual data sets.

To evaluate agency data sharing methods with external stakeholders, including public and private
entities, five options were provided to the respondents to select from: online open access, online
preauthorized access, upon request (e.g., data sent by e-mail or a file sharing service), not shared
outside the agency, or data shared through other methods. Some agencies indicated more than
one sharing method for some data sets. The online open access and “upon request” methods are
used by more than half of the responding agencies (Figure 31). In addition, online open access and
“upon request” methods are most commonly used when the results are divided by individual data sets.
However, for all data sets, at least one respondent indicated that the agency does not share these data
sets with users outside the agency. Most agencies that indicated other sharing methods pointed out
that the data sets are not owned by their agencies.

Respondents were asked to identify strategies that would improve or have improved data sharing
and access at their agencies. As shown in Figure 32, four respondents indicated that two of these

How does your agency share data with outside users (public and private entities)?
9
8
7
No. of agencies

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Online Upon request Not shared Other Online
(open access) outside agency (preauthorized access)

FIGURE 31  Data sharing methods with external users at local agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

36

What strategies would improve (or have improved) data sharing and access within your agency?

Major effect
Improved metadata [VALUE]* 4 1 1

Increased use of web-based data storage Minor factor

4 3 1 1
and access
No effect
Improved database management systems 4 4 1

Reduced use of hardware and software that Not applicable

4 2 2 1
require specialized data format
No. of respondents
*Indicates number of respondents

FIGURE 32  Strategies for improving data sharing and access at local agencies.

strategies have a major effect on improving data sharing and access: (1) improved database manage-
ment systems, and (2) reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
A respondent commented that improved framework to centralized data has a major effect on data
sharing and access.

Responding to a question about data management tools most useful for accessing and sharing data
within agencies, some local agencies identified the following:

• Relational databases, such as MS Access, and spreadsheets;

• GIS tools; and
• Data marts.

Data Quality

As shown in Table 8, most respondents indicated that all of these data quality elements are
evaluated in at least some data areas within their agencies. These results suggest that accuracy,
completeness, and relevancy are the most commonly evaluated data quality element by local
agencies.

On incorporating feedback from data users, only one agency (of eight that responded to this
question) indicated that it has mechanisms in place for incorporating feedback from data users in the
data collection process. That agency’s respondent further explained that the process is implemented
through meetings and comments dropped in suggestion boxes.

Table 8
Data Quality Elements Evaluated at Local Agencies
(number of agencies)
To What Extent Are Data
Quality Elements Evaluated Access
in Your Agency? Accuracy Completeness Timeliness Relevancy Consistency Accessibility Security
Evaluated in all or most
areas 6 4 3 4 4 4 3

Evaluated in some areas 3 3 6 4 2 3 4

Evaluated in a few areas 1 2 1 1 4 2 2
Not evaluated 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 37

chapter six

Conclusions and Future Research

This synthesis describes and discusses data management and governance practices at departments
of transportation (DOTs) (including those of states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) and
local transportation agencies [metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and municipalities]. The
information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a review of the literature, a two-phase
online survey, and follow-up interviews with a sample of agencies. Forty-three DOTs responded to
the Phase 1 survey, and 34 DOTs responded to the follow-up survey, representing response rates
of 83% and 65%, respectively. For local agencies, 19 agencies responded to the Phase 1 survey, and
11 agencies responded to the follow-up survey.

Conclusions

The conclusions of this study in four areas (data governance, data warehousing and cloud computing,
data integration and sharing, and data quality) are presented here.

Data Governance

• A bottom-up approach for data management appears to be taking place. A more top-down data
governance approach could help recognize and leverage the value of data generated and/or
stored in various agency silos and could spur increased data integration and sharing. In most
cases, DOTs have data stewards and data coordinators for managing individual data sets and
coordinating data management within a business area (e.g., asset management, safety). What is
lacking, in most cases, is a data governance council/board for policy making and coordination
at the enterprise level.
• Most survey respondents described the following as major factors in limiting progress toward
implementing data governance: (1) lack of staffing, (2) other mission-related issues are more
pressing, and (3) lack of resources. Currently, data stewards, coordinators, and custodians hold
various positions in their business areas, such as planners, engineers, geographic information
system (GIS) specialists, and information technology specialists.
• Data governance is more mature in DOTs than local agencies. However, this conclusion should
be viewed with caution because (1) a small sample of local agencies responded to the survey,
and (2) some local agencies commented that their agencies are users, rather than owners, of data.

Data Warehousing and Cloud Computing

• There is an association between the presence of designated data stewards and the use of data
warehousing systems. Data sets that have data stewards tend to reside in data warehouses or
marts. Conversely, data sets that do not have designated stewards tend to reside in disparate files
and databases.
• Transportation agencies have a wealth of archived data. For DOTs, a clear majority of respondents
(70% or more) routinely archive pavement inventory and condition data, roadway inventory,
traffic monitoring data, highway performance monitoring system data, project construction data,
crash data, and bridge inventory and condition data.
• Although there is a general agreement in the literature that transportation agencies collect and
manage large amounts of data, most DOTs and local agencies do not have reliable estimates of
the amount of data they maintain.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

38

• The use of cloud computing services is expected to grow in the future, but most DOTs and local
agencies are uncertain about the magnitude of this growth in their agencies.

Data Integration and Sharing

• Transportation agencies use multiple location referencing method (LRMs), indicating that the
use of incompatible LRMs remains an impediment to increased data integration in these agencies.
However, geographic coordinates (e.g., longitude-latitude or state plane coordinates) and route
mile points are commonly used LRMs by both DOTs and local agencies.
• An area prime for reducing the duplication of data within DOTs is the creation of digital as-builts
from three-dimensional models used in design and construction. However, the integration of
these as-builts into legacy data management systems is challenging, in part because of the inherent
limitations of legacy systems (e.g., some legacy systems do not use georeferenced data) and
broader institutional issues (e.g., data owned/managed by different parts of the agency).
• Most DOT survey respondents indicated that the following strategies have a major effect on
improving data sharing and access: (1) increased use of web-based data storage and access, and
(2) improved database management systems. For local agencies, the reduced use of hardware
and software that require a specialized data format also appears to have a major effect.

Data Quality

• This study addressed seven dimensions of data quality: accuracy, completeness, timeliness, rele­
vancy, consistency, accessibility, and access security. Most survey respondents indicated that
these data quality dimensions are evaluated in at least some data areas in their agencies.
• For DOTs, timeliness, accuracy, and access security are most commonly evaluated. Conversely,
consistency is the data quality dimension least evaluated by DOTs.
• Slightly more than half of the DOT respondents indicated that their agencies have mechanisms
in place for incorporating feedback from data users into the data collection process. These
feedback mechanisms include ad hoc meetings, surveys, steering committees, web forms, and
direct e-mails.

Future Research

This study identified the following gaps in current knowledge that are suggested for future research:

• Develop a data management and governance guidebook and training materials for transportation
agencies.
• Conduct case studies to assess and quantify the magnitude and complexity of data managed by
state DOTs and identify resources for managing these data effectively.
• Identify and measure the benefits, costs, and risks (e.g., data security risks) of adopting cloud
computing services for transportation agencies (considering both state-owned and commercially
owned data centers/clouds).
• Develop methods and metrics for evaluating data quality considering multiple quality dimensions
(e.g., accuracy, completeness, timeliness, relevancy, consistency, accessibility, and access security).
• Develop guidance for integrating data sets that are typically not integrated but would be beneficial
to integrate with roadway inventory. Examples of these data sets include environmental data,
travel modeling data, pavement work history data, and project construction data.
• Investigate the potential of georeferenced digital as-builts and roadway data as a framework for
integrating data within transportation agencies.
• Develop methods and case studies for mining archived data at transportation agencies to dis-
cover hidden patterns and learn from past experiences.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 39

References

Adams, T.M., N.A. Koncz, and A.P. Vonderohe, NCHRP Report 460: Guidelines for the Implementa-
tion of Multimodal Transportation Location Referencing Systems, Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001.
Batini, C. and M. Scannapieca, Data Quality Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques, Springer
Publishing Company, New York, N.Y., 2006.
Bhansali, N., Data Governance, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 2013.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Boston Strategies International, Inc.; Gordon Proctor and Associates;
and M.J. Markow, NCHRP Report 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support
Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), HPMS Field Manual, Office of Highway Policy Information,
March 2014 (and March 2015 addendum), FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2015.
Hall, J.P., Ed., Transportation Research Circular No. E-C196: Improving Safety Programs through
Data Governance and Data Business Planning, A Peer Exchange, Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015.
Han, J., M. Kamber, and J. Pei, Data Mining Concepts and Techniques, 3rd ed., Elsevier Inc., Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, Waltham, Mass., 2012.
Hazen, B.T., C.A. Boone, J.D. Ezell, and L.A. Jones-Farmer, “Data Quality for Data Science,
Predictive Analytics, and Big Data in Supply Chain Management: An Introduction to the Problem
and Suggestions for Research and Applications,” International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 154, 2014, pp. 72–80.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Information Technology—Reference Model of
Data Management, Technical Report, Reference No. ISO/IEC TR 10032:2003(E), ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2003.
Ladley, J., Data Governance: How to Design, Deploy, and Sustain an Effective Data Governance
Program, Morgan Kaufmann, an imprint of Elsevier, Waltham, Mass., 2012.
Lee, Y.W., D.M. Strong, B.K. Kahn, and R.Y. Wang, “AIMQ: A Methodology for Information Quality
Assessment,” Information & Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2002, pp. 133–146.
Lei, H., X. Xing, J.D. Taylor, and X. Zhou, “Monitoring Travel Time Reliability from the Cloud—
Cloud Computing Based Architecture for Advanced Dissemination of Traffic Information,”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2291,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 35–43.
Neudorff, L.G., J. Mason, and J. Bauer, Transportation Research Circular, No. E-C166: Glossary
of Regional Transportation Systems Management and Operations Terms, 2nd ed., Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
Olsen, M.J., J.D. Raugust, and G.V. Roe, NCHRP Synthesis 446: Use of Advanced Geospatial Data,
Tools, Technologies, and Information in Department of Transportation Projects, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Pack, M.L. and N. Ivanov, NCHRP Synthesis 460: Sharing Operations Data among Agencies,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.
Pierce, L.M., G. McGovern, and K.A. Zimmerman, Practical Guide for Quality Management of
Pavement Condition Data Collection, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Report,
FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Pipino, L.L., Y.W. Lee, and R.Y. Wang, “Data Quality Assessment,” Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 45, No. 4, 2002, pp. 211–218.
Sankaran, B., W.J. O’Brien, P.M. Goodrum, N. Khwaja, F.L. Leite, and J. Johnson, “Civil Integrated
Management for Highway Infrastructure Case Studies and Lessons Learned,” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2573, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2016, pp. 10–17.
Sinha, K.C. and S. Labi, Transportation Decision Making: Principles of Project Evaluation and
Programming, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J., 2007.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

40

Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc., NCHRP Report 814: Data to Support Transportation
Agency Business Needs: A Self-Assessment Guide, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015a.
Spy Pond Partners, LLC and Iteris, Inc., NCHRP Web-Only Document 214: Transportation Agency
Self-Assessment of Data to Support Business Needs, Final Research Report, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015b.
Stickel, J.R. and A. Vandervalk, “Data Business Plans and Governance Programs: Aligning Trans-
portation Data to Agency Strategic Objectives,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2460, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp. 154–163.
Sullivan, J. and J.R. Stickel, “Transportation Agency Data Governance Programs Getting Started
Toward Sustainability,” Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, Compendium of
Papers, No. 15-2404, Washington D.C., Jan. 11–15, 2015.
Vandervalk, A., D. Snyder, and J.K. Hajek, U.S. DOT Roadway Transportation Data Business Plan
(Phase 1), Data Business Plan, Final Report, FHWA-JPO-13-084, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Wang, R.Y. and D.M. Strong, “Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers,”
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1996, pp. 5–33.
Wang, R.Y., M. Ziad, and Y.W. Lee, Data Quality, Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, N.Y., 2001.
Zimmerman, K.A., NCHRP Synthesis 470: Maintenance Quality Assurance Field Inspection Practices,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-1

Appendix A
Survey Questionnaires and Responses

Phase 1 Survey

Dear Members of AASHTO Subcommittee on Data/AASHTO SCOP Committee and Agency Representatives:

The transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis that will summarize current practices
related to the topic Data Maintenance Practices. This is being done for the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway
and transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Transportation agencies are increasingly collecting large amounts of data for use in various business areas,
such as planning, operations, construction, maintenance, and resource allocation. This questionnaire is
part of the effort in NCHRP Synthesis Topic 47-05 to gather information on data management practices
at transportation agencies. The results of this synthesis project will show how transportation agencies
currently govern, manage, integrate, and share data in the interest of sharing best practices among trans-
portation agencies.

The survey is divided into two phases:

• Phase 1 (this questionnaire): Screening survey to gather information that will be used to customize
Phase 2 questions to pertain only to those data management practices and policies of responding
organizations. The intent is to make the Phase 2 survey as short and specific as possible.
• Phase 2: Tailored follow-up survey that will be launched upon analyzing the responses to Phase 1.

Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire will ensure the success of this effort. If you are not the
appropriate person at your organization to complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the correct
person.

Please complete and submit this survey by May 13, 2016. We estimate that it should take approximately
10–15 minutes to complete. It could take longer if the participant needs to contact other individuals in his/her
organizations to help answer some of the questions. If you have any questions, please contact our Principal
Investigator, Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh, at (979) 845-3362 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

Please enter your contact information below. NCHRP will e-mail you a link to the online report when it
is completed.

First Name*:__________________________________________________
Last Name*:__________________________________________________
Title*: _______________________________________________________
Agency/Organization*:__________________________________________
E-mail Address*:_______________________________________________
Phone Number*:_______________________________________________

Phase 1 Survey

1) Does your agency have a designated data governance board/council?

Data Governance Board/Council: Group that institutes policies and oversees activities regarding
data governance throughout the organization. Data governance is defined as “the execution and
enforcement of authority over the management of data assets and the performance of data functions”
(NCHRP Report 666, 2010).*

Responses of DOTs
M  Yes – 8 responses
M  No – 19 responses
M  In Development – 16 responses

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-2

Responses of Local Agencies

M  Yes – 1 response
M  No – 18 responses
M  In Development – No response

2) If you answered “yes” or “in development” to Question 1, please describe this board/council briefly
(e.g., group name, staff positions/titles, contact person):

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – “We have Data Governance Board, which will include the CIO and Data Management
Coordinator for strategic leadership. It provides leadership and strategic direction for a broad range
of governance issues including but not limited to internal controls, data governance, administrative
policy, data practices, and records management. Data Domain Stewards are for tactical leadership.
The agency has identified nine data domains and assigned a domain steward to each. There are over
100 subject areas organized by domain. Examples of subject area would include: grant data, bicycle
data, and roadway condition data. The Domain Steward is usually an office director.”
Response 2 – “Through an effort under the Program and Special Studies Area, a unify database is
under development to consolidate pavement, traffic, and road inventory data, as a first phase. In a
second and third phase, all data develop and/or acquire by the agency, will be feed into the system
for a complete Roads and transportation Database Management System.”
Response 3 – “An informal assembly of business owners and asset stewards across bureaus.”
Response 4 – “At one point, Agency had the Data Governance Council, no longer active. The Asset
Data Management Committee (ADMC) was formed to represent primarily linear assets. Policy
direction for that committee is provided by Asset Management Exec. Committee. What current
governance bodies there are through committees could be restructured or incorporated into a new
system. Agency is currently developing a Strategic Data Business Plan (SDBP) for the agency
which is expected to include governance.”
Response 5 – “We are in the infancy stages of a data governance council. The intended positions are:
Data Governance Board Chair, Data Coordinator, Data Steward, Data Management Coordinator,
Metadata Specialist, Data Warehouse Architect, Business Analyst, Database Administrator, Data
Architect.”
Response 6 – “Agency has a Geospatial Data Governance Board focusing on geospatial data. The
Board is run by agency’s Geospatial Information Office.”
Response 7 – “Agency has structured governance policies for the core data programs: traffic, road
network, and crash. The road network entails road centerlines, LRS, and roadway features.
We currently are converting our GIS over to ESRI’s Roads and Highways, which will provide
a more well defined and efficient governance. The DOT as a whole developed a strawman data
governance policy and an accompanying data governance procedure manual as part of our asset
management program. Since completing that effort, the Department had a major reorganization -
creating a separate Information Systems and Services Division (ISSD). ISSD will take the lead on
data governance. There have been substantive IT infrastructure, personnel, and operational policies
to deal with during the reorganization, but the data governance policy and procedures are now being
addressed. Probably will be the end of the year before they get completed. I could share the strawman
documents if there is interest.”
Response 8 – “Data Governance Working Group.”
Response 9 – “Reliable Organized Accurate Data Sharing (ROADS) Steering Committee.”
Response 10 – “Enterprise Data Sharing and Storage Committee. Comprised of business areas
(Maintenance, traffic Operations, Safety, Planning) and Office of Information Technology (OIT)
personnel. Generally comprised of the data managers of the business areas along with enterprise
solutions personnel in OIT.”
Response 11 – “The agency’s Enterprise Information Governance Group is composed of division
directors who represent the various organizational business activities, the Knowledge Strategist,
and IT specialists in Information Management. The prime focal point of the group is on establish-
ing and reviewing agency policies regarding data and information management. There are also
other specialized data governance groups - Formation of an asset management governance group
is underway and there is also a Data Warehouse Governance group.”
Response 12 – “The Council is a joint entity of the Information Technology Agency and the Depart-
ment of transportation. It is made up of mid-career professional and technical unionized workforce
members from each transportation program area and information technology program area.
Members are designated by their program area to vet proposals with colleagues within the program

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-3

area and speak to the interests of the program area with respect to proposals submitted for clearance
review.”
Response 13 – “Name: Data Governance Committee Purpose: To discuss and coordinate efforts
that deal with collecting, creating, maintaining and analyzing data across the agency. This includes
data awareness, availability, accessibility, maintenance, security, storage, and usage. Members:
Various Division Heads throughout the Department.”
Response 14 – “There are various efforts with our IT department, and as part of Asset Management
contracts”
Response 15 – “Data Governance Board – GIS Manager, Chair – Data SME – Asset Mang – DMV –
Document Management”
Response 16 – “Data governance is managed by agency’s Policy Division. This was rolled out a
week ago and I am not familiar with all the staff positions/titles.”
Response 17 – “We currently have a policy document outlining data collection and coordination
along with internal rules within the GIS office for data policies.”
Response 18 – “The Chief Information Officer and his staff are responsible for ensuring that the
business goals and initiatives for agency have a strategy that is sound in technology, ultimately
becoming a beneficial and operational business process and decision support facility for agency
staff.”
Response 19 – “Agency is currently in the process of developing a Data Governance model; the current
model is distributed across various divisions and is informally maintained via corporate culture.
A formal approach to Governance is being approached in steps with the initial efforts originating
with the IT division identifying standardized processes and procedures for both internal and external
data consumers.”
Response 20 – “The board is called the ‘Drive Team.’ Made up of directors from around the
Department, the Drive Team is charged with implementation of the Department’s Asset Management
business model and serves as the advisory council to the executive management team, primary
decision-making body for Data Standards, major data/information initiatives and oversight ongoing
‘portfolio’ of IT application development projects and investments.”
Response 21 – “This council consists of 6 second or third line DOT supervisors representing the
major data areas of the department. It also includes 2 IT representatives. There is no staff—this is
a policy board.”
Response 22 – “The Department has an Asset Management and Performance Strategies (AMPS)
section within the Bureau of Planning whose responsibility it is to work with all Data Managers
throughout the agency to develop governance policies for agency data needs”
Response 23 – “We have a weekly Data Governance Working Group that consists of data stewards
from our various divisions. We also have a Data Governance Executive Committee that meets every
month and they are updated on the activities of the DG Working Group and they will also approve or
disapprove any issues that the DG Working Group has. The DG Exec Committee sets the priorities
for the DG Working Group.”

Response of Local Agency

Response 1 – “IT Department maintains and archives agency data, no protocols specific to trans-
portation data. Supports COOP function.”

3) Does your agency have designated data coordinators?

Data Coordinator: Committee or individual that coordinates the organization, sharing, access, and
use of multiple data sets within a business area (e.g., asset management, safety).*

Responses of DOTs
M  Yes – 26 responses
M  No – 6 responses
M  In Development – 11 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

M  Yes – 5 responses
M  No – 12 responses
M  In Development – 2 responses

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-4

4) If you answered “yes” or “in development” to question 3, please describe these coordinators briefly
(e.g., business areas, staff positions/titles, contact persons):
1.
2.
3.

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – “Subject Area Stewards are responsible for the data within their purview. They
coordinate with other Subject Area Stewards as needed to facilitate sharing of data, reduction of
duplication and increasing access to data.”
Response 2 – “Asset management coordinator is responsible for gathering all necessary data sets,
and keeping them updated in the State Planning and Operations Database (SPOD).”
Response 3 – “The agency has officially two coordinators in terms of data interchange and exchange
for other state agencies, municipalities, the private sector, and the federal government. These
are the GIS Coordinator and the HPMS Coordinator. The GIS Coordinator a primarily task is to
oversees data exchange between entities and keep external data up to date. The HPMS Coordinator
primarily task is to coordinate data compilation, management and processing to meet FHWA report-
ing requirements.”
Response 4 – “The MIS department is coordinating a data warehouse concept. Weekly meetings
with major data areas coordinate dashboards, data audits, and development.”
Response 5 – “Engineering, Planning and Asset Management”
Response 6 – “Data Management and Statistical Support Section, Safety Data, and Data Manager
positions exist. Primarily this covers asset condition data, traffic data, and safety data.”
Response 7 – “Data Coordinators do exist for many program areas with a variety of titles and
classifications. There is not a formal designation. People acting as coordinators may not have
consistent roles, responsibilities, or provide the same level of effort and completeness.”
Response 8 – “Data management is still spread throughout the agency until we establish the data
council, which could up to take 5 years to fully implement. For now, SHA has fund managers and
asset owners who manage their data. 20% of physical asset data is in an asset data warehouse; not all
reported metrics are in the data set. Asset Data Stewards are spread throughout the agency in various
district offices; examples of assets include rumble strips, signs, park and ride, highway system,
guard rails.”
Response 9 – “Under the Asset Management and Performance Management efforts, Caltrans is
developing a more systematic method for data coordination.”
Response 10 – “One data governance area of need is to identify the data systems and subject matter
experts with each business area. There is interest in creating a data registry for this. Again, we have
a strawman data registry completed, but undoubtedly will be reformatted before rolling out to the
Department.”
Response 11 – “We have coordinators for the Highway Performance Monitoring System and for
Safety data.”
Response 12 – “Each Functional Group (business area) within the agency has a designated Enter-
prise Data Steward, Data Stewards and Data Custodians. This list of persons (330+) is fairly well
established, but is changing during the development phase of the project.”
Response 13 – “1 GIS Coordinator and 1 Roadway Inventory Coordinator per Agency district.”
Response 14 – “The Enterprise Data Branch of OIT are responsible for ensuring business data is
available at an organizational level via transportation Enterprise Database (TED). Data managers
in each business area coordinate, as needed, for clarity of purpose when using data that originates in
another business area.”
Response 15 – “Some areas of the department have well-formed data stewardship and coordination
of data access roles - the transportation Data and GIS Office (crash, roadway and traffic data) and
Accounting and financial Services. Other areas either do not have or are in the process of growing
such roles.”
Response 16 – “We have system administrators for each automated business system who administer
user requests for access to the application and data within the application. They train users and do
data QA/QC for the system they administer. Also have data stewards who oversee matters such
as OLTP Data, time series warehouse data, data reporting quick marts, data integration among
systems, and business intelligence among multiple systems within a knowledge domain and in some
cases across multiple domains. The information technology agency roles are concerned with regular
backups of data, disaster recovery strategy, and classification of data from the lenses of security
(confidential vs. public) and criticality (i.e., service level agreements for outages).”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-5

Response 17 – “The Data Governance committee serves as the top-level data coordination council.
In addition, there is an Enterprise GIS Data committee that consists of individual data coordinators
from various business areas across the agency such as: Planning, environmental, bridge, Maintenance,
System Information, Right of Way etc.”
Response 18 – “We have some staff within our GIS section that coordinate data sets and sharing
with other divisions and work units within the DOT.”
Response 19 – “We have data stewards for many data sets but [their] responsibilities are not well
defined.”
Response 20 – “The Office of Technical Services is the main repository for transportation Asset data
because of our business responsibility of Locational Referencing System (LRS) and Geographical
Information Systems (GIS). Our Office is also responsible for updating enterprise data sets to the
most current year LRS. We also coordinate the TAM activities for the department in terms of data
collection, standards, working with the various businesses to ensure data integrity as well as access
and distribution of data.”
Response 21 – “Data sharing is coordinated between agency’s Information Technology Division
and agency’s Business Data Owners/Business Stakeholders. The Business Data Owners represent
the business units, i.e., Local Assistance, Maintenance, transportation and Mobility Planning, and
traffic and Engineering, Structure and bridge, Infrastructure Investment, etc.”
Response 22 – “Through the process of developing the EGIS (Enterprise-wide GIS) program,
several committees were formed to develop collaboration and integrate individual data silos into
the EGIS program. This process is on-going.”
Response 23 – “They are in business areas.”
Response 24 – “Data Coordinators for highway, pavement, traffic, photolog, and highway performance
monitoring are in the Bureau of State Highway Programs. Managers of these programs are responsible
for implementing policy and data life cycle.”
Response 25 – “Data owners/managers responsible for certain datasets.”
Response 26 – “Agency has historically practiced a data steward model that ranged from formal
to informal depending upon the division. The role is not dedicated at 100% FTE but instead is
practiced by an individual serving as a designated point of contact who manages data maintenance,
data distribution, etc. according to the division’s business model. Department IT is currently attempt-
ing to formalize a GIS stewards model across divisions as part of a recent effort to centralize GIS
information.”
Response 27 – “We have a group of what we call ‘system administrators’ that oversee individual
information systems (databases and associated data, coordination, training, software, and processes).
These system administrators convene monthly to share updates and ask/answer questions about
upcoming changes and issues. Typically, these system administrators act as go-to people for users
and help to disseminate knowledge and understanding to users and others affected by information
system changes.”
Response 28 – “Same AMPS Section—one administrator position, two civil engineers, one business
system analyst, and one more being developed.”
Response 29 – “We have data stewards in every Division that will coordinate the sharing and
permissions of their data.”

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – “IT Department maintains and archives agency data, no protocols specific to trans-
portation data. GIS department publishes multiple data sets from various sources, many without
metadata.”
Response 2 – “Title: Data Management Specialist”
Response 3 – “We do not have designated data coordinators, but we do have a de-facto data
coordinator. The head of the Long-Range transportation Planning Group has been making data
organization decisions.”
Response 4 – “No formal designation of specific staff, distributed among several.”
Response 5 – “GIS Program Manager”
Response 6 – “Not necessarily ‘designated’ but we have a GIS staff person who organizes/shares/
accesses data sets.”
Response 7 – “Not ‘in development’ so much as ‘partial.’ Principal Analyst (survey respondent) is
project manager for CMAP’s Data and Information Services project: oversees acquisition of public
datasets for and archiving of obsolete datasets for our internal data warehouse.”
Response 8 – “Responsible for posting agency-developed datasets on public data portal. We also
maintain a Regional transportation Data Archive and probe data.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-6

5) Does your agency have a document that describes its current data governance model?

Responses of DOTs
M  Yes – 11 responses
M  No – 20 responses
M  In Development – 12 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

M  Yes – No response
M  No – 19 responses
M  In Development – No response

6) If you answered “yes” to Question 5, would you be willing to provide the research team with a copy
of your agency’s data governance document for use as an example?

Responses of DOTs
M  Yes – 12 responses
M  No – 4 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

No response

7) Please answer the questions in the table below. Please check all that apply.
Data Warehouse/Mart: A data warehouse is a unified repository of current and historical data
obtained from multiple sources. A data mart is a scaled-down version of a data warehouse.
Data Steward: Individual who is accountable for assuring the quality of a specific data set, ensuring
compliance with data rules and regulations, defining metadata, and relaying the appropriate use of
the data.
Data archiving: The process of moving electronic data that is no longer actively used to a separate
storage device for long-term retention. (NCHRP Report 814)*

Data Set What data in your What data in What data in your agency
agency are your agency are archived
maintained in data have systematically to retain
warehouses or marts designated historical information?
(as opposed to stewards?
disparate files and
databases)?

Roadway inventory (e.g., location,

classification, geometrics)

Crash data

Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed,

volume)

Travel modeling data (e.g.,

household surveys, origin-
destination)

Highway Performance Monitoring

System (HPMS)

Pavement inventory and condition

data

Pavement work history data

Bridge inventory and condition data

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-7

Data Set What data in your What data in What data in your agency
agency are your agency are archived
maintained in data have systematically to retain
warehouses or marts designated historical information?
(as opposed to stewards?
disparate files and
databases)?

Bridge work history data

Inventory and condition data for

other assets (e.g., traffic signs,
signals, drainage assets)

Transportation improvement
programs data

Environmental impact and

compliance data

Project design and materials data

(e.g., design plans, structural design,
mix design)

Contracts/procurement data (e.g.,

bid tabs)

Project construction data (e.g.,

cost/payments, schedule, material
acceptance testing, as-built plans)

Real estate data (e.g., property

acquisition, agency-owned parcels)

Financial data (e.g., current and

historical revenues, expenditures,
budgets)

Others

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitor-
ing data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
transportation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and
condition data, transportation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 2 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, financial data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and
materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial
data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data, others.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-8

Response 3 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: pavement inventory and condition data,
bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, project construction
data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: traffic monitoring data, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
project design and materials data, project construction data.
Response 4 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data,
environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data,
financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental
impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and con-
dition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, financial data.
Response 5 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, contracts/
procurement data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history
data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, contracts/procurement data, financial data, contracts/procurement
data, financial data.
Response 6 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and
compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel model-
ing data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs, project design and materials data, contracts/
procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 7 – Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data. bridge inventory and condition data, trans-
portation improvement programs.
Data that are archived systematically to retain, historical records: Roadway inventory, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data
Response 8 – Data that have designated stewards: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-9

Response 9 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs, financial data
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs, project design and materials data, contracts/
procurement data, financial data.
Response 10 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and
compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash
data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 11 – Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement
data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, project design and materials
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 12 – Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitor-
ing data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compli-
ance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data,
real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pave-
ment work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact
and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construc-
tion data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 13 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: crash data
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-10

data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data.
Response 14 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: crash data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, transportation improvement programs, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement
data, project construction data, financial data.
Response 15 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: HPMS, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement data,
real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 16 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and
condition data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 17 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and
compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 18 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-11

compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transporta-
tion improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and
materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 19 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data
Response 20 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement
data, project construction data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact
and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construc-
tion data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/
procurement data, project construction data, financial data.
Response 21 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and
condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs
data, financial data, others
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement, programs data, financial
data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, traffic moni-
toring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs data.
Response 22 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, bridge
inventory and condition data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, envi-
ronmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data,
project construction data, real estate data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
project design and materials data, project construction data.
Response 23 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data,
project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate
data, financial data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-12

Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, traffic monitor-
ing data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, project design and materials data, project construction data.
Response 24 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge
work history data, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, financial data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data,
environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement
data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Data that have designated stewards:
Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and
compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Response 25 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: transportation improvement programs
data, financial data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data,
project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate
data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 26 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, contracts/procurement
data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, traffic moni-
toring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, project design
and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, financial data.
Response 27 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, transportation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, financial data.
Response 28 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs
data, project construction data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-13

Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 29 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data.
Response 30 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, pavement inventory and
condition data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, pavement inventory
and condition data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 31 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con-
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, others.
Response 32 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitor-
ing data, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
project design and materials data, project construction data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, project construction data, real estate data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, traffic moni-
toring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and con­
dition data for other assets, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 33 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact
and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project con-
struction data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-14

impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data.
Response 34 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement
programs data.
Response 35 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, bridge inventory
and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental
impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project
construction data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Response 36 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transporta-
tion improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project design and
materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data.
Response 37 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, project design and materials data,
project construction data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance
data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real
estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, traffic monitoring data,
Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data, project design and
materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 38 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Data that have designated stewards:
Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-15

transportation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data,

real estate data, financial data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data,
contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Data that have designated stewards:
Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modelling data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data, others.
Response 39 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traf-
fic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge
inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Response 40 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: crash data, HPMS, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data, contracts/
procurement data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history
data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, envi-
ronmental impact and compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement
data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and
compliance data, project design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction
data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 41 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic,
monitoring data, bridge inventory and condition data, environmental impact and compliance data,
project design and materials data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modelling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
design and materials data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data, real estate data,
financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, environmental impact and compliance data,
project design and materials data, project construction data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 42 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, traffic moni-
toring data, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data.
Response 43 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, project construction data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, project design and materials data, contracts/
procurement data, project construction data, real estate data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, project design and materials
data, contracts/procurement data, project construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-16

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: transportation improvement programs
data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: transportation improvement
programs data.
Response 2 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, transportation
improvement programs data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, transportation improvement programs
data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, pavement
inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, real estate data, financial
data.
Response 3 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: contracts/procurement data, real estate
data, financial data.
Data that have designated stewards: Travel modeling data, contracts/procurement data, real estate
data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Travel modeling data, transportation
improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, real estate data, financial data.
Response 4 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory
and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, others.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
transportation improvement programs data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash
data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge
inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, others.
Response 5 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation
improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inven-
tory and condition data, bridge work history data, contracts/procurement data.
Response 6 – Data that have designated stewards: transportation improvement programs data,
financial data, others.
Response 7 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, contracts/procurement data.
Data that have designated stewards: Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data,
transportation improvement programs data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Travel modeling data, pavement
inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data,
financial data.
Response 8 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: traffic monitoring data, others.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Travel modeling data.
Response 9 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Roadway inventory, crash data,
traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs data, environ-
mental impact and compliance data.
Response 10 – Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data.
Response 11 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Travel modelling data.
Data that have designated stewards: Travel modelling data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Travel modelling data.
Response 12 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Travel modelling data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-17

Response 13 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: crash data, project design and
materials data.
Data that have designated stewards: Travel modeling data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, project design and materials data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, project design and
materials data.
Response 14 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Response 15 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic
monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs data, environmental impact
and compliance data.
Data that have designated stewards: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling data, trans-
portation improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 16 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data.
Data that have designated stewards: crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
transportation improvement programs data.
Response 17 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Travel modeling data, transportation
improvement programs data, environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 18 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: others.
Data that have designated stewards: Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs
data, contracts/procurement data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: Travel modeling data, trans­
portation improvement programs data, contracts/procurement data, financial data.
Response 19 – Data maintained in data warehouses or marts: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring
data, Travel modeling data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement data, project con-
struction data, real estate data, financial data.
Data that are archived systematically to retain historical records: crash data, environmental impact
and compliance data.

8) If you checked “others” in question 7, please describe these data.

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Historical Aerial Photographs of state from 1930 to 2007.
Response 2 – Maintenance Management System with plan vs accomplishment, major activity
amounts and costs, Consultant contract Administration for PE selections and cost.
Response 3 – HR; Motor Carrier; Fleet Management System; Safety; Aggregate; Unstable Slopes
(Landslides).
Response 4 – Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) is a major area for Agency. RWIS supports
three primary areas: a) Winter weather maintenance decisions b) Seasonal weight restrictions—
implementing and removing c) Travel decisions for the 511 traveler information systems. RWIS
provides: a) Atmospheric conditions b) pavement surface conditions c) Soil temperature profiles
d) Camera images, including nighttime images using infrared illuminators. With the exception of
camera images (which are retained only for 24 hours), we archive and make available (publicly for
most of the information, the one exception is pavement condition).
Response 5 – The ARRA data reporting requirements (circa 2009) were fulfilled by building a
warehouse environment for that program only. It is in process of being decommissioned as vendor
version upgrades of the platforms for business intelligence necessitate migration of warehouses to
new environments, and business needs for the data diminish to close to zero usage.
Response 6 – All Public Roads LRS and City Limit/County Boundaries.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – GIS department publishes various datasets from multiple sources, many without
metadata.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-18

Response 2 – Cross-border estimated delay for passenger and commercial vehicles.

Response 3 – Title VI/Env. Justice related data.
Response 4 – Regional transportation Data Archive includes: incident and construction data.
Probe Database includes: National Performance Measurement Research Dataset, additional HERE
(Navteq) data, and license plate odometer readings.

9) Please enter any additional comments you may have in the space below:

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – “In the agency there are a number of individual databases for finance, construction,
design, contracts, environment, etc. But is only access is restrained.”
Response 2 – “The Strategic Data Business Plan under development used a stakeholder input
process and workshops to develop a common strategic data vision, goals and objectives for the
agency. The current focus is on development of 1) a common ‘toolbox’ for achieving the goals and
objectives and 2) an agency Baseline to help direct the development of strategies. For additional
information contact Denise.”
Response 3 – “HPMS data is archived by FHWA.”
Response 4 – “Data Stewards and Data Custodians are actively being identified and designated at
this time.”
Response 5 – “Inventory and Conditions Data . . . includes a strong inventory of signals and a devel-
oping inventory of signs and drainage assets. Pavement Inventory Data is close to being accessible
via TED. Working on resolving LRS between pavement Data and TED.”
Response 6 – “There are many stewards of the agency’s asset data and there is overlap between
the various systems. Most of these systems were created as independent efforts and rarely include
a full accounting of all assets in the subject area. There is no standard way of tying items together
between systems. We do employ ECM solutions to house design plans, and we have an extensive
investment in GIS data and tools. Many of the GIS data sets are spatial renditions of subsets of
information from our tabular systems.”
Response 7 – “I will forward an updated answer to questions 5 and 6, if my preliminary ‘No’ for
question 5 turns out to be false upon further investigation with my colleagues.”
Response 8 – “Data governance is a growing area of interest and concern for the agency. Within
another year or so, we will likely have made much more progress in this area.”
Response 9 – “We have one enterprise repository which is accessible via our transportation Infor-
mation Mapping System (TIMS). We have over 85 datasets currently in the enterprise and a request
for up to 150 that we are working towards. The data has been structured to allow for easy integration
with other datasets and various systems; i.e., pavement management, maintenance management.
All of this is supported on the back in by geospatial platforms and tools (ESRI). We utilize ESRI
Roads and Highways to update our Roadway Network and then register the various datasets and
perpetuate the changes.”
Response 10 – “The department is currently developing a system to incorporate data from all of
these various sources into a single viewing/retrieval/querying platform. Although this system is not
complete, we have crossed the major hurdle of getting all of the various Bureaus and groups on
board with the system.”
Response 11 – “We have very little formal methods to even keep track of stewards as stewards,
even though we know who is responsible for what. We have not formalized this. An ongoing dis-
cussion about data retention is currently in play. We tend to hold on to lots of data that should be
either archived or disposed of. Current retention policies have not been extended to electronic data,
partially because we designed our systems assuming the data would always be there.”

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1: “As an MPO we use the data collected by the State or municipalities. We do run the
AQ advisory committee and are responsible for AQ related database.”
Response 2: “Although as an MPO we use many of the data sources cited; we do not generate,
maintain, or archive those copied files.”

The Phase 1 survey is complete. Thank you for your participation!

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-19

Phase 2 Survey

Dear Participants:
This questionnaire is the second phase of the survey being conducted as part of NCHRP Synthesis
Topic 47-05 (Data Maintenance Practices). The questions in this survey were designed based on the
results of Phase 1 survey.
This synthesis project is being conducted for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and transportation
Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Your cooperation in completing the questionnaire will ensure the success of this effort. If you are not the
appropriate person at your organization to complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the correct person.
Please complete and submit this survey by May 13, 2016. We estimate that it should take approximately
15 minutes to complete. It could take longer if the participant needs to contact other individuals in his/her
organizations to help answer some of the questions. If you have any questions, please contact our Principal
Investigator, Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh, at (979) 845-3362 or [email protected]

Thank you very much for your time and expertise.

Please enter your contact information below. NCHRP will e-mail you a link to the online report when it
is completed.

First Name*:__________________________________________________
Last Name*:__________________________________________________
Title*:_______________________________________________________
Agency/Organization*:__________________________________________
E-mail Address*:_______________________________________________
Phone Number*:_______________________________________________

Data Governance and Quality

1) To what extent do the following factors limit progress on instituting data governance in your agency?

If other factors are applicable, please specify them in the entry boxes titled “Enter another option.”

Factor Major Factor Minor Factor Not an Issue

Other mission-related issues are more pressing

Hard to justify the cost and effort

Lack of resources

Lack of staffing

*Enter another option*

*Enter another option*

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Major factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources, lack
of staffing. Minor factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 2 – Major factor: Lack of staffing. Minor factor: lack of resources and lack of com­
munication. Not an issue: Other mission-related issues are more pressing and hard to justify the
cost and effort.
Response 3 – Major factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor factor: Hard to
justify the cost and effort, lack of resources and lack of staffing.
Response 4 – Major factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources and
lack of staffing. Minor factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 5 – Major factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, cost and effort, lack of
resources and lack of staffing. Minor factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-20

Response 6 – Major factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other
mission-related issues are more pressing, small community of data managers allows for simple
communication. Not an Issue: Lack of staffing.
Response 7 – Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing.
Response 8 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Lack of understanding.
Response 9 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of understanding from Executive staff.
Response 10 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of staffing.
Minor Factor: Lack of resources. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 11 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of staffing,
lack of policies and procedures, lack of standards. Minor Factor: Lack of resources. Not an Issue:
Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 12 – Major Factor: Lack of resources. Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are
more pressing, lack of staffing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 13 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor Factor: Hard
to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Response 14 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-related
issues are more pressing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 15 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources and lack of staffing.
Response 16 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-related
issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 17 – Not an Issue: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources and lack of staffing.
Response 18 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources,
lack of staffing, Lack of understanding the magnitude of the data collected—number of datasets . . .
and lack of communication. Minor Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 19 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources. Minor Factor: Lack of staffing.
Response 20 – Major Factor: Lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Lack of resources. Not an Issue: Other
mission-related issues are more pressing, Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 21 – Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources,
lack of staffing, Not an issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 22 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor Factor: Lack
of resources, lack of staffing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 23 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of staffing,
historical focus on projects, not underlying data. Minor Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort,
lack of resources.
Response 24 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing, competing priorities (Asset Man-
agement, Safety, IT), Development of an enterprise solution, IT resources are committed to other
initiatives, Lack of understanding of technical needs (geospatial/data integration/mapping) and
how they should be envisioned for the enterprise. Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are
more pressing, Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 25 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-related
issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 26 – Major Factor: Lack of program lead and leadership instructions, Lack of formal
governance policy and manuals. Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing,
Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify cost and effort.
Response 27 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Response 28 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing, lack of flexibility in communications
on governance in IT, Siloed thinking. Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing,
hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 29 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor Factor: Lack
of resources, lack of staffing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 30 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-related
issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost and effort.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-21

Response 31 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor Factor: Hard
to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Response 32 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-
related issues are more pressing. Not an Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources,
lack of staffing.
Response 33 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of staffing,
culture of separate “fiefdoms” (this matters FAR more than anything else). Minor Factor: Hard to
justify the cost and effort, lack of resources.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Major Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing.
Response 2 – Not an Issue: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Response 3 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of staffing. Not an
Issue: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources.
Response 4 – Major Factor: Lack of resources, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other mission-related
issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 5 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of resources, lack of upper management support. Minor Factor: Lack of staffing.
Response 6 – Major Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Other
mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources.
Response 7 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources,
lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 8 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, lack of resources, lack
of staffing. Minor Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort.
Response 9 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing. Minor Factor: Lack of
resources, lack of staffing.
Response 10 – Major Factor: Hard to justify the cost and effort, lack of resources, lack of staffing.
Minor Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing.
Response 11 – Major Factor: Other mission-related issues are more pressing, hard to justify the cost
and effort, lack of staffing. Minor Factor: Lack of resources.

2) To what extent are data quality elements evaluated in your agency?

Data Quality Element Evaluated in Evaluated Evaluated in Not

All or Most in Some a Few Areas Evaluated
Areas Areas

Accuracy (closeness between a data

value and the real-world value that it
represents)

Completeness (absence of missing values

in the dataset)

Timeliness (how up-to-date the data are

with respect to the task at hand)

Relevancy (data are applicable and useful

for the task at hand)

Consistency (degree to which the data

item is presented in the same format
across agency)

Accessibility (ability of authorized users

to access the data)

Access security (ability to restrict access

to data to maintain security)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-22

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy. Evaluated in Some Areas: Completeness,
Timeliness, Relevancy and Consistency. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accessibility, Access security.
Response 2 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Timeliness. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy,
Completeness, Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 3 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Timeliness, Relevancy, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 4 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Completeness Timeliness, Relevancy, Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 5 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accessibility. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy,
Timeliness, Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Completeness Consistency.
Response 6 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Timeliness, Accessibility. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Relevancy, Consistency. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Access security.
Response 7 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy,
Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 8 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Accessibility. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Relevancy, Consistency, Access security.
Response 9 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated in Some
Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Accessibility. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency.
Response 10 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated
in a Few Areas: Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 11 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Acces-
sibility, Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency.
Response 12 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Completeness, Timeliness, Consistency, Accessibility,
Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Relevancy.
Response 13 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accessibility, Access security. Evaluated in Some
Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency.
Response 14 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Completeness, Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 15 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness Timeliness, Relevancy, Acces-
sibility, Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency.
Response 16 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Access security. Evaluated
in Some Areas: Timeliness, Relevancy, Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 17 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Con-
sistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 18 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 19 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Timeliness, Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated
in Some Areas: Completeness, Accessibility. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accuracy, Consistency.
Response 20 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Accuracy, Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 21 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accuracy, Consistency, Accessibility, Access
security.
Response 22 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accessibility, Access security.
Response 23 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy,
Timeliness. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Completeness, Relevancy, Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 24 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Completeness, Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated
in Some Areas: Accuracy, Timeliness, Consistency. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accessibility.
Response 25 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Accessibility,
Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Relevancy, Consistency.
Response 26 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 27 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Timeliness, Accessibility, Access security.
Evaluated in a Few Areas: Completeness, Relevancy, Consistency.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-23

Response 28 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Con-

sistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 29 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Relevancy, Consistency, Access security. Evaluated
in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Accessibility.
Response 30 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated in Some
Areas: Timeliness. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 31 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Accessibility, Access security. Evaluated
in Some Areas: Completeness, Timeliness, Consistency. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Relevancy.
Response 32 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Relevancy, Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 33 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 34 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas: Consistency, Accessibility.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Relevancy, Accessibility. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Evaluated in a Few Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Consistency, Access security.
Response 2 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Consistency. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 3 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.
Response 4 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy,
Consistency, Access security. Evaluated in Some Areas: Accessibility.
Response 5 – Not Evaluated: Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness, Relevancy, Consistency,
Accessibility, Access security.
Response 6 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness. Evaluated in Some Areas:
Timeliness, Relevancy, Access security. Evaluated in a Few Areas: Consistency, Accessibility.
Response 7 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Relevancy, Consistency,
Accessibility. Evaluated in Some Areas: Timeliness, Access security.
Response 8 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Timeliness, Relevancy, Accessibility. Evaluated in
Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency, Access security.
Response 9 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Timeliness, Accessibility. Evaluated in a Few Areas:
Accuracy, Completeness, Relevancy, Consistency, Access security.
Response 10 – Evaluated in All or Most Areas: Accuracy. Evaluated in Some Areas: Completeness.
Evaluated in a Few Areas: Timeliness, Consistency. Not Evaluated: Accessibility, Access security
Response 11 – Evaluated in Some Areas: Accuracy, Completeness Timeliness, Relevancy. Evaluated
in a Few Areas: Consistency, Accessibility, Access security.

Data Integration and Sharing

3) Which of these data sets are integrated in your agency to serve various business needs? Please
check all that apply in the grid below.

Example: Check the box at the intersection of Row A and Column B to indicate that roadway inventory
(A) and crash data (B) are integrated.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-24

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P

Responses: Please see Appendix C.

Comments of DOTs
Response 1: “The other systems (the unchecked ones) often include LRS information as part of
their attribution, but sometimes this information is incomplete and not associated with a date. This
makes calculations between the state of the roadway at different time periods difficult. Differing
levels of resolution also makes the data difficult to integrate.”
Response 2: “Some of the integrated datasets are only partially integrated at this time.”
Response 3: “Best guesses, not thoroughly vetted.”
Response 4: “State System only J-used Enhanced Priority Formula System (EPFS) M-used
WinCMPS.”
Response 5: “I only marked above the diagonal because ‘integrated’ could be interpreted as primary
flow direction, reverse flow direction, or both.”
Response 6: “Our enterprise GIS datasets and Location References or unique identifiers provide us
with at least one point of integration in every category listed. However, while some data is routinely
integrated in systems such as a data warehouse, other datasets need to be linked to each other using
a manual/custom process.”
Response 7: “Details of integration beyond Items A through D and J are unknown to this
reporter.”
Response 8: “The format for this is very confusing. Also, we can relate data across data sets, but that
doesn’t mean they are ‘integrated’ in the technical sense (in the same database).”
Response 9: “Everything is linked via route ID and Measure, and location functions that can snap
to the centerline. All these can be intersected or unioned. Not all of these are pre-intersected or
pre-unioned.”
Response 10: “I am assuming it is a given that certain datasets are integrated such as bridge
Inventory/bridge Work History and contracts/financial. I did not take the time to confirm them all,
but rather checked the disparate ones that I know are integrated.”
Response 11: “All will be beneficial.”

Comments of Local Agencies

Response 1: “We have access to and maintain many of these datasets. However, none of those
included above are wholly integrated beyond existing in the same file structure. They are very much
silo-ed despite their obvious relationship to one another.”
Response 2: “Most of these data sets are not owned/maintained by our agency and are therefore
not applicable.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-25

4) What data sets would be beneficial for your agency to integrate? Please check all that apply in the
grid below.

Example: Check the box at the intersection of Row E and Column G to indicate that it would
be beneficial for your agency to integrate pavement inventory and condition data (E) and bridge
inventory and condition data (G).

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P

Responses: Please see Appendix C.

Comments of DOTs
Response 1: “The Agency is striving for presenting these datasets is a way that they can be used for
analysis together by the end user. Our focus is not to integrate these datasets unless it is required
by the transactional system and instead to rely on source systems to manage ancillary datasets and
present them through other means for analytics.”
Response 2: “We are currently working on tying all of our data system in to our roadway inventory.”
Response 3: “I only marked above the diagonal because ‘integrated’ could be interpreted as primary
flow direction, reverse flow direction, or both.”
Response 4: “This is solely from my perspective (Items A-D, J). There are very likely other integra-
tions that I’m missing that Agency would benefit from.”
Response 5: “Again, this is confusing. We’re working on integrating roadway features inventories,
changing our financial system, and extracting engineering features from construction into maintain-
able asset inventories.”
Response 6: “Take the converse set from #3, and that would be the start point. Somewhere in the
diverse organization a DOT is, it would be beneficial.”
Response 7: “It would be beneficial if all these data sets were integrated. Therefore, I did not bother
to check all the boxes”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-26

Comment of Local Agency

Response 1: “Most of these data sets are not owned/maintained by our agency and are therefore
not applicable.”

5) What location referencing methods are used in your agency? (Please check all that apply.)

Route mile point: Distance from the beginning of the route.

Route reference post: Distance and direction from a physical mile marker posted on the route in
the field.

Route street reference: Distance and direction on one street from another intersecting street.

Multilevel linear referencing systems (MLLRS): Includes multiple linear referencing methods and
transformation mechanism to a common one.

Geographic coordinates: Geospatial coordinates such as latitude and longitude; or State plane
coordinates.

Data Set Route Route Link- Route Multileve Geographic Other

mile reference node street l LRS coordinates or NA
point post reference

Roadway inventory
(e.g., location,
classification,
geometrics)
Crash data
Traffic monitoring
data (e.g., speed,
volume)
Travel modeling data
(e.g., household
surveys, origin-
destination)
Highway Performance
Monitoring System
(HPMS)
Pavement inventory
and condition data
Pavement work
history data
Bridge inventory and
condition data
Bridge work history
data
Inventory and
condition data for
other assets (e.g.,
traffic signs, signals,
drainage assets)
Transportation
improvement
programs data
Environmental impact
and compliance data
Contracts/procurement
(e.g., bid tabs)
Project construction
data (e.g., cost/
payments, schedule,
material acceptance
testing, as-built plans)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-27

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets.
Route reference post: pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data,
contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Route street reference: crash data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets.
Response 2 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement
programs, project construction data.
Route reference post: bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Link node: crash data
Geographic coordinates: pavement inventory and condition data
Response 3 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and com-
pliance data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Response 4 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pave-
ment inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data.
Response 5 – Route mile point: roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Route—street reference: HPMS
Geographic coordinates: roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental
impact and compliance data, project construction data.
Response 6 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets, transportation improvement programs.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and
condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 7 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Link node: Travel modeling data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Response 8 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-28

Response 9 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, contracts/procurement.
Route reference post: Travel modeling data, contracts/procurement.
Link node: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling data.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condi-
tion data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge
work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement.
Response 10 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Route reference post: pavement inventory and condition data, environmental impact and compliance
data, contracts/procurement.
Link–node: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Route street reference: environmental impact and compliance data.
Geographic coordinates: pavement inventory and condition data, environmental impact and com-
pliance data.
Other or NA: contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 11 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improve-
ment programs, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Link node: Travel modeling data.
Route street reference: HPMS.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory:
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling data, pavement inventory
and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory.
Response 12 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory.
Link node: Roadway inventory.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Geographic coordinates: HPMS.
Response 13 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improve-
ment programs, environmental impact and compliance data.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling data.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, trans-
portation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data.
Other or NA: contracts/procurement, project construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-29

Response 14 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, project construction data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, project construction data.
Other or NA: contracts/procurement.
Response 15 – Route reference post: pavement inventory and condition data.
Route street reference: crash data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, pavement inventory and condition data.
Response 16 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, project construction data.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge
work history data, contracts/procurement.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Response 17 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs, contracts/procurement.
Route reference post: pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Link node: crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 18 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement.
Link node: Travel modeling data.
Multilevel LRS: crash data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Other or NA: project construction data.
Response 19 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data,
contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Route reference post: crash data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, project
construction data.
Response 20 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental
impact and compliance data.
Other or NA: transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construction
data.
Response 21 – Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and
condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs,
project construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-30

Geographic coordinates: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, environmental impact and
compliance data.
Other or NA: contracts/procurement.
Response 22 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Link node: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inven-
tory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Response 23 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs.
Link node: Travel modeling data.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, transportation improvement
programs.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel model-
ing data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement inventory and condition data,
bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs.
Response 24 – Route mile point: environmental impact and compliance data, project construction
data.
Link–node: Travel modeling data.
Route street reference: crash data, traffic monitoring data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project
construction data.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets.
Other or NA: pavement work history data, bridge work history data, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 25 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets.
Link node: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, Inventory and
condition data for other assets.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, project
construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-31

Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environ-
mental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 26 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction
data.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Link node: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Other or NA: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 27 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improve-
ment programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construc-
tion data.
Route reference post: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Link node: HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge work history data.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Response 28 – Route reference post: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Link node: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pave-
ment work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact
and compliance data.
Response 29 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and
condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Link node: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Other or NA: bridge work history data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-32

Response 30 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
bridge inventory and condition data.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory
and condition data, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance
data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Geographic coordinates: bridge inventory and condition data.
Response 31 – Route mile point: crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and con­
dition data, pavement work history data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construc-
tion data.
Route reference post: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transporta-
tion improvement programs.
Route street reference: crash data, traffic monitoring data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, project construction data.
Multilevel LRS: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, project con-
struction data.
Geographic coordinates: HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 32 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and con­
dition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project
construction data.
Route street reference: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construc-
tion data.
Multilevel LRS: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inven-
tory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construction
data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data
for other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project construc-
tion data.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Geographic coordinates: crash data, traffic monitoring data, bridge inventory and
condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Other or NA: Road inventory, Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, trans-
portation improvement programs.
Response 2 – Link node: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data.
Geographic coordinates: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Other or NA: transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data,
contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 3 – Geographic coordinates: Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition
data, transportation improvement programs.
Response 4 – Geographic coordinates: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, transportation
improvement programs.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pave-
ment work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procure-
ment, project construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-33

Response 5 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS.
Response 6 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, transportation improvement programs.
Other or NA: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inven-
tory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data.
Response 7 – Route mile point: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs.
Link node: Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs.
Geographic coordinates: crash data, transportation improvement programs.
Other or NA: HPMS, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data.
Response 8 – Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condi-
tion data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data.

6) If you answered “other” to Question 5, please describe this location referencing method:

Responses of DOTs
Response 1: “Historic work against bridges is being recorded by project delivery against the
actual asset not a location. We derive locations through this association back to the asset but it also
simplifies the linkage between projects and the assets they affect.”
Response 2: “project coordinate systems are used—modified state plane”
Response 3: “contracts/procurement = Districts/Counties, construction = Roadway acceptance data
in mileposts. Station numbers (feet) with offsets.”
Response 4: “County-Route-Postmile (postmile is not the same as odometer).”
Response 5: “Key number for contracts and construction.”
Response 6: “Ground Survey Stationing”
Response 7: “Work histories, plans, environmental, contracts, and project construction each have
their own referencing systems as their primary reference (like a bridge ID). These things have
references to assets in the asset databases.”
Response 8: “Not available at this time.”
Response 9: “bridge Work History is linked to bridge inventory”

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1: “Several of the datasets listed above have road-segment-based location referencing.”
Response 2: “Most of these data sets are not owned/maintained by our agency and are therefore
not applicable.”
Response 3: “The majority are NA. As an MPO, we don’t maintain the physical asset data.”
Response 4: “bridge Inventory and bridge Work History: unique ID in addition to route/mile point.
Signals (‘other assets’) based on route/mile point of ‘primary’ contributing link.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-34

7) How does your agency share data with outside users (public and private entities)?

Data Set Online Online Upon request (e.g., Not shared Other
(open (pre- data sent via e-mail outside
access) authorized or a file sharing agency
access) service)

Roadway inventory (e.g.,

location, classification,
geometrics)

Crash data

Traffic monitoring data (e.g.,

speed, volume)

Travel modeling data (e.g.,

household surveys, origin-
destination)

Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS)

Pavement inventory and

condition data

Pavement work history data

Bridge inventory and

condition data

Bridge work history data

Inventory and condition data

for other assets (e.g., traffic
signs, signals, drainage
assets)

Transportation improvement
programs data

Environmental impact and

compliance data

Contracts/procurement data
(e.g., bid tabs)

Project construction data

(e.g., cost/payments,
schedule, material
acceptance testing, as-built
plans)

Financial data (e.g., current

and historical revenues,
expenditures, budgets)

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, trans-
portation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data, financial data.
Response 2 – Online (open access): HPMS
Upon request: Roadway inventory
Response 3 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-35

bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs, environmental impact and compliance data,
Response 4 – Online (open access): traffic monitoring transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and
condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project con-
struction data, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: crash data
Response 5 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement
programs, environmental impact and compliance data.
Online (pre-authorized access): crash data, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data, project construction data, financial data.
Upon request: roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 6 – Online (open access): crash data, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs project construction data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data.
Response 7 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, crash data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS.
Response 8 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel
modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge
inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improve-
ment programs, environmental impact and compliance data, project construction data, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: bridge work history data, contracts/procurement.
Response 9 – Online (open access): transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, crash data, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Other or NA: traffic monitoring data.
Response 10 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, financial data.
Online (pre-authorized access): environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data.
Not shared outside agency: project construction data.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data, bridge work history data, contracts/procurement.
Response 11 – Online (open access): traffic monitoring data, HPMS.
Online (pre-authorized access): transportation improvement programs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-36

Upon request: Roadway inventory, Travel modeling data.

Not shared outside agency: crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition
data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory.
Response 12 – Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, HPMS.
Response 13 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pave-
ment inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, financial data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs.
Not shared outside agency: project construction data.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory, Travel modeling data, pavement work history data, bridge work
history data, environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 14 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, bridge
inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project
construction data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement
programs, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Not shared outside agency: crash data, Travel modeling data, bridge work history data, environ-
mental impact and compliance data.
Other or NA: bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition
data for other assets, financial data
Response 15 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data
Upon request: Travel modeling data
Response 16 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, bridge
inventory and condition data.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, crash data, bridge inventory and condition data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Other or NA: Inventory and condition data for other assets.
Response 17 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory
and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory
and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and
compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Not shared outside agency: bridge work history data, financial data.
Response 18 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement.
Online (pre-authorized access): crash data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history
data, contracts/procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: Travel modeling data, HPMS, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 19 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­dition
data, bridge work history data, transportation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, project
construction data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-37

Upon request: Roadway inventory, Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, envi-
ronmental impact and compliance data.
Not shared outside agency: Inventory and condition data for other assets, financial data.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition
data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, environmen-
tal impact and compliance data.
Response 20 – Online (open access): crash data, traffic monitoring data, transportation improvement
programs, contracts/procurement.
Upon request: pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, environmental impact and compliance data, project
construction data.
Not shared outside agency: Travel modeling data, HPMS, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, financial data.
Response 21 – Online (open access): HPMS, transportation improvement programs.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and
condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work
history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs,
project construction data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 22 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pave-
ment inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and con­
dition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 23 – Online (open access): traffic monitoring data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, Travel modeling data, HPMS, transportation improvement
programs.
Response 24 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition
data, bridge work history data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
financial data.
Not shared outside agency: Travel modeling data, pavement work history data, project construction
data.
Other or NA: crash data.
Response 25 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, bridge
inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Upon request: Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other
assets, transportation improvement programs.
Other or NA: Travel modeling data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data, financial data.
Response 26 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and
condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work his-
tory data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction
data, financial data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-38

Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Other or NA: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Response 27 – Online (open access): traffic monitoring data, transportation improvement programs,
contracts/procurement.
Online (pre-authorized access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, bridge work history data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, financial data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and
condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project
construction data, financial data.
Response 28 – Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling
data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory
and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transpor-
tation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data, financial data.
Response 29 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, transportation improve-
ment programs, financial data.
Online (pre-authorized access): crash data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
pavement inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, contracts/
procurement.
Not shared outside agency: HPMS.
Response 30 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, bridge inventory
and condition data, transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement
inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data,
bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction
data, financial data.
Other or NA: crash data.
Response 31 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, transportation
improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement.
Online (pre-authorized access): traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact
and compliance data.
Upon request: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact
and compliance data, project construction data, financial data.
Response 32 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data, bridge inven-
tory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement
programs, contracts/procurement.
Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement inventory and
condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for other assets,
transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement work history data, bridge work
history data.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Upon request: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, pavement
inventory and condition data, bridge inventory and condition data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, financial data.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-39

Not shared outside agency: Travel modeling data, transportation improvement programs.
Other or NA: HPMS, pavement work history data, bridge work history data, environmental impact
and compliance data, contracts/procurement, project construction data.
Response 2 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, traffic monitoring data.
Online (pre-authorized access): crash data, Travel modeling data, HPMS, transportation improve-
ment programs.
Response 3 – Upon request: Travel modeling data, pavement inventory and condition data, trans-
portation improvement programs, contracts/procurement, financial data.
Response 4 – Online (open access): transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data, financial data.
Not shared outside agency: contracts/procurement.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory, crash data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pave-
ment work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, project construction
data, financial data.
Response 5 – Not shared outside agency: Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data,
Travel modeling data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data,
bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and condition data for
other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental impact and compliance data,
contracts/procurement, project construction data, financial data.
Response 6 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, transportation improvement programs.
Upon request: Travel modeling data.
Other or NA: crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data,
pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory
and condition data for other assets, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data, financial data.
Response 7 – Online (open access): crash data, traffic monitoring data, Travel modeling data,
Inventory and condition data for other assets, transportation improvement programs, environmental
impact and compliance data, financial data.
Other or NA: Roadway inventory, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work
history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, contracts/procurement,
project construction data, Response.
Response 8 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, crash data, traffic monitoring data, HPMS,
pavement inventory and condition data, pavement work history data, bridge inventory and condition
data, transportation improvement programs, financial data.
Upon request: Travel modeling data, environmental impact and compliance data, contracts/
procurement.
Response 9 – Online (open access): Roadway inventory, transportation improvement programs,
environmental impact and compliance data.
Upon request: Travel modeling data.
Other or NA: traffic monitoring data, HPMS, pavement inventory and condition data, pavement
work history data, bridge inventory and condition data, bridge work history data, Inventory and
condition data for other assets, contracts/procurement, project construction data, financial data.

8) If you answered “other” to Question 7, please describe this data sharing method:

Responses of DOTs
Response 1: “The majority of most frequently requested data has been moved to our public portal
for viewing. All of the data on this site can be downloaded for the public’s use at the links on this
site to our open data portal.”
Response 2: “real time roadside message boards.”
Response 3: “contracts/procurement = Although some information is confidential per Federal Law,
most contract information is available online, or by request if not available online. Procurement
information is exempt from public records law until after selection meetings. Once the final selection
meeting has been held, information can be made available to the public.”
Response 4: “Public Records Act request.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-40

Response 5: “crash data owner is the Maryland State Police which is associated to a milepost or
intersection/ This is shared on the State Open Data Portal. SHA analyzes and edits the data to its true
location via mile point. this analyzed data is not shared to the public and is highly sensitive even
within the agency. SHA has an internal system to display and share data called Enterprise GIS. All
data in the Other column is shared via eGIS internally. project and contract info is shared on the
SHA website in the project Life Cycle sharepoint pages in tabular form; there are some maps but
not all projects make it on this page. It is not comprehensive. pavement, bridge and asset inventory
is currently in progress for a GIS centric public accessible dashboard. It has not been approved for
release but is ready for release.”
Response 6: “crash data is ‘owned’ by the State Police.”
Response 7: “Don’t know would have been a useful additional category.”
Response 8: “Not available at this time.”
Response 9: “crash data is shared in a limited capacity (certain details only) and then upon request.”

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1: “Most of these data sets are not owned/maintained by our agency and are therefore
not shared.”
Response 2: “Other or N/A: we are not the owners of these datasets.”
Response 3: “As an MPO we often serve as a clearinghouse for data. The data that is not ours,
identified as Other here, we prefer to first direct them to the original data collection agency or
provide data available and identify the source for direct contact for additional details.”

9) What strategies would improve (or have improved) data sharing and access within your agency?

If other strategies are applicable, please specify them in the entry boxes titled “Enter another option.”

Strategy Major Effect Minor Factor No Effect Not Applicable

Improved metadata
Increased use of web-based data storage
and access
Improved database management systems
Reduced use of hardware and software
that require specialized data format
*Enter another option*
*Enter another option*

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 2 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access. Minor Factor: Improved database management systems. No Effect: Reduced use of hard-
ware and software that require specialized data format.
Response 3 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Minor Factor: Improved metadata.
Response 4 – Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Improved database management systems. No Effect:
Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 5 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Improved database management systems, Reduced
use of hardware and software that require specialized data format. Minor Factor: Increased use of
web-based data storage and access.
Response 6 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Improved framework to centralize and present data. Minor Factor: Improved
metadata, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Response 7 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems.
Response 8 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Reduced use of
hardware and software that require specialized data format. Minor Factor: Improved metadata.
Not Applicable: Improved database management systems

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-41

Response 9 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require special-
ized data format.
Response 10 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, SharePoint. Minor Factor: Increased use of web-
based data storage and access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware
and software that require specialized data format.
Response 11 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Governance. Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Reduced use of hardware and
software that require specialized data format.
Response 12 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access. Minor Factor:
Improved metadata.
Response 13 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require
specialized data format.
Response 14 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require
specialized data format.
Response 15 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format. Not Applicable: Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems.
Response 16 – Major Effect: Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware
and software that require specialized data format. Minor Factor: Improved metadata. Not Applicable:
Increased use of web-based data storage and access.
Response 17 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Minor Factor: Improved metadata.
Response 18 – Major Effect: Use of Enterprise-Level Business Intelligence Vendor Products, Civil
Integrated Management Imitative, Development of an Enterprise Data Warehouse (based on and
designed for current and planned business processes and needs, and developed in collaboration with
program areas). Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require
specialized data format.
Response 19 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Senior management champion.
Response 20 – Major Effect: Improved database management systems. Minor Factor: Improved
metadata, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format. No Effect:
Increased use of web-based data storage and access.
Response 21 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Minor Factor: Improved metadata.
Response 22 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved
database management systems, Web-GIS Interactive Mapping of Enterprise Data. Minor Factor:
Improved metadata, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Response 23 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems. Minor Factor: Improved metadata. No Effect: Reduced use of hardware and
software that require specialized data format.
Response 24 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access.
Minor Factor: Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 25 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems. Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Reduced use of hardware and software
that require specialized data format.
Response 26 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems. Minor Factor: Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 27 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Data registry. Minor Factor: Reduced use of hard-
ware and software that require specialized data format.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-42

Response 28 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require
specialized data format.
Response 29 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Improved database management systems, Reduced
use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
Response 30 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format,
Data governance, standards and requirements for sharing/availability. No Effect: Improved metadata.
Response 31 – Major Effect: Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data
format. Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems.
Response 32 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require
specialized data format.

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Major Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access. Minor Factor:
Improved metadata, Improved database management systems. No Effect: Reduced use of hardware
and software that require specialized data format.
Response 2 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems. Minor Factor: Reduced use of hardware and
software that require specialized data format.
Response 3 – Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Improved database management systems.
No Effect: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Reduced use of hardware and
software that require specialized data format.
Response 4 – Major Effect: Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data
format. Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems.
Response 5 – Not Applicable: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 6 – Minor Factor: Increased use of web-based data storage and access, Improved database
management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require specialized data format.
No Effect: Improved metadata.
Response 7 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and
access, Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that
require specialized data format.
Response 8 – Major Effect: Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware
and software that require specialized data format. Minor Factor: Improved metadata, Increased use
of web-based data storage and
Response 9 – Major Effect: Improved metadata, Increased use of web-based data storage and access,
Improved database management systems, Reduced use of hardware and software that require special-
ized data format.

10)  What data management tools are most useful for accessing and sharing data within your agency?

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – “SQL Server, ETL tools to regularly create packaged datasets, ArcGIS Online.”
Response 2 – “We currently use an access front end to access our warehoused data. This has proved
challenging for our casual users. We are moving to a web based portal for internal users that
presents reports/maps/dashboards and SQL connected excel worksheets for users to filter and work
with enterprise data.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-43

Response 3 – “file servers, Sharepoint Intranet.”

Response 4 – “ESRI Open Data, ArcServer, GeoServer, Custom Oracle Application.”
Response 5 – “The most useful tool has been a system that integrates all the different referencing
systems.”
Response 6 – “Microsoft Office (Excel); Access; MySQL; IBI Managed Reporting Environment;
SSRS; Crystal Reports; SharePoint.”
Response 7 – “Document Retrieval System, Data Libraries (GIS and non-GIS), Enterprise databases.”
Response 8 – “We are in the process of implementing ArcGIS for Server and ArcGIS Online as part
of a multi-user/editor and transparent environment. Other than that, communication is the biggest
key factor on having a successful enterprise data system for us.”
Response 9 – “GIS, Data Warehouse, Web tools, starting to use BI/Visualization, specialty software.”
Response 10 – “KanPlan (Kansas GIS portal), Data Warehouse Reports Portal.”
Response 11 – “We are still researching this.”
Response 12 – “REST services are becoming a standard.”
Response 13 – “SAP Business Objects Suite, Oracle Business Intelligence Suite, Data Connections
in Microsoft Access and Excel.”
Response 14 – “eGIS Portal.”
Response 15 – “Using the same database platform.”
Response 16 – “Data Warehouses, Web-GIS interface for Viewing Data.”
Response 17 – “Online repositories are the most useful tools for sharing data.”
Response 18 – “Web based GiS mapping and data location creation and maintenance tools.”
Response 19 – “SSRS, SharePoint with BI tools.”
Response 20 – “LRS, Geospatial and mapping tools: a) ArcGIS Online, aka UPlan b) Spatial appli-
cations d) Roadway digital imaging c) roadlog tied to mapping and roadway digital imaging.”
Response 21 – “GIS, EXCEL.”
Response 22 – “Special Apps, TOAD, MS Access, Oracle, SQL server.”
Response 23 – “ArcGIS, ArcGIS Online, Oracle, SQL, various file sharing methods.”

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – “Not sure.”
Response 2 – “Relational databases, GIS, statistical software, internal data library (“Data Depot”),
external data library (Data Hub).”
Response 3 – “In the process of learning some.”
Response 4 – “Shapefiles and excel. Not everyone is the agency is familiar with RDBMS or ever
MS Access so excel becomes the best choice followed by ArcGIS.”

11) Does your agency have mechanisms in place for incorporating feedback from data users in your
agency into the data collection process?

M  Yes (please describe or provide examples in the box below)       M No

Responses of DOTs
M  Yes: 15 responses
Response 1 – Yes: “Not as an agency practice, but there are some instances where users can directly
provide feedback.”
Response 2 – Yes: “Somewhat, but definitely could be improved.”
Response 3 – Yes: “Web forms and e-mail.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

A-44

Response 4 – Yes: “Multiple methods based on application—Web—Helpline—Internal e-mail.”

Response 5 – Yes: “E-mail comments options, steering committees, surveys.”
Response 6 – Yes: “Currently, we communicate ideas, methods and issues with each other, but not
a formal process in place yet.”
Response 7 – Yes: “We take suggestions and incorporate them to guide future improvements.”
Response 8 – Yes: “Users can request that data items and subject areas be mapped from specific
systems to reporting warehouses and business intelligence suites. Users can request that data value
pick lists be maintained (e.g., add, retire, or modify usage).”
Response 9 – Yes: “traffic Counts.”
Response 10 – Yes: “We encourage users of data to report errors and since it’s quick/easy (and we
make changes immediately), users freely supply feedback.”
Response 11 – Yes: “Only through notification to the data owners at the users’ initiative.”
Response 12 – Yes: “Very informal, formative stage as we develop new LRS and data integration.”
Response 13 – Yes: “Collaborate with pavement management and HPMS on data collection priorities.”
Response 14 – Yes: “mail or Call - the content contact is on most web pages.”
Response 15 – Yes: “occasional surveys, but mostly ad hoc meetings/discussions as needed.”
M  No: 15 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – Yes: “Through meetings and comments delivered on suggestion boxes.”
M  No: 7

Data Warehousing

12) What is the estimated amount of data that your agency maintains [expressed in data storage units,
such as terabytes (1012 bytes)]? If no reliable estimate is available, please enter “unknown.”

Responses of DOTs
Response 1 – Roadway inventory; Oracle current 6992 MB, historical 6413 MB, DB2 0.28 gigabyte.
Response 2 – “50 terabytes.”
Response 3 – “At least 1/2 TB.”
Response 4 – “0.5 terabytes; but really unknown.”
Response 5 – “2 TB.”
Response 6 – “Several terabytes as a min.”
Unknown – 25 respondents

Responses of Local Agencies

Response 1 – “Approx. 20 terabytes.”
Unknown – 8 responses

13) Approximately what percentage of your agency’s transportation-related data is currently stored and
managed using commercial cloud computing services?

Cloud Computing: Date are stored and managed on remote computers “in the cloud.” These
computers are owned and operated by others and connect to users’ computers via the Internet.

More than 50% 21–50% 11–20% 1–10% None Unknown

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 A-45

Responses of DOTs
M  More than 50% – None
M  21–50% – 2 responses
M  11–20% – 1 response
M  1–10% – 22 responses
M  None – 3 responses
M  Unknown – 3 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

M  More than 50% – None
M  21–50% – None
M  11–20% – None
M  1–10% – 3 responses
M  None – 5 responses
M  Unknown – 1 response

14) In the next five years, what percentage of your agency’s transportation-related data is anticipated to
be stored and managed using commercial cloud computing services?

More than 50 21–50% 11–20% 1–10% None Unknown

Responses of DOTs
M  More than 50% – 4 responses
M  21–50% – 5 responses
M  11–20% – 5 responses
M  1–10% – 3 responses
M  None – None
M  Unknown – 14 responses

Responses of Local Agencies

M  More than 50% – 1 response
M  21–50% – None
M  11–20% – None
M  1–10% – 2 responses
M  None – 2 responses
M Unknown – 4 responses

The survey is complete. Thank you for your participation!

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 B-1

Appendix B
Survey Respondents

Phase 1 Respondents (by alphabetical order of agency name)

Title Agency

Surveying and Mapping Administrator Alabama DOT

Geospatial Engineering Systems Manager Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Transportation Data Programs Manager Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Director, Transportation Systems Analysis Arizona DOT

Staff GIS and Mapping Administrator Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

Transportation Specialist Bismarck Mandan MPO

Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs California Department of Transportation

Principal Analyst Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

GIS Performance Analyst City of Bend

Director of Transportation and Programs Coastal Region MPO

Manager, Information Management Branch Colorado Department of Transportation

Assistant Trans Planning Director Connecticut DOT

Transportation Planner III Cowlitz Wahkiakum Council of Governments

Technical Writer/Business Analyst District Department of Transportation

Division Manager East West Gateway Council of Governments

Pavement Evaluation Specialist Florida Department of Transportation

Assistant Program Manager Genesee Transportation Council

Planning & Systems Section Chief Illinois DOT

Statewide Asset Management Engineer Indiana DOT

Director, Office of Research & Analytics Iowa Department of Transportation

Staff Director Ithaca–Tompkins County Transportation Council

Division Director Kansas DOT

Planning Director Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Administrator, Data Collection & Management

Louisiana DOTD
Systems

Director—GIS Services Maine DOT

Assistant Division Chief Maryland State Highway Administration

Director of Project-Oriented Planning Massachusetts DOT—Office of Transportation Planning

Study Director Metroplan, Central Arkansas

Planning Analyst Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN

Chief Data Steward Michigan DOT

Transportation Planner Mid-America Regional Council

Data Systems & Coordination Section Director Minnesota Department of Transportation

(Continued on next page)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

B-2

Phase 1 Respondents (by alphabetical order of agency name)

(continued)
Title Agency
Traffic Analysis Manager Mississippi Department of Transportation

Bureau Chief Montana DOT

GIS Manager North Carolina DOT

Principal Transportation Engineer North Central Texas Council of Governments

IT Pro 4 Nevada Department of Transportation, IT Division

Division Director, Asset Management & Planning New Mexico DOT

Transportation Manager 1 New York State Department of Transportation

Administrator NHDOT Bureau of Planning

Assistant Planning/Asset Management Engineer North Dakota Department of Transportation

Transportation Planner North Florida TPO

Administrator Office of Technical Services Ohio Department of Transportation

Strategic Data Business Plan Project Manager Oregon DOT

Geographer/Analyst Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments

GIS Administrator Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority

Chief Civil Engineer/Asset Manager Rhode Island DOT

Senior Planner Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVMPO & MRMPO)

Road Data Services Engineer South Carolina DOT

Engineering Supervisor South Dakota DOT

Executive Director St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization

IT Supervisor State of Nebraska—Department of Roads

GIS & Technical Analyst Strafford Regional Planning Commission

Transportation Coordinator Tennessee Department of Transportation

Data Management Director Texas DOT

Statewide GIS Manager Utah Department of Transportation

Data Management Supervisor Vermont Agency of Transportation

Planning Data and GIS Manager Virginia DOT

Data Management Services Manager Washington State DOT

Principal Planner Whatcom Council of Governments

Senior Transportation Planner Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization

Chief, Data Management Section Wisconsin DOT

Systems Planning Engineer Wyoming DOT

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 B-3

Phase 2 Respondents (by alphabetical order of agency name)

Title Agency

GIS Specialist Senior Alabama Department of Transportation

Geospatial Engineering Systems Manager Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Transportation Data Programs Manager Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Director, Transportation Systems Analysis Arizona DOT

Staff GIS and Mapping Administrator Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

Chief, Division of Research, Innovation and

Caltrans
System Information

Principal Analyst Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

GIS Performance Analyst City of Bend

Manager, Information Management Branch Colorado DOT

Transportation Assistant Planning Director Connecticut DOT

Principal Engineer Connecticut DOT

Transportation Planner III Cowlitz Wahkiakum Council of Governments

Technical Writer/Business Analyst District Department of Transportation

Division Manager East West Gateway

Pavement Assessment Specialist Florida Department of Transportation

Asst. Program Manager Genesee Transportation Council

Transportation Planner Iowa Department of Transportation

Assistant Bureau Chief—Transportation Planning Kansas DOT

GIS Administrator Maine Department of Transportation

Assistant Division Chief, Data Services IT and GIS Maryland State Highway Administration

Transportation Director Metro Planning Commission

Senior Planner Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN

Chief Data Steward Michigan DOT

Transportation Planner Mid-America Regional Council

Data Systems & Coordination Section Director Minnesota DOT

Traffic Analysis Manager Mississippi Department of Transportation

Data and Statistics Bureau Chief Montana DOT

GIS Manager North Carolina DOT

IT Pro 4 Nevada Department of Transportation

Division Director, Asset Management & Planning New Mexico DOT

Transportation Manager 1 New York State DOT

Administrator NHDOT Bureau of Planning

(Continued on next page)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

B-4

Phase 2 Respondents (by alphabetical order of agency name)

(continued)

Title Agency

Senior Transportation Modeler North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

Information Strategist Oregon Department of Transportation

Geographer/Analyst Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments

GIS Administrator Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority

Chief Civil Engineer/Asset Manager Rhode Island DOT

Road Data Services Engineer South Carolina DOT

IT Supervisor State of Nebraska—Department of Roads

Senior Regional Planner Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC)

Transportation Modeler Tennessee Department of Transportation

Statewide GIS Manager Utah Department of Transportation

Planning Data and GIS Manager Virginia DOT

Data Management Supervisor Vermont Agency of Transportation

Data Management Services Manager Washington State DOT

Highway Data Unit Supervisor Wisconsin DOT

Systems Planning Engineer Wyoming DOT

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 C-1

Appendix C
Integration of Data Sets

Figure C1 summarizes the DOTs’ responses to the question, “Which of these data sets are integrated in
your agency to serve various business needs?” This figure is an extended form of Figure 20 in the body
of the report.

A&E
A&G
A&C
A&B
A&I
A&J
B&C
A&F
E&F
C&E
E&G
B&E
A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
A&M
geometrics)
G&H
B. Crash data
A&D
B&G C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
C&G D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin-
M&N destination)
M&P E. Pavement inventory and condition data
A&H F. Pavement work history data
A&N G. Bridge inventory and condition data
C&J H. Bridge work history data
E&J I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g., traffic
A&K signs, signals, drainage assets)
A&L J. Transportation improvement programs data
A&O
K. Environmental impact and compliance data
I&J
L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
J&P
structural design, mix design)
N&P
O&P M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
B&J N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
C&D schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
C&I O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
E&I owned)
G&I P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
G&J expenditures, budgets)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents
(Continued on next page)

FIGURE C1  Pairs of integrated data sets at responding DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

C-2

A&P
B&I
E&M
E&N
I&N
I&P
J&K
J&N
K&L
E&L
E&P
G&L
G&M
G&P
I&M
J&M
L&N A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
geometrics)
L&P
B. Crash data
M&O
C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
N&O
D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys,
B&P origin-destination)
C&L E. Pavement inventory and condition data
C&N F. Pavement work history data
F&H G. Bridge inventory and condition data
F&J H. Bridge work history data
F&L I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
F&N traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
J. Transportation improvement programs data
G&N
K. Environmental impact and compliance data
G&O
L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
H&I structural design, mix design)
H&J M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
H&L N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
I&L O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
I&O owned)
J&O P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
expenditures, budgets)
L&M
L&O
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents

FIGURE C1  (continued ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 C-3

B&D
B&F
B&L
B&M
B&N
B&O
C&K
C&M
C&O
C&P
D&E
D&G
D&I
D&J
D&K
D&L
D&N
A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
E&F
geometrics)
E&K
E&O B. Crash data
F&G C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
F&I
D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys,
F&M
origin-destination)
F&P
H&P E. Pavement inventory and condition data
I&K F. Pavement work history data
J&L
K&N G. Bridge inventory and condition data
B&H H. Bridge work history data
B&K I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
C&F traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
D&M
D&O J. Transportation improvement programs data
D&P K. Environmental impact and compliance data
F&O L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
G&K structural design, mix design)
H&M
H&N M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
H&O N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
K&M schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
K&P
O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
C&H
owned)
D&F
D&H P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
F&K expenditures, budgets)
H&K
K&O
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents

FIGURE C1  (continued ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

C-4

Figure C2 summarizes the DOTs’ responses to the question, “What data sets would be beneficial for your
agency to integrate?” This figure is an extended form of Figure 21 in the body of the report.

A&I
A&K
A&D
A&F
A&C
A&N A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location,
K&N classification, geometrics)
K&L
J&M B. Crash data
J&L C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
J&K D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household
H&N surveys, origin-destination)
C&I
C&E E. Pavement inventory and condition data
B&E F. Pavement work history data
A&P G. Bridge inventory and condition data
A&L
A&H H. Bridge work history data
A&B I. Inventory and condition data for other assets
K&O (e.g., traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
J&N J. Transportation improvement programs data
I&L
G&J K. Environmental impact and compliance data
G&H L. Project design and materials data (e.g.,
F&G design plans, structural design, mix design)
E&L M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
E&K
E&J N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/
C&K payments, schedule, material acceptance
C&H testing, as-built plans)
C&G O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition,
C&F agency-owned)
B&I P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical
A&J
revenues, expenditures, budgets)
A&G
A&E
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents

FIGURE C2  Pairs of data sets that would be beneficial to integrate at responding DOTs.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 C-5

L&M
J&P
J&O
I&N
I&K
H&L
H&J
H&I
G&K
F&I
E&P
E&N
E&I
D&E
C&L
C&J
A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
B&J
geometrics)
A&O
N&P B. Crash data
N&O C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
M&P D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys,
M&O origin-destination)
M&N E. Pavement inventory and condition data
L&P
F. Pavement work history data
L&N
K&P G. Bridge inventory and condition data
I&J H. Bridge work history data
H&P I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
H&M traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
G&P
J. Transportation improvement programs data
G&L
F&P K. Environmental impact and compliance data
F&N L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design
F&J plans, structural design, mix design)
F&H M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
E&H N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
E&F schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
D&J
O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition,
C&D
agency-owned)
B&L
B&G P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical
B&C revenues, expenditures, budgets)
A&M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents
(Continued on next page)

FIGURE C2  (continued ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

C-6

L&O
G&N
F&M
F&L
E&G
D&K
D&I
B&N
B&D
O&P
K&M
I&P
G&I
F&K
E&M A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
D&L geometrics)
B&K B. Crash data
B&H C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
I&M
D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin-
H&O
destination)
H&K
G&M E. Pavement inventory and condition data
F&O F. Pavement work history data
D&N G. Bridge inventory and condition data
D&G
H. Bridge work history data
B&F
I&O I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
D&P traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
D&H J. Transportation improvement programs data
D&F K. Environmental impact and compliance data
C&P L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
C&N structural design, mix design)
C&M
M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
B&P
B&O N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
G&O schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
E&O O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
C&O owned)
D&O P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
D&M expenditures, budgets)
B&M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No. of DOT respondents

FIGURE C2  (continued ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 C-7

Figure C3 summarizes the local agencies’ responses to the question, “Which of these data sets are integrated
in your agency to serve various business needs?”

A&C
A&D
K&L
A&B
A&E
A&G
C&D
J&N
B&J
D&J
J&L
J&O
N&O
A&H A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
A&I geometrics)
A&J B. Crash data
A&L C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
A&M D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin-
A&N destination)
B&C E. Pavement inventory and condition data
B&D F. Pavement work history data
C&E G. Bridge inventory and condition data
C&J H. Bridge work history data
C&N I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
D&E traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
D&I J. Transportation improvement programs data
D&K K. Environmental impact and compliance data
D&L L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
D&N structural design, mix design)
E&J M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
F&J N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
G&J schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
H&K O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
I&K owned)
I&O P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
J&M expenditures, budgets)
M&O
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE C3  Pairs of integrated data sets at responding local agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

C-8

Figure C4 summarizes the local agencies’ responses to the question, “What data sets would be beneficial
for your agency to integrate?”

A&B
A&D
A&C
A&E
A&G
C&D
A&J
D&J
D&K
A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
J&O geometrics)
A&F B. Crash data
A&I C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
A&K D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin-
B&C destination)
E. Pavement inventory and condition data
B&D
F. Pavement work history data
B&E
G. Bridge inventory and condition data
B&G
H. Bridge work history data
B&I
I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g.,
B&J traffic signs, signals, drainage assets)
C&J J. Transportation improvement programs data
D&E K. Environmental impact and compliance data
D&I L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
structural design, mix design)
E&G
M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
E&J
N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments,
G&J schedule, material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
I&J O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-
I&K owned)
P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
I&O
expenditures, budgets)
J&K
J&L
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE C4  Pairs of integrated data sets at responding local agencies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

 C-9

A&H
A&L
A&N
A&O
A&P
B&F
B&H
B&K
B&N
B&O
C&E
C&G
C&I
C&K
C&L
C&N
C&O
D&G
D&L
D&N A. Roadway inventory (e.g., location, classification,
D&O
geometrics)
E&F
E&I B. Crash data
E&K C. Traffic monitoring data (e.g., speed, volume)
E&L
D. Travel modeling data (e.g., household surveys, origin-
E&N
E&O destination)
F&J E. Pavement inventory and condition data
F&L F. Pavement work history data
F&M
F&N G. Bridge inventory and condition data
F&P H. Bridge work history data
G&H I. Inventory and condition data for other assets (e.g., traffic
G&I signs, signals, drainage assets)
G&K
G&L J. Transportation improvement programs data
G&N K. Environmental impact and compliance data
G&O L. Project design and materials data (e.g., design plans,
H&I
structural design, mix design)
H&K
H&M M. Contracts/procurement data (e.g., bid tabs)
H&N N. Project construction data (e.g., cost/payments, schedule,
H&O material acceptance testing, as-built plans)
I&M
J&N O. Real estate data (e.g., property acquisition, agency-owned)
K&L P. Financial data (e.g., current and historical revenues,
K&O expenditures, budgets)
M&N
M&O
N&O
O&P
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
No. of local agency respondents

FIGURE C4  (continued ).

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
500 Fifth Street, NW U.S. POSTAGE
Washington, DC 20001 PAID
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Data Management and Governance Practices

90000
ISBN 978-0-309-38996-9

9 780309 389969