System Data

System data are features and information identified as core parts of a transportation network, especially transportation features and infrastructure. Agency and user needs for system data are shown in figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.9, and 2.10, whereas potential sources of data are shown in figure 2.3. The primary data need for planning and managing transportation networks is accurate and comprehensive representation of roads, trails, rails, waterways, associated infrastructure, and connections to other transportation modes (such as air and space). For modern integrated planning applications, this data need likely includes comprehensive representation of roads and the administrations responsible for managing them, such as Federal, State, county, municipal, and other local governments and groups. Although not all routes and types are needed for every planning effort, a comprehensive system makes pertinent information (such as transjurisdiction information for communication and integration) readily available. In addition, a complete system of transportation may include freight and passenger rail lines and stations, airports, seaports, bicycle routes, pedestrian trails, off-road routes, rivers, canals, and light rail (elevated, surface, or subway).

Currently, similar information is being compiled and served by OpenStreetMap (for example, https://www.openstreetmap.org), but this source lacks the authority and attribution needed for documented planning efforts. Because of a rapidly evolving internet and web enabled capabilities, many data are available from outside sources and could be compiled and documented for applications with sustained funding and capacity for storage and maintenance. The AEGIST program, an FHWA effort, is currently working to build capacity and authority for these data (refer to the “Managed Service Platform” section). In many cases, baseline information may not be accurately and consistently recorded in digital form; therefore, variability in content, currency, accuracy, and resolution of data among Metropolitan Planning Organizations, States, and agencies needs to be addressed during compilation so data can be shared.

Using detailed spatial information with segment and network analyses can support decisions about transportation-network maintenance, expansions, modifications, and improvements by recognizing the role and condition of a route in the context of network function (that is, how each segment affects traffic flow). Comprehensive and maintained system data was listed first among required baseline information indicated by practitioners. Programs that include quantitative assessments of system performance as part of performance-based plans require additional information about the transportation system, which can be identified in system data. The FHA uses performance-based planning to set national performance goals and works with partner agencies to achieve desired transportation outcomes. National performance goals and associated guidance identify five types of system data that can benefit from consistent spatial representation and widespread availability (Grant and others, 2014):

A transportation network is defined primarily by linear features, or edges, such as roads, trails, waterways, and rails. In geographic data, these line features can be buffered to provide area, divided into multiple pieces (segments) for distinction, aggregated to show network associations, and joined with other features to create specialized attributes. Nodes represent connections between adjacent edges and can have attributes that contribute context and details, which help determine needs and specifications for a road network (for example, the daily mix of private and commercial vehicles that moves in and out of a city or routes that connect commercial resources to a transit hub). A node for one plan could be the entire network in another plan. Coupled with user data, network analyses might be used to identify influential nodes (like an intersection that has cascading effects on congestion or road segments with high volume and few alternatives) to inform risk assessment and project prioritization. Quality network data may be comprehensive, consistent, and attributed with accurate representation of linear, point, and polygonal features. Tools that integrate network components with user and influential data will be an important function for most analyses; therefore, system data provide critical data structure.

System data as defined by the workshops with FLH staff and FLMA partners fall into two primary categories. First, basic identification of assets and asset conditions create the core data representing all linear segments and endpoints (or nodes) of the multimodal network, which may include truck, car, bike, pedestrian, and rail transit. Additional system-specific information for transportation networks includes classification, ownership, traffic, condition, age, Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) and Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) designations, right of way, culvert and bridge conditions, and commercial and freight-vehicle use. Thus, this information includes any data associated with the five performance goals and additional information such as ownership or class that provide context. Status-based planning can target integrated priorities, such as improvements targeted for low-condition scores in high-use commercial zones, when multiple attributes connect to road segments.

Second, network analysis can include data pertaining to multimodal function, safety, crashes, volume, efficiency, distinguished subnetworks, slopes, hazards, bottlenecks, connectivity gaps, and congestion. These data inform performance goals and provide important perspective on the flow of people and goods. For example, two roads with similar condition and safety scores might be prioritized differently because one road is a network bottleneck and another is a fire-defense route. System data also include spatial information associated with the base condition of transportation facilities and their condition and function across the network; when all facilities are represented, these data can directly inform integrated planning and evaluation. Data may be acquired from a variety of sources, and system data are often compiled by one office, department, or agency and used by one or more different groups. Specific examples (and sources) include driver behaviors (local law enforcement), accidents and collisions (law enforcement and medical), wildlife fatalities (State and local maintenance and State agencies), bridge conditions (national inventory and inspection), fish passage (State agencies and FWS), multimodal uses (local government), driver origins and destinations, and natural hazards. Locally specific data such as surface conditions within a management unit could be valuable for decisions made by an adjacent jurisdiction.

Because of the extent and complexity of road networks within the United States, a comprehensive inventory requires hierarchical compilation and organization of data from local to State or national scales with reconciliation and quality control at each step. The primary source for information on road locations, conditions, and use is often the entity that owns, maintains, and otherwise manages each road (which is usually the civic, county, State, regional or Federal Government that built the road). Therefore, the complete transportation network covering the continental United States is a vast tapestry of ownership, but the data are compiled and distributed by different levels of government. A well-structured, hierarchical system of compiling accurate road data from local, county, and State, to regional and national level datasets that have known accuracy and regular updates and revisions, is needed to consistently provide data. Once compiled from the multiple sources, road data need to be made available to planners and other users in a timely fashion so that planning efforts can use contemporary information. Quality control during compilation steps can ensure that common attributes are available and spatial configurations are compatible.

User Data

Beyond baseline information about roadways, the behaviors and demands of users directly inform transportation-network planning. Data on users provide information about the vehicles, people, and goods that travel along transportation routes, and how each move through the network. These data can be used to describe the function of the network. Understanding and managing the function of a road network requires data representing the movement of vehicles, people, and goods through the system. Agency and user needs for user data are shown in figures 2.4 and 2.11, whereas potential sources of data are shown in figures 2.5 and 2.12. User data provide insights about the choices made by members of the public and can be used to demonstrate patterns of public interaction with the network. Destinations such as civic and economic activities, cultural and historic sites, or outdoor recreation reflect differences in destination popularity and expectations. Parking availability, visitor hours, use and parking fees, and recreation opportunities influence demand and vehicle types. Industrial and commercial enterprises often develop consistent source and destination patterns with mappable demands.

There is a large variety of information that reflects people’s choices and behaviors, which might be used in land-use and transportation planning; however, only a small amount of information will be relevant for a project, unit, or region. Data identified in workshops focused on distribution of users and drivers in the network, such as the timing and location of heavy use. Specifically, participants recognized the value of data reflecting indicators of network use:

This information helps characterize when, where, and how transportation networks coincide with the people and commerce that the networks serve. Many user data require processing (data engineering) and interpretation for effective use, but the added effort provides insight into variations and trends in demand; for example, processed data may provide spatial comparison of intensity maps or morning compared to evening “hot spot” comparison. User data can be challenging to acquire because these data summarize public opinions from a noncaptive audience across a diverse environment, leading to diverse areas of interest and different opinions about those places. Sources of useful opinion data may include direct public feedback from transportation and visitor surveys, online comments, industry reporting by agreement, and staff observations. For applicability in network analyses, linking opinion data to locations or decomposing general data to fit local conditions is often advisable, such as noting the increased probability of boat trailers on roads that terminate at water.

Although much user information can be tied spatially to the edges and nodes of a road network, other user information may be more general and may not be spatially explicit. For example, the locations; dispersal; and juxtaposition of residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial areas have a strong influence on network needs and demands, but user data on these areas may not be trip-based or easily connected to road segments. These patterns and demands affect timing and location of traffic. Similarly, the location of ports, railyards, and airports are primary origin points and determine the flow of people and freight. The presence of a node is important, and knowing traffic patterns associated with that location affects the network. Depending on the perspective, user information may include directives and mandates not immediately associated with transportation, such as resource protection, visitor experience, and economic development. User data can facilitate interpretation and application of nontransportation priorities. For example, the combination of user and visitor demand, parking capacity, and resource sensitivity may require addressing resource protection and visitor-experience priorities along with the capacity and condition of the network. Data about users is particularly influential when trying to balance multiple mandates and demands with network limitations. Flexibility and options for adding and removing data to address specific issues are fundamental components of incorporating user data and other influential, nonnetwork, information to management plans. Uploading user data should be facilitated for the project-level application, and these data may require specific protocols for quality control, security, and access.

Workshop participants also identified private companies that generate data needed for local planning and observed that these companies’ data might be used with contracts or similar agreements. User data are particularly conducive to private contracting because of the abundance of personal information and algorithms used for processing this data without transferring personally identifiable information (which is controlled). At least two private companies offer user data specifically for transportation and land-use planning: StreetLight Data (https://www.streetlightdata.com) and Urban SDK (https://www.urbanskd.com). User behavior products from private providers include average daily traffic counts, multimodal counts, busiest routes, origins and destinations, turning movements, travel times, miles traveled, average speed, hours delayed, link analysis, trip purpose, trip attributes, congestion maps, crash rates and risks, places and points of interest, location attributes, and infrastructure. Data-sharing contracts might be established with private providers that would facilitate collection and processing of this information.

Social data are often proprietary and sensitive; therefore, surveys and data management must be undertaken with care and respect for laws and regulations governing privacy and personal information, making data collection more challenging. The U.S. Census Bureau, State and local economic development departments, consulting firms, State and regional tourism surveys, and the national household transportation survey all provide user information across multiple jurisdictions. Through interpretation and application development, these types of data may inform transportation plans, although summarizing across larger units (polygons) may result in coarse spatial resolution. Although much user data will be of specific interest and concern to one agency or unit, some information—like traffic volume and congestion in neighboring areas—influences demand, volume, and congestion within the planning unit, making transboundary data useful in this category also.

System Influencing Data

System influences are social, economic, and natural environmental conditions that affect traffic volume and safety, maintenance, construction, and road conditions but are not features of the roads themselves. There are many factors that influence the timing and distribution of drivers, vehicles, and their cargo in a multimodal transportation system, and some of this diverse information is used in land-use and transportation planning. Agency and user needs for data on system influencers are shown in figures 2.6 and 2.13, whereas potential sources of data are shown in figure 2.7. There is more information that might be used, but the challenge of translating indirectly related information onto regional maps and creating meaningful attributes is a barrier. Factors that influence the transportation system are diverse including social-political expectations, built environment, historic-cultural protections, and Tribal and international borders. Usable influential data often represent transportation networks that are complicated shapes, such that spatial calculations might be needed to attach attributes to road segments (data engineering). Features or protections unique to an FLMA partner or particular unit may be common, especially when visitor management, resource, and asset protection create specific requirements. Influential information covers diverse subjects and therefore comes from diverse sources, such as environmental conditions; natural, cultural, and social features; population estimates; State and metropolitan land-use plans; connectivity analyses; natural barriers and hazards; economic development areas; and industrial uses such as logging, solar, oil and gas fields.

Workshop participants specified that regional plans, economic-development districts, U.S. Census Bureau data, and similar social structures provide information relevant for transportation plans, but this information may be embedded in formats other than geographic data. Often, that information is in tables, figures, reports, or similar formats. Influential information may come from diverse sources and represent extensive areas, which makes it important for planning but challenging to use in spatial analyses until directives are interpreted for application. For example, increased access for a feature identified by an oval on a map may require development of alternate access routes, lane expansion, shoulder and bridge improvements, or specific actions not specified in the original directive. Useful information might translate the implications of economic-development zones, metropolitan planning and statistical units, U.S. Census Bureau Urban Area Census statistics, and North American Industry Classification System data.

Additionally, some projections, such as population change, traffic growth, visitation, and socioeconomic monitoring, are not spatially explicit at fine scales. However, these projections often include information with immediate planning implications because they help predict when, where, and how many users might affect the transit system. Commodity prices and government incentives can also affect activities in many industries, including energy, timber, and agriculture, and projections may not be spatially explicit, although trends in these industries affect freight demands. Tables, reports, guidance, and similar nonspatial digital resources that are commonly used and support specific directives could be organized and provided as aspatial tools if the utility is clear and the information is current. Participants identified a diverse list of influential topics that may be considered for data development and potential integration:

The NPS is developing a planning tool and database (Innovative and Sustainable Transportation Evaluation Process; INSTEP) as part of their National LRTP (NPS, 2017), which will outline a systematic rating system for NPS transportation projects based on seven principal topics to guide evaluation: (1) planning context, (2) natural resources, (3) cultural resources, (4) visitor experience, (5) energy and climate change, (6) materials and construction, and (7) innovation and custom strategies. This approach could be adopted for other agencies by incorporating different priorities into the framework and using similar steps to guide integration of multiple priorities and datasets.

Sources of influential data and the information they provide is diverse. It is likely that a small set of system data will be broadly applicable, and much more data will remain the purview of individual partners. For example, U.S. Census Bureau data are applicable for planning at most levels, but not all attributes will be needed for land-use and transportation planning. Manipulation of transportation-focused data could be used to select key data from external sources. Other data that could be universally useful include cultural and historic districts, endangered species habitats (terrestrial and aquatic), topographic and geologic hazards, flood zones and Federal Emergency Management Agency designations, and local planning units and attributes. Important sources include the Federal geospatial data committee, U.S. Department of Commerce, economic development districts, the USGS Protected Areas Database, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Map.

Other Considerations

Several potentially important topics emerged from workshops but did not fit into previous sections. Some of these topics supplement discussion of the core categories and others expand to new perspectives for planning (figs. 2.8 and 2.14). First, FLMA partners typically use internal data for the most current or accurate version, and those data may not be publicly available. In some cases, using internally maintained data may be necessary to ensure version stability and proper documentation for coherence within and among planning cycles. Therefore, coordinating updates, controlling versioning, and precluding unexpected changes during interim periods are specifications to support stability and consistency. In addition, coordinated FLH and partner data services will depend on a network of data managers with protocols for data revisions and updates. System improvements over existing desktop approaches will encourage transitioning to a new platform. Example improvements include intuitive and recognizable graphical user interface (GUI), which can allow users of the application to view and interact with data. These improvements can enable increased stability and security in data and records, consistent reporting and terms for easy translation to plans, and rapid and efficient data processing.

Second, agencies have different funding levels and capacities for planning, especially transportation planning, so benefitting all users regardless of capacity is an important conceptual and practical target. In addition, priorities vary among agencies and units, which affects the role transportation plays in land-use plans. Core infrastructure data matter at all levels of transportation planning, but project priorities and connections between transportation and agency missions vary. Therefore, flexibility to combine shared data between agencies and to project specific information in a single environment tailored for analyses, presentations, and reports will increase applicability for existing practices and demands. Some processes and analyses will, however, remain separate.

Summary of Data Services and Online Systems

Following workshops, we assessed the current availability of spatial data and online tools among FLMA partners. The purpose of this assessment was recognition of available systems and data-providing information and services similar to needs described in workshops. We consulted several partners directly and reviewed online data resources to describe existing geographic information capabilities and geospatial applications that are available for comprehensive transportation planning approaches identified in the workshops (app. 2; table 2.1). We describe online resources supported by several agencies and available for planning.

The FWS created the ECOS database with user-interface to access FWS data and support reporting based on user supplied areas. The database was designed to inform planning but not necessarily FWS planning. The format supports options for user interface and provides predefined pathways for data exploration, regulatory preview, and a full biological assessment. Among other products, it provides a list of species and critical habitat that should be considered and information for working with a local field office. Multiple modules have been created to customize interactions with the ECOS database, and this multiple-interface approach could be used for a planning database system. In this way, different planning exercises and different stages of planning (that is, different ways of interacting with data) could be developed as separate workflows.

The BLM has several online data portals that inform planning, including the Geospatial Business Hub, Landscape Approach Data Portal, and ePlanning (NEPA specific). The newest of these tools, the Geospatial Business Platform, provides interactions with large amounts of data that are useful for planning. Graphic display facilitates data exploration and selection, and data can be downloaded for analyses. This tool did not include online processing or reporting at the time of this assessment.

The NPS database system includes Navigator, Integrated Resource Management Applications; Planning, Environment and Public Comment; Science and Infrastructure Management System, and Park Atlas. The NPS Navigator includes links to Pathweb, providing segment attributes and road surface video. This approach and functions appear directly relevant to FLH planning. The NPS INSTEP planning criteria is a framework with planning steps for using multiple data inputs. A process similar to INSTEP could be used to structure data use for other planning applications.

The Reclamation provides extensive data specific to Reclamation properties with their Reclamation Information Sharing Environment and Reclamation Water Information System. This system is an open-access data platform for viewing and downloading Reclamation water and water-related data (Reclamation Information Sharing Environment, Reclamation Water Information System, Open Water Data) powered by ArcGIS. Interactive processing and planning functions are not included and extensive data are available.

The Corps provides data for the National Inventory of Dams, Navigation tools, military and civil infrastructure, water infrastructure, and regulations and emergency management through an open-data platform. An interactive viewer provides custom scale and extent, but interactive functions are not included. These outward-facing data are important for many planning efforts.

The FS Geospatial Data Discovery Tool uses an ArcGIS map viewer and query tool for data selection. It does not offer online tools, but an area of interest can be user-defined, and content can be downloaded or connected through an ArcGIS REST API (a conforming application programming interface). The ArcGIS software and the ArcGIS REST API support custom processing.

The FLH maintains programs and databases directly relevant for planning professionals: National Highway Planning Network, Highway Performance Monitoring System, National Bridge Inventory, Freight Analysis Framework, and Long-Term Bridge Performance Program. These data are available for secure download but not as part of a tool.

The FHWA created the Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty to host data for planning and real estate spatial applications. The Screening Tool for Equity Analysis of Projects allows interactive viewing that combines the road network with social data and data regarding air quality, crashes, and metropolitan planning designations. This tool established a precedent by using programmatic data services in Federal planning departments.

Data from U.S. States and other regional and local entities may inform an integrated planning platform. Most States have adopted open data policies facilitated by GIS technology and open-source and commercial software. These adoptions result in catalogued and API-supported, public-facing data. The amount and diversity and representation of data for each State differs, but all States provide system information and most provide additional user information. Few of these systems provide planning tools, so an integrated service platform could provide integration and linkage with existing State data sources.

Findings

Finding 1.—The most important information for widespread spatially integrated transportation planning is a complete and comprehensive Linear Reference Dataset for all roads. The AEGIST project is working towards creation of this enterprise dataset with a uniform spatially explicit inventory of roads. Digital-system and data-management framework has been created, and direct engagements with partners, especially State department of transportations, will help inform and insure availability of high-quality local information across boundaries for the entire Nation. In addition to linear components, critical features such as bridge inventory and safety-related information could be compiled and served as baseline system information. Planners and technical advisors agreed on this priority.

Finding 2.—A platform with data services that extend to all Federal agencies to hold and distribute enterprise data are needed. This platform was also proposed in the safety analysis (refer to the “Managed Service Platform” section). Whether hosted by FHWA or another Federal agency, a secure data platform that controls user access and permissions but enables broad sharing of system, user, and influential data for transportation planning is also necessary for integrated planning. A functional service will include tools that enable interaction with data for summary and analyses and contribution (upload) of project-level information needed for local information. Planners and technical advisors also agreed on this priority.

Finding 3.—Additional data, especially in user and influential categories, will need development. Most agencies publish some data, but the most current and internally relevant data may be stored on agency servers with restricted availability. In many cases, published and served FLMA data are designed for outside users rather than within agency use. For example, the FWS system provides data and tools that help developers, planners, and the public work with FWS when plans affect protected or threatened species. Despite differences, all FLMA have existing, inwardly focused planning processes. Variations in content, relevance, and complexity of these data suggest codevelopment of agency-specific applications will provide the best utility.

Finding 4.—Priorities vary among FLMA partners, and often among regions, districts, and units within these agencies; so, although safety, volume, and surface conditions matter to all agencies, project priorities and connections among agency missions and means of transportation vary. Furthermore, because agencies collect and manage data differently, there will be differences among data attributes, spatial resolution, and temporal frequency; some agencies may have missing data. Therefore, routine integration of local- and project-specific information is a needed capability for a planning support tool. Some user-supplied data may need review or revision before posting; other user data might remain limited in scope and require less support. Security and quality control mechanisms will be needed for files and content.

Finding 5.—High-level planning can address questions like, where do we (whether as a society, State, city, or region) want more roads, fewer roads, bigger roads, or alternate routes? However, simple answers are not typically provided, and therefore transportation planners use other land-use plans and policy directives to provide guidance. By using these additional plans and directives, transportation planners often incorporate unclear ideas such as how to better serve the local population; encourage commerce, trade and tourism; and decrease negative effects such as noise, contamination, and unsafe conditions into specific transportation opportunities. The incorporation of these ideas into modern integrated planning will require shared spatial data.

Finding 6.—The roles of transportation and funding levels within and among FLMA differ, which creates different capabilities and perspectives among potential users. Some agencies have limited transportation assets compared to an expanse of official mandates and responsibilities, for example, Reclamation and FWS. Other agencies manage small geographic extents but provide critical transportation resources, such as roads managed by the NPS that help fulfill the visitation mission. Two agencies manage extensive road networks associated with recreation, economic development, and resource management: the FS and BLM. Including this complexity is part of the task for data and tool development.

Next Steps

The following steps were determined based on workshop discussions and identified information needs.

Next Step 1.—Create a nationally contiguous and comprehensive linear referenced database. The linear referenced database of transportation networks created by the AEGIST program was identified as the backbone of monitoring and analyses of the transportation system. Many network summaries and analyses depend on spatially combining environmental factors and road segments.

Next Step 2.—Coordinate compilation and distribution of the following data types used for integrated transportation planning: land cover, land use, social values, and resource management. A clear role for interagency coordination exists, whereby data representing transportation assets with conditions, plans, and priorities can be coupled with land-use context from multiple relevant perspectives. The context needed to inform transportation planning comes from attributes and factors found in a variety of social, environmental, and economic information.

Next Step 3.—Create and implement a framework for identifying, acquiring, and serving informative user and influential data. Collaboratively develop a framework for acquiring and updating data that can document system users and key influences on the system to complement AEGIST plans for creating the system data. This collaboration will require collective participation; partners will need to standardize and provide their data, and FLH will lead compilation, review, and data release. The system data may also need additional attribution; therefore, data engineering can address integration from both directions.

Next Step 4.—The recent FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development report (Hamilton and others, 2022), “Development of Safety and Traffic Data Collection System and Analysis Framework for Federal Lands Highway,” also identified the need for spatial information for transportation planning and analyses. The technical details in Hamilton and others (2022) complement the user perspective on data and information needs described in this report. Among the objectives for developing and implementing integrated safety analyses identified in Hamilton and others (2022) are formal data-sharing relationships with partner agencies, common road data, shared and complementary data analyses, enterprise spatial data service, and refined data collection and analyses. The objectives described by Hamilton and others (2022) are strong validation of the need for shared data and a data-sharing platform, and safety analysis would make an excellent case study of defined user scenario(s) with application of shared geospatial data.

Managed Service Platform

Hamilton and others (2022) describe a Managed Service Platform (MSP) as a system of software and hardware (which may be cloud based) that would allow secure access to centrally managed data (especially geospatial data) needed for network analyses. These analyses used data from multiple sources linked to transportation infrastructure through the Linear Reference System, which created the data backbone. Multiple sources of evidence for safety and road conditions were combined with direct samples in some locations and modeled risk in other areas. Specific information needs and analyses related to safety assessments identified appropriate data, alternatives, and data acquisition. Data development for multiple important topics such as bridge condition, surface condition, and flood risk need further development as enterprise products.

With a broader perspective that considers all assets including roads, rails, bridges, ports, structures, and other infrastructure and influential conditions like safety, surface, environmental, social, economic, and historic, this report addresses similar data-sharing as analyses described in Hamilton and others (2022). The common objective is a virtual forum for sharing spatial data between Federal partners engaged in transportation and land-use planning. Addressing safety and other management issues in the modern era demands use of rigorous spatial data that are consistent and communicated among partners. Necessary data sharing may be achieved with the mechanisms described in this report and those mechanisms identified in Hamilton and others (2022). Specifically, we suggest the development of an enterprise data service accompanied by tools for using the data that inform key steps in the planning process such as analysis, reporting, and communicating with interagency availability. Extending use of the same data to States and other planners, as soon as possible, is highly desirable.

Hamilton and others (2022) focus on improving highway and roadway safety through risk assessment and implementation of safety measures. Risk assessment and system monitoring can be impeded by lack of suitable information (for example, in rural areas), making data development and integration important for network analyses. Using GIS, safety action plans and road-safety audits can be integrated with surface condition and crash data. Key tasks for filling safety information gaps and developing actionable plans to improve safety include (1) establishing high-level logistics, coordination, and approvals; (2) creating spatial-data repository and exchange system; (3) defining and implementing data-collection framework for spatial information; (4) conducting safety and traffic analyses using segments and networks; (5) conducting case studies to demonstrate and refine; and (6) implementing nationally. The first step in this list was initiated by the team that conducted Hamilton and others (2022).