el2_slides.pptx (108.23 KB)
slide 2
It's time to revisit Safety Performance Measures
The Safety PM Final Rule* requires that State DOTs and MPOs establish targets for each of these five safety performance measures:
- Number of fatalities.
- Rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
- Number of serious injuries.
- Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT.
- Number of non-motorized fatalities plus non-motorized serious injuries.
*The Safety PM Final Rule adds Part 490 to title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement the performance management requirements in 23 U.S.C. 150.
slide notes:
The Safety Performance Management Measures Final Rule was enacted by FHWA to help move States towards zero deaths. It focuses on lowering five key performance measure values – number of fatalities, overall, on all public roads; the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on all public roads; the number of overall serious injuries; the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; and the number of non-motorized (e.g., bicyclists and pedestrians) fatalities and serious injuries, combined.
slide 3
Setting Safety Performance Targets – Recap
- Last year's performance story included:
- red colored text[List who was consulted during the setting process and the forums used to discuss and vet preliminary targets]
- red colored text[List the data used to determine targets]
- red colored text[List assumptions made]
- red colored text[Describe how planned improvements and the current application of HSIP resources were reviewed]
slide notes:
For establishing next year's targets, we need to examine not only the progress made toward the target but revisit our process from last year:
- Who did we bring into the process? What did they contribute? What was our process for establishing targets collaboratively and having them approved?
- What data did we use to determine the targets (e.g., census data, age cohort growth, etc.)? Looking back, was the forecasted data accurate? If not, why?
- What assumptions did we make (e.g., population of 16-24 year olds is growing, affecting the "younger driver" number of fatalities and fatality rate by increased X percent)?
- What process was undertaking to review planned improvement and HSIP allocation of resources?
By reviewing each of these four things in detail, we can understand more fully how we can establish realistic and accurate targets in the coming year.
slide 4
How did we measure up?
| Performance (5-year rolling avg.) | Performance Measure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Fatalities | Fatality Rate | Number of Serious Injuries | Serious Injury Rate | Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries | |
| Baseline |  |
|
|
|
|
| Target | |
|
|
|
|
| Estimated | |
|
|
|
|
slide notes:
So, how did we do? Let's take a look at the targets we set last year to refresh our memory as move forward this year. Remember, these are established using a 5-year rolling average. You can see here, the 20XX-20XX baseline performance was XX. Then, for 20XX-20XX, we set our target for XX. And finally, in the last column, our initial estimates indicate XX.
Keep in mind that the official assessments are being made by FHWA and won't be finalized until Spring 2020.
slide 5
We met 4 of 5 targets. Now what?
Remove slide if not applicable
- Were our targets data-driven? Achievable? Realistic?
- Too easy?
- Too aggressive?
- Did we account for and quantify external factors?
- Is our data still applicable or has something drastically changed?
- Did we include all the relevant partners?
- Is there anything on which we can improve?
slide notes:
Let's ask ourselves:
- Were our targets:
- Data driven?
- Achievable?
- Realistic?
- Too easy?
- Too aggressive?
- Did we account for and quantify external factors in our target setting methodology?
- Has the "state of the State" changed much since this time last year? If so, what has changed and how do we capture that?
- Did we involve those who can affect or who are affected by target achievement?
- Do we have room for improvement? Which targets were "close calls", if any? Why?
slide 6
We did not meet 4 of 5 targets, nor was our performance better than baseline. Now what?
Remove slide if not applicable
- Were our targets data-driven? Achievable? Realistic?
- Too easy?
- Too aggressive?
- Did we account for and quantify external factors?
- Is our data still applicable or has something drastically changed?
- Did we include all the relevant partners?
- Is there anything on which we can improve?
slide notes:
So, we did not meet at least 4 of 5 of our targets, and we did not make significant progress (better than baseline performance). That means our we are required to develop an HSIP Implementation Plan and use HSIP obligation authority. But first, we need to gather some information.
Let's ask ourselves:
- Which measures did we not meet? Do we know what may have contributed to that?
- Has the "state of the State" changed much since this time last year? If so, what has changed and how do we capture that?
- Did we involve those who can affect or who are affected by target achievement?
- Which targets, if any, did we meet? And what can we learn from those?
- Did we put all possible resources toward target achievement or did we leave money on the table?
slide 7
Keep the process the same or revise?
- Based on last year's red colored text[success toward/not having met] [NUMBER] of five safety performance targets, do we:
- Keep the process the same?
- Revisit, revise, and re-strategize?
- Let's define HOW we will establish this year's targets:
- Step 1: Develop a timeline for this year's target setting process.
- Step 2:
- Step 3:
slide notes:
After revisiting last year's progress and process, let's define our steps for this year's process. (Use this slide to brainstorm)
slide 8
Let's brainstorm…
- How can we:
- Achieve even greater progress next year and save more lives?
- Meet next year's targets? Future years' targets?
slide notes:
(Use this slide to brainstorm)
slide 9
Communicating Rising Targets
How to communicate rising targets or increasing trends?
- Some States say…
- "…rising targets reflect reality, since fatalities are climbing…"
- Other States say…
- "…rising targets may give the impression that we are ok with additional lives lost…"
slide notes:
How do we want to communicate rising targets or increasing trends? There are generally two schools of thought:
- Align targets with rising fatalities. Increasing targets provides opportunity for stakeholders to determine solutions. This message allows States to frame the issue to stakeholders and the public and explore potential solutions together.
- Maintain a steadily declining target or show one that is treading water, but do not set a target higher than baseline. Depending on the safety culture and climate within the agency and State at large, this message may allow States to explore additional resources to use for, in fact, reversing a climbing trend.
There is no "right" answer; States understand their constituents and safety climate best. Whichever message is selected, be consistent in how the message is framed and delivered.
slide 10
Contact
Add contacts
[ Return to Safety Performance Management Target Setting Communications Plan and Toolkit ]
Page last modified on July 21, 2015