Performance Management of Safety Programs

• Use and projected impacts of individual safety countermeasures is well understood; projecting the results of system-wide suite of safety countermeasures has not been done.
• Performance measurement is institutionalized in many states and MPOs decision-making processes; the number and rate of highway fatalities and injuries are common measures used. However, setting performance targets and measuring the impact of projects/programs on achieving those targets is not a common practice.
• Safety is often addressed in standalone projects rather than integrated through planning, engineering, operations, and maintenance.
• The increased focus on performance-based programs in MAP-21 may benefit safety programs because fatality and injury data is often more available than other highway performance measures.

Data

• Because crash data is often used to identify countermeasures for individual high crash locations, accurate geo-location data on all crash location and highway features is needed.
• The ability to use timely and robust data enhances organizational capabilities to prioritize projects and justify decisions throughout the safety planning lifecycle.
• It is difficult to collect exposure data on the number and amount of pedestrian and bicycle travel. That limits comparison capabilities for fatality and injury data for ped/bike crashes.
• Future data sets need to be expanded and linked to other non- traditional types of roadway and crash data (e.g., university research, hospital reports, National Studies Center) to provide a more holistic view of and approach to safety.
• Many tools (e.g., SafetyAnalyst) and guidance documents (e.g., HSM) require additional training or data formatting before use.

Communication

• States and MPOs rely on both formal and informal communication channels for information, guidance, and best practices.
• The sheer volume of information/guidance available to states and MPOs makes it difficult to down-select and prioritize projects.
• Events such as this peer exchange reinforce the need to continue expanding professional networks and encourage knowledge transfer.

Effective Knowledge Transfer

• Opportunities exist to improve the sharing of best practices among FHWA headquarters, states, and localities.
• The 9 Proven Countermeasures Memo is an example of effective knowledge transfer – simple and direct.
• MAP-21 will require increased coordination among all levels involved in safety planning (e.g., U.S. DOT HQ, FHWA Division Offices, state DOTs, and MPOs).