Working Groups‎ > ‎Safety‎ > ‎Meetings‎ > ‎

Meeting #23, April 29, 2014, 9am PST

posted Mar 18, 2014, 12:26 PM by Page Smith   [ updated May 1, 2014, 9:42 AM ]

Group:

I80 CSMP Safety Working Group (WG)

Subject:

Sub-Topic Discussions

Date and time:

April 29, 2014, 9:00 A.M. PST

Meeting no.:

23

Meeting place:

Teleconference

Minutes by:

Andy Blanchard

Attendees:

Craig Copelan (Caltrans)                                Patrice Echola (RTC Washoe)

Jim Ceragioli (NDOT)(Co-Chair)                    Shawn Frye (HDR)

Coy Peacock (NDOT)                                    Andy Blanchard (Atkins) (Co-Chair) 

P.D. Kiser (NDOT)                                         

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

 

1

Roll call

 

2

Update on the overall I-80 CSMP Project

·        The consultant team is concluding their involvement in the project, the future format and structure of the working group was discussed in the second half of the meeting

·        Coy gave a presentation on the project at a conference in Arizona earlier in the month. In it, he noted how this project differed from other corridor studies

·        An improved webinar tutorial on the GIS mapping tool will be released by next Wednesday

·        An e-survey will be sent out shortly asking stakeholders how they want to be involved in the corridor in the future and a framework to move forward

 

3

Discussion on GIS layers for the Safety Map

The safety map is one of the gallery of GIS maps produced to support various working groups. The GIS maps are being migrated to the NDOT server over the next week. It is expected that the data will be updated yearly, in order to keep it live. It was recognized that in order to maximise the benefit of the maps they need to be marketed to make potential users aware of the resource. The maps will be accessible by the public as well as working group members, although it is expected that the safety map will be most valuable to the key government players, such as DOT planning and safety departments along the corridor.

There are already well established public information maps under the 511 brand (NV, UT and WY) and others (QuickMap in CA). While the aim of the safety map is not to replicate this information, it could incorporate the information in the future, although it was noted that it is not easy to coordinate the I-80 project and these databases at present.

The group were asked if speed limit information (static and variable) should be added to the safety map. Some attendees questioned the value of this data, but others felt it could be useful for design projects and planning purposes. While it was agreed that live information was not required, information on speed limits could be indicated using a simple color coded centreline.

A suggestion that the map could include information on each SHSP goals was rejected, as this information could more appropriately be contained within a Word document.

The possibilities of including information on TIM, law enforcement / EMS coordination within the safety map were discussed. TIM regional coverage, Highway Patrol areas, local law enforcement jurisdiction areas were all suggested. It is thought that while this information is not readily available in a GIS format, it could be generated and based on mile posts, so should be pursued in the future.

4

Discussion on legacy structure of the Safety WG

Attendees identified the following possible functions of the future I-80 safety working group:

·        Short presentations on best practices, sharing safety experience throughout the corridor

·        Initiate research that could benefit multiple states along the I-80, leveraging funding from multiple states

·        Pursuit of the action items identified in the safety topic papers generated by the WG (as there are 28 action items, some form of prioritization should be considered)

·        Serve as a networking opportunity for those with a stake in safety along the corridor

It was recognized that the goal would be to keep people engaged, and invested in the process, identifying champions to take the lead on different items.

It was suggested that as a minimum, the I-80 safety WG should meet every quarter. However, these meetings should be supplemented as appropriate – when key national or regional documentation changes, or when new practices are trialled. It was proposed that the Safety WG could meet in person once a year.

Jim Ceragioli and P.D. Kiser are to discuss a framework for moving forward, including the identification of a chair and a rough schedule for future meetings. They will email an invitation to the next meeting, including identification of action items to discuss.

5

Adjourn - the meeting adjourned at 9:58 A.M. PST

Next meeting      TBA

Ċ
Page Smith,
May 1, 2014, 9:40 AM
Comments