Presentation Title: Crash Analysis Tools and Training for Local Users
This material pertains somewhat to both Parts I and II as listed in the program, but is primarily from the perspective of Iowa.
Part I.
Tom Bruff
Southeast Michigan Council of Government
535 Griswold Street, Suite 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Email: bruff@semcog.org
Part II.
Joyce Emery and Bob Schultz
Iowa Department of Transportation
800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010
Email: joyce.emery@dot.state.ia.us
After years of evolving programs separately, these two agencies have found common ground for information sharing and collaboration regarding tools and training for their local constituents.
Here are some features of our training programs:
Iowa:
 | Circuit Rider model reduces or eliminates time away from the office for overworked local staff. This is particularly crucial for Iowa’s small rural police and sheriff’s offices. |
| Integration of phone and email support mechanisms prior to and following training provide timely service and maintain continuity while minimizing the main office’s involvement. |
| Training is designed to foster communication and cooperation in use of data among geographically related local agencies, and to emphasize the value of the data to all safety disciplines. |
| An efficient contract between the Iowa DOT and the Consultant Trainer is vital to maintain productivity and minimize administrative expense on either side. |
SEMCOG:
| Developed a comprehensive manual on how to perform a complete array of analytical work using safety data. |
| After developing the model manual for analytical work, the software was then designed to follow the manual. This sequence is noteworthy, for though it is logical, it is difficult to achieve. |
| Developed an Intersection File to use in conjunction with their Crash File. Few states have one of these to augment their Roadway Files. |
BOTH AGENCIES:
| Met at the 1998 Traffic Records Forum in Minneapolis, visited in Michigan, and have maintained communications ever since. |
| Established areas of common interest and common goals with regard to analysis tools and training. Each one is trying to do the same thing for their local constituents. |
| Have agreed to share their strengths and experiences with each other, seeing that each had some features that would benefit the other. |
| Iowa now has a beginning draft of its own version of the “SEMCOG Manual”. |
| SEMCOG has received consultation about the set-up and delivery of training services to its customers, pending the forthcoming release of new software. |
The advent of analysis being done by local people brought with it a need for training. At first, a few free workshops were offered each year on how to use this software, mostly taught by internal staff and occasionally with a contract consultant.
But as the thing grew, new customers wanted more training. In an attempt to meet these needs, many strategies were attempted. These are some of the methods that have worked well in this long evolution.
Year-Round Trainer Placed Under Contract
Next, we contracted with a professional software trainer, Robert L. Schultz, who was willing to become expert with our customized analysis software. He could train year-round on an as-needed basis. He also had many ideas for improving the program as a whole, from organization to matters of customer service. Many of the resulting best practices were originally suggestions of Bob Schultz.
By the 1998 forum in Minneapolis, our trainer was being sent to Forums regularly for train-the-trainer purposes. We were then developing a replacement tool for PC-ALAS that we hoped to complete soon and have Bob do the training. There he met folks from SEMCOG, who, as it turned out, were developing new software for a similar purpose. A new partnership quickly formed. Less than two months later, our trainer and our Safety Analysis Engineer visited SEMCOG for two very worthwhile days.
About SEMCOG’s Program
Among SEMCOG's best practices is their integration of analysis software with a very excellent manual on the applications and uses of safety data. Benefit/cost
determinations and prediction of countermeasure effectiveness are covered in the manual and built right into the software.
SEMCOG also has an Intersection File (separate from the Roadway File) to use in conjunction with their Crash File, which enables them to do analysis Iowa can only
dream of. However, Iowa has taken the first steps towards developing something similar to SEMCOG's Intersection File.
About Iowa’s Program
Iowa's best practices in analysis training focus on the "circuit rider" model in which the trainer goes to the customers. The entire thing is driven by customer demand, but procedures are in place to keep the program efficient and affordable. Program features
include building interdisciplinary teamwork at the local level, motivation in the value of collecting and using crash data, and building communications for user technical support via email, an electronic newsletter, and phone support.
In the Iowa system, data users are empowered to do for themselves all the analysis they are capable of. For data needs that exceed their ability to generate hands-on, there are numerous options for requesting analysis services. (One of these service options, the
Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service, as presented at last year's Forum.)
Sometimes administrative busy-work impedes program progress or even kills ideas before they get off the ground. One of Iowa's best practices is the model contract used for the contract circuit-rider trainer. As established by this contract, the program takes
very little administrative time from either the DOT manager or from the contract trainer, so they can spend their time more productively. Our "slick tricks" will be alluded to briefly in the presentation at the 2002 Forum, and we will share copies of the contract with attendees who request it.
In conclusion:
SEMCOG is now planning local user training for its analysis system heavily using Iowa's experience. Iowa is developing a broad safety data applications manual
based on the model manual of SEMCOG.
Very little of the TECHNOLOGY of traffic records is the same in these two states. Yet, the partnership on the analysis/training side can flourish due to similar goals regarding the use of safety data.