PRESERVE - Protect Residential Environments with Sensible Engineering and Residents' VoicEs   INTERCHANGE STUDY FRAUD INQUIRY BY U.S. INSPECTOR GENERAL     AN OPEN LETTER TO COMMISSIONER COGLIANO     Dear Commissioner Cogliano: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Office of Inspector General (O.I.G.), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has initiated an inquiry into the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) for allegedly committing fraud in the use of accident data known by the MHD to be worthless. The attached paper documents the following facts (See reference below). The MHD, along with three other state agencies, conducted a statewide audit of accident data in 2001. The audit showed that accident reports consistently had too many missing elements (e.g., accident location, vehicle type) to be useful for highway safety analysis. A new accident report form was deployed starting in 2002. However, the MHD repeatedly used worthless accident data collected prior to 2002 for I93/95 interchange feasibility study activities during 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The MHD never told members of the I93/95 community about the accident data audit. Further, its use by the MHD and its consultants (Edwards & Kelcey and The Louis Berger Group) implied engineering acceptability. This repeated, deliberate use of worthless accident data by your department can lead to alternative interchange designs that are less safe than the current interchange. Clearly, this action on the part of the MHD represents a serious disregard for public safety. The attached paper shows that the MHD and its consultants did use worthless accident data. There is no doubt about this fact. This act represents a serious, prolonged deception that may be legally characterized as fraud. Thus, the attached paper (and paper copies of all reference materials) was presented to the O.I.G. for their review. Subsequently, they initiated an inquiry into this matter to determine whether federal violations have occurred. I will send you the case number and point of contact information separately. If the O.I.G does not find in favor of fraud by the MHD, one should ask why. Was this because no one thought to enact a law prohibiting the use of worthless accident data for safety improvement projects? Was there a general presumption that state DOT’s would have the moral decency to use quality accident data, and, thus, no such law was required? The accident data collected from 2002 onward may or may not be an improvement compared to the accident data gathered prior to 2002. However, that cannot be known until a formal accident data audit is conducted. Has the MHD conducted such an audit? Please explain why the MHD has not lost its credibility and why this current feasibility study should not be terminated immediately. Also, please respond in writing to the 11 questions in Section 6 of the attached paper. This paper has been written with the full knowledge and agreement of the citizen’s initiative groups PRESERVE (Protect Residential Environments with Sensible and Resident’s Voices) and THAG (Tri Community Highway Action Group).   Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com   March 28, 2005   FLAWED_ACCIDENT_DATA..SAFETY.doc       SPACE RESERVED FOR REPLY FROM COMMISSIONER COGLIANO       Use of Flawed Accident Data by Mass Highway Department (MHD) The Case submitted to the U.S. Inspector General, Washington, DC A Summary: The MHD: 1. Knew they had flawed accident data (i.e., audit in early 2001 by a contractor) 2. Explained that their accident data is flawed (i.e., presentation at a conference later in 2001) 3. Continued to use flawed accident data for their public safety projects (i.e., both Feasibility Studies for I93/95) 4. Provided flawed accident data to contractors (i.e., 8 transportation studies cited in the petition to the OIG). Decision points for the OIG: 1. Did the MHD commit fraud? 2. What are the minimum standards for quality/quantity of accident data for public safety improvement projects? 3. How should these standards be applied to MA? 4. How should these standards be applied to other states? 5.  What is the mechanism for enforcing these standards? 6. How should those MHD transportation studies and other such studies by contractors in MA be treated? Should accident analyses be re-examined with reference to accident data quality/quantity standards issued by the OIG? 7. To what extent is the MHD exposed to class action legal liability based on their known use of flawed accident data? Bottom Line on MHD Ethics and Credibility: Do you want to drive on any highway designed by the MHD based on their use of accident data where:   50 % of the accidents have no known recorded vehicle information? 40 % have no known accident location?   WHO WE ARE (updated 1/28/03) We are a group of citizens concerned about Mass Highway's 2001-2002 feasibility study and accompanying proposal for reconfiguring the Route 28, 93/95 [128] interchange in Reading, Wakefield, Woburn, and Stoneham, Massachusetts, as well as its new plans for analyzing the 95/93 interchange. Any study or reconfiguration of this interchange will have a significant impact on many communities that surround the interchange, including at least Reading, North Reading, Stoneham, Woburn, Wakefield, Winchester, Burlington, Wilmington, and Lynnfield. We were first brought together by Mass Highway's 2002 interchange redesign (now suspended) that called for the taking of more than 100 properties, most of them homes. Any property taking for work on this interchange will impact not just the property owners, but also the entire neighborhoods and communities where these properties are located. We are actively involved in monitoring Mass Highway's current projects on this interchange.  PRESERVE will continue its information mission: the public must be made aware if Mass Highway is again to put forth any designs that have the potentially devastating inpact of the 2002 proposal.  If this occurs, ALL of us in the affected communities can stop them again, as we did before.  Knowledge is power!   PROBLEMS? If you are having any problems with this website or any links on it, please send an email to us:Send an Email to PRESERVE If you are having problems with the above email, try our backup email address at: preserve_temp@hotmail.com ************************* Our Web Counter says that you are visitor number to the PRESERVE web page since 6:00 pm July 10, 2002. LEGAL NOTICES All content on this site is property of PRESERVE and is copyright 2003, PRESERVE, all rights reserved. Solely as a courtesy to you, we may provide links to other web sites, articles or papers. We do not endorse, approve, certify or control any of those sites, and because we do not have any control over them, you acknowledge and agree that we are not responsible for their content or the availability, accuracy, completeness, efficacy, or timeliness of information contained on them. Reference on those sites to any commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, service mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by us. In addition,as part of our commitment to keep the public informed and present many viewpoints,  from time to time we may include information from sources other than the Steering Committee.  Providing such information does not necessarily imply that the PRESERVE steering committe approves or endorses the content in such information.