South Carolina Uses Electronic Crash System Deployment for Safety Data Improvements

Summary from: Roadway Safety Data Program | South Carolina Safety Data Improvements Through Electronic Crash System Deployment | FHWA-SA-16-109

Background

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS) implemented the South Carolina Collision and Ticket Tracking System (SCCATTS), a long-term initiative to improve law enforcement data quality. SCCATTS supports decision making with quality data and by efficiently sharing data among stakeholders. The benefits of SCCATTS include providing a standardized way for law enforcement to process crash and citation data through a streamlined electronic process, obtaining more timely, accurate, and complete crash and citation data, data-driven decision-making, and delivering data to stakeholder agencies electronically, eliminating the paper-based process.

Read the Case Study South Carolina Safety Data Improvements Through Electronic Crash System Deployment for more detailed information.

Pennsylvania Develops State-Specific SPFs and CMFs

Summary from: Roadway Safety Data Program | Pennsylvania’s State-Specific SPFs and CMFs | FHWA-SA-16-062

Background

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) used Part C of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to develop State-specific safety performance functions (SPFs). For some facility types, PennDOT developed district/regional-level calibrations of the State-specific SPFs. PennDOT developed regional SPFs and calibrated State-specific SPFs for use at the regional level. They believe this is the best approach for dealing with the inherent differences among areas within the State.

The PennDOT Highway Safety and Traffic Operations Division developed a guide on the appropriate use of State-specific crash modification factors (CMFs). This guide is based on a critical review of the CMFs available in the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to identify CMFs applicable to Pennsylvania. PennDOT’s “Pennsylvania CMF Guide” includes information on these selection criteria as well as best practices to guide practitioners on how to use CMFs appropriately in various scenarios. As the list of countermeasures in the CMF Clearinghouse continues to grow, practitioners can use the criteria to select from among the newly added CMFs.

Read the Case Study Pennsylvania’s State-Specific SPFs and CMFs for more detailed information.

Washington State and Tribes Share Data to Improve Transportation Safety

Summary from: Roadway Safety Data Program | Washington State and Tribal Data Sharing Partnerships | FHWA-SA-16-111

Background

In Washington State, the traffic fatality rate for Native Americans is 3.5 times higher than the rest of the population. Tribal and State agencies have recognized the need for improved data in order to accurately identify and address Tribal transportation safety challenges. In 2007, the Washington State developed the eTRIP/SECTOR software program to efficiently bring together data sources and share data. While some Tribes have begun using the software, other Tribes have expressed data security concerns. Washington Traffic Safety Commission has been working as liaison between Tribal agencies and the eTRIP/SECTOR team to address those concerns and facilitate Tribal transportation data sharing.

Read the Case Study Washington State and Tribal Data Sharing Partnerships for more detailed information.

Oregon Consolidates Transportation Data

Summary from: Roadway Safety Data Program | Asset Management in Oregon | FHWA-SA-16-110

Background

With almost 20,000 lane miles on the Oregon highway system, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is responsible for managing and maintaining its roadway assets. Managed assets include barriers, traffic signals, lighting, pavement markings, and signs. ODOT has developed an inventory of its assets and evaluates asset condition in order to efficiently manage maintenance efforts. Over several years, ODOT implemented two new programs to manage their roadway assets, TransInfo and the Features, Attributes, and Conditions—Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FACS-STIP) Tool. TransInfo is a statewide asset management system. It provides ODOT asset management staff with the most up-to-date statistics on assets and other features on the State highway system. The FACS-STIP Tool is a web-based program that provides information on an asset’s location, attributes, and condition to all users with internet access.

Read the Case Study Asset Management in Oregon for more detailed information.

HSIP Program Evaluation and Progress Reporting in New York

Problem/Issue

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is a decentralized organization comprised of 11 regions. As part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the central office sends out a list of Priority Investigative Locations (PILs) and High Accident Locations (HALs) to the regions each spring. The regions use this information to create their Annual Regional Work Program. Specifically, the regions conduct approximately 350 Highway Safety Investigations (HSIs) annually to evaluate 20 percent of the high crash locations. The HSIs result in capital projects, which are often low-cost safety improvements, but can include more costly reconstruction projects at locations with correctable crash patterns.

While the regions are responsible for implementing safety projects, the central office is primarily responsible for conducting evaluations and tracking statewide statistics and progress as part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The central office developed an annual HSIP report and statewide progress report, but these were the only feedback mechanisms for both the State and the regions. The central office wanted a way to track overall progress toward the regional work plans and several other organizational goals: HSI completion, percent obligation of HSIP funds, and implementation of focused safety programs (e.g., installation rates of centerline rumble strips and pedestrian countdown timers). When the central office gathered regional representatives to present a statewide progress report, the regions requested more nuanced reports to show progress at the regional level.

Prior to developing regional reports, it was important to the central office to stress that reporting at the regional level was not intended to highlight individual regions for lagging behind or not meeting goals. Rather, the intent was to improve performance management and encourage regions through positive feedback. If a region was lagging behind, then the central office worked with the region to identify and resolve the challenges or issues.

Solution

As a result, NYSDOT now implements an activity-based approach to program evaluation and progress reporting. The central office develops quarterly reports that contain a number of performance measures—both automated and manual components—including the number of activities performed by each region. Then, the central office gathers the regional traffic engineers to present and review the progress reports.

The report is a management tool that aims to provide a summary of the State’s progress as a whole, track work plan progress, and bring any regional resource or process issues to light for discussion. As the regions identify issues, they can work together with the central office to develop solutions. To allay some of the concerns that the reports would negatively highlight some regions over others, the central office only distributes the quarterly reports internally and only distributes the regional dashboards to the individual region. Executive management and regional traffic engineers receive the reports, which emphasize areas in need of improvement and areas of excellence. Additionally, NYSDOT provides one-page dashboards summarizing fatalities, serious injuries, and progress toward SHSP emphasis area performance measures.

Benefits

NYSDOT uses the quarterly reports to continually track and evaluate HSIP projects and programs. For example, the central office tracks the number of times a site appears on the HSI list, which allows them to assess how well the system is working. The documentation of HSIs and follow-up evaluations of resulting projects helps to defend against tort claims. Regional traffic engineers are also positioned to track and evaluate projects in their regions. This improves their knowledge of the greatest needs and challenges as well as the most successful projects. Together, the central and regional offices have a better understanding of how activities and projects contribute to the statewide safety goals and outcomes.

One region in particular was falling behind due to resource management issues. When their progress was revealed in the quarterly report, the region worked with the central office to modify its processes and allocate resources more effectively, resulting in a dramatic improvement that was reflected in subsequent progress reports.

Although the detailed reports were initially requested by the regions, the data they provide has helped achieve both regional and central office goals. Now, the central office better understands the importance of messaging and project rollout, which have become important for progress reporting. In turn, the ongoing communication from the central office has led to improved project tracking and ownership at the regional level.

The reporting practice has also created opportunities for additional improvements across the system. For example, the central office identified the opportunity to enhance HSIP evaluation practices by reducing the number of HSIs required.

Contact

Regina Doyle
New York State Department of Transportation
(518) 485-0164
Regina.Doyle@dot.ny.gov

HSIP Countermeasure Evaluation in Kentucky

Problem/Issue

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is responsible for performing Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) evaluation, including project tracking and crash modification factor (CMF) development. While KYTC staff administer and provide high-level guidance on the HSIP, they have limited in-house capacity and capability to develop CMFs and delve deeper into specific statistical issues. One statistical issue is related to sample size, where there are small sample sizes of a particular treatment due to high construction costs or unique situations in which it is implemented. KYTC has been challenged with finding statistical analysis strategies to best evaluate the benefits of countermeasures with small samples.

Solution

To address these issues, KYTC turned to their long-standing partnership with the Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC), housed within the University of Kentucky. The Division of Traffic Operations in KYTC’s Central Office administers Kentucky’s HSIP funds. Using these funds, KYTC sets up a contract with KTC to provide technical assistance such as data analysis, evaluation of project effectiveness, evaluation of project completion, HSIP Annual Report assistance, and other technical activities that support HSIP administration in Kentucky. The agreement typically runs for two-year periods, functioning much like an on-call agreement. The relationship between the two organizations works efficiently and has allowed Kentucky to perform HSIP evaluations and experiment with unconventional evaluation methods to address concerns with small sample sizes.

Benefits

The strong relationship between the agencies demonstrated its value when KYTC initiated a study to evaluate the safety effects of three focused safety programs: rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and cable median barriers. Historically, KYTC and KTC have used the Empirical Bayes (EB) before-after approach for HSIP evaluations to estimate the expected change in crash frequency. In these evaluations, KTC identified small sample sizes as a potential challenge to using the EB approach. In addition to the EB method, KTC suggested the Wilcoxon signed-rank test of proportions¹ to compare the safety performance before and after implementation.

Countermeasures such as rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and cable median barriers target specific crash types such as run-off-road and head-on crashes. While the EB method would indicate the expected change in crash frequency for a given crash type, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test would indicate if the proportion of target crash types changed after implementation. Specifically, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test of proportions assesses the statistical significance of before-after shifts in target crashes proportionately. In this process, using the proportion of target to total crashes, the target crash types are normalized by total crashes at each site for before and after periods.

KTC used both the EB before-after method and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to evaluate the safety effects of the three programs. The EB before-after method served as a comparison to the results from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A comparison of the results demonstrated a general consistency in results between the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the EB method, recognizing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test focuses on crash proportions and the EB method focuses on mean crash frequencies. While statistical methods are not a replacement for a large sample of high-quality data, these results suggested the Wilcoxon test can be used as further verification when evaluating countermeasures. The literature suggests the Wilcoxon signed-rank test can support statistical analysis with relatively small sample sizes, particularly when there is a large shift in proportions from the before to the after period and the shift is relatively consistent across sites.² The required sample size increases as the shift in proportions decreases and as the variance of the shift in proportions increases among sites.

KYTC and KTC will continue to use the Wilcoxon signed-rank test as a complementary method to the EB analysis. The two agencies will also continue to work together to explore new methods for project evaluation and build from past experience. For example, as part of the cable median barrier evaluation, KYTC identified an issue with how police officers are coding median crossovers on crash reports. In response, KTC performed a manual review of hundreds of police reports and created an algorithm to determine whether a median crossover actually occurred in a crash. There are follow-up efforts to educate officers on the appropriate criteria for reporting median crossovers.

Contact

Tracy Lovell
Division of Traffic Operations, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
(502) 782-5534
Tracy.Lovell@ky.gov

HSIP Project Tracking in Alaska

Problem/Issue

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) is dedicated to improving practices within the agency. The ADOT&PF headquarters manages the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). However, the three regions within ADOT&PF (Northern, Central, and Southcoast) are responsible for nominating, planning, designing, constructing, and tracking projects. In consideration of this decentralized approach and the large scope of the State, ADOT&PF wanted to explore a more efficient communication and project tracking mechanism.

Solution

In 1998, ADOT&PF published the first edition of the Alaska HSIP Handbook and began tracking all safety projects in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project development, implementation, tracking, and evaluation. The Handbook also addresses the handling of funds and project delivery activities. ADOT&PF reviews and updates the Handbook annually or on an as-needed basis to address changes in law, program and policy rules, and clarifications.

Alaska uses an Obligation Tracking Spreadsheet to track obligations on all new and ongoing projects. ADOT&PF updates the spreadsheet in the fall (typically November 1) to align with expected obligations in the HSIP Funding Plan. When a region requests approval to obligate funds on an HSIP project, headquarters staff verify the project is identified in the HSIP Funding Plan (or in a previous Funding Plan, in the case of a construction overrun or change order), then record the amount and the funding type in the spreadsheet (along with date and reason).

Data for tracking the program’s performance comes from the regional offices. Specifically, the regions prepare an HSIP Project Evaluation Spreadsheet to compile project-level details for each completed project, tracking critical project details such as three-year post-construction data. The spreadsheet provides an overview of project performance, including the benefit-cost ratio based on both the construction cost and the maintenance costs over the analysis period. The spreadsheet annualizes crash data for comparison of before and after periods, which is particularly useful if the before and after periods are different duration. The regional offices are responsible for collecting post-project crash data, entering project data in the spreadsheet, and submitting the tracking spreadsheets to headquarters. Headquarters aggregates the individual project data into a master spreadsheet to evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures and the entire HSIP program, track the frequency of implemented countermeasures, and provide an historical listing of completed projects.

Benefits

The benefits of ADOT&PF’s spreadsheets and HSIP Handbook reach beyond a streamlined reporting system. The process has also resulted in improved HSIP reporting, project evaluation, countermeasure identification and benefit-cost ratios, as well as improved funding allocation.

In Alaska, each project is evaluated based on a standard evaluation form and methodology, comparing pre- and post-implementation crash data and developing measures of effectiveness appropriate for the countermeasures selected for use in the project. The consistent project tracking and reporting facilitates evaluation of HSIP projects. Due to small sample sizes of similar projects, ADOT&PF does not develop state-specific crash modification factors (CMFs); however, headquarters is able to adjust statewide CMFs based on the collective evaluation of projects facilitated by regional project tracking.

Headquarters tracks the different countermeasures used on HSIP projects along with the number of sites at which a particular countermeasure was implemented. After the projects are constructed and evaluations are complete, ADOT&PF compares the expected benefit-cost ratio to the actual benefit-cost ratio, which helps the State make better estimations for future projects. For example, they can use the evaluation results to identify types of projects that are more or less effective, and implement effective, low-cost countermeasures systemically.

Coordination between headquarters and the regions in Alaska helps with effective scoping of projects, cost control, and the transition of projects from approval and funding to successful construction. ADOT&PF also uses the obligation tracking spreadsheet to identify funding that is unallocated, funding to be returned from projects constructed under bid price, and projects being held for future construction. Funds originally designated for HSIP all remain within the Alaska HSIP, providing flexibility in programming work.

Annual updates allow ADOT&PF to respond to lessons learned from previous evaluations and to adjust for emerging issues. For example, ADOT&PF identified a challenge related to the sporadic nature of incapacitating injuries and fatalities. Headquarters was able to use the process to first identify the problem and then a solution. As a result, they now combine incapacitating injuries and fatalities to help stabilize the analysis of rare crash severities.

Challenges

Headquarters updates the spreadsheets annually to reflect the latest crash costs and CMFs. ADOT&PF noted that one small challenge is ensuring the regions are using the latest version of the project evaluation spreadsheet. They currently post the latest version online with their HSIP Handbook for central access. As a final check, the central office reviews the submittals from each region and can notify the regions as needed to provide the latest version.

Contact

Matt Walker
Alaska Department of Transportation
(907) 465-6963
Matthew.Walker@alaska.gov

Accelerating HSIP Projects Using In-House Design

Rhode Island

Description

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) implemented a unique process for accelerating the completion of priority signing and striping projects. This process focuses on identifying safety improvements for which in-house staff can execute the project design and was implemented based on the premise that safety improvements made more quickly will begin to reduce fatality and serious injury risks sooner. More complex projects require state procurement procedures, advertising for and hiring a design consultant, and contracting construction, and can take a year or more to complete. By contrast, improvements such as signing and striping projects can be fast-tracked to provide a swifter alternative to addressing safety issues in high-crash areas.

Beginning in 2010, RIDOT developed the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (RI*STARS) program focused on delivering low-cost and high-benefit safety and mobility improvements. As part of the program, RIDOT developed and implemented a pilot project for accelerating short-term signing and striping improvements. The pilot project was so successful that RIDOT expanded it to include the delivery of quick short-term safety improvements that are part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

RIDOT now uses this improved procedure to fast-track many signing and striping HSIP projects, particularly those submitted by local jurisdictions. The fast-track approach begins following the identification of safety needs through the HSIP planning process and the completion of a road safety audit (RSA). Those improvements that align with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Emphasis Areas and have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one are deemed eligible for funding. The next step is to prioritize eligible project proposals based on their benefit-cost ratio, alignment with SHSP priorities, project cost range, improvement types, engineering review, and available HSIP funding. After reviewing and ranking all projects in the state, HSIP staff review and advance projects to the design stage, depending on available funding.

Projects are divided into two categories before being advanced. Short-term signing and striping projects can be advanced quickly through the RIDOT In-House Design process. Longer-term improvements are typically advanced through the HSIP Final Design process. Identifying these short-term improvements through the in-house design category enables RIDOT engineers to fast-track projects with high benefit-cost ratios and avoid a more prolonged design process.

Projects assigned to the In-House Design category are sent in the form of a work order to an in-house RIDOT engineer team. RIDOT engineers and interns perform about 30% of the design work. The other 70% is sent to on-call consultants, who have a standing task-performance agreement with RIDOT, so no new procurement process is necessary. After the signage and striping design is complete, it is sent to in-house maintenance staff or on-call striping contractors who complete the improvements accordingly.

Instead of years, the entire process for In-House Design of signing and striping projects typically takes one to two months. Municipalities and other stakeholders have seen this as a positive change, and appreciate seeing their roadway safety concerns quickly addressed. As a result, these stakeholders are more likely to stay involved in these projects, both financially and collaboratively. In addition, the relationships between many municipalities and RIDOT has improved to the point where municipalities are more engaged in reporting safety concerns and more confident that a safety-improvement response will be forthcoming.

Key Accomplishments

• Through the RI*STARS program, the State implemented a process to accelerate the completion of HSIP signing and striping projects by using RIDOT's own staff.
• In-house or on-call consultants complete signing and striping design in as little as a month.
• RIDOT maintenance staff or on-call striping contractors complete the installation.

Results

RIDOT has been able to significantly accelerate the design and construction of HSIP signing and striping projects with high benefit-cost ratios. The use of in-house staff and on-call consultants for the design of these projects has shortened delivery time to one to two months. As a result, RIDOT is able to serve its municipalities and other safety stakeholders much faster and keep them involved in, and more than satisfied with, the safety improvement dialogue and process. Most importantly, it provides the public with potential life-saving safety improvements on the roads sooner.

Contacts

Sean Raymond, P.E.
HSIP Program Manager
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Two Capitol Hill
Providence, RI, 02903
Phone: 401-222-2694 ext. 4204
Fax: 401-222-3006

Robert Rocchio, P.E.
Managing Engineer
Traffic Management
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Two Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 401-222-2694 ext. 4206
Fax: 401-222-3006

Unique Accord in Washington State Helps State and Tribal Governments Work Proactively on Roadway Safety

The Washington practice is discussed after the following introduction about Tribal Government Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan process.

Other states in this SHSP/Tribal Government Noteworthy Practices series: MT, ND, SD

Involving Tribal Governments in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Process - Approaches and Benefits

As States move toward achieving zero deaths on their roadways, the impact of motor vehicle crashes in tribal communities and on tribal roads cannot be overlooked. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations experience higher rates of fatalities associated with transportation than does the population as a whole. Crashes are also the leading cause of unintentional death for AI/AN ages 1-44.

States and tribal governments are working together in an effort to reduce roadway injuries and fatalities in tribal communities. This includes collaborating during the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) process, an effort that brings together a diverse group of stakeholders to identify critical roadway safety challenges and establish potential solutions. Tribes are also developing Strategic Transportation Safety Plans of their own, which may allow access to additional resources such as the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

These noteworthy practices highlight the activities of four States and tribal communities to collaborate during and after the SHSP process. They contain several recurring themes:

• Establishing a government-to-government relationship between State offices and tribal governments is very effective because it establishes respectful lines of communication and agreed-upon approaches that facilitates discussion on roadway safety issues.
• Tribal involvement in the SHSP process insures tribal concerns and strategies are addressed in the SHSP.
• Tribal safety summits are an effective platform for information-sharing among tribes on roadway safety issues and often strengthen inter-tribal relationships.
• An established network for communicating between tribes and State agencies leads to better project coordination and delivery, lower project costs, stronger relationships, and better information sharing.

Washington

Background

Washington's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Target Zero®, first authored in 2000, aims to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2030. Based on data, Target Zero:

• Creates goals and objectives.
• Prioritizes the work that needs to be done to reach the goals.
• Offers countermeasures determined by research to be proven, recommended, or unknown.

For updating and implementing Target Zero, two State agencies take the lead in engaging with stakeholders representing the varied segments of Washington's population: the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), an independent agency that serves as the State's Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) Traffic Safety Office.

Tribal Government participation has been a key strategy toward achieving Target Zero goals. Based on changing data, Washington's SHSP has been updated every three years since the 2007 update to ensure Target Zero goals are on track. Tribes in Washington have been increasingly involved in SHSP planning as Target Zero has become the guide for State, regional, county, and city agencies; Tribal programs; and private sector organizations involved with transportation and traffic safety.

Washington's Centennial Accord creates a collaborative environment for transportation and traffic safety efforts among Tribes and the State of Washington. Signed in 1989, the Accord established government-to-government relations between State and Tribal governments, in an effort to resolve disagreements before they reached the courtroom. With the structure of the Accord well in place, that framework of collaboration was applied to Tribal involvement in statewide transportation and traffic safety planning.

To engage the 29 federally-recognized Tribes in SHSP updates, Washington uses the following ongoing boards and organizations:

• Washington Indian Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (WITPAC), a WSDOT advisory committee, which meets quarterly.
• Tribal Transportation Planning Organizations, created and hosted by WSDOT, with meetings chaired by Tribal Governments.
• Tribal Traffic Safety Advisory Board (TTSAB), an advisory board to WTSC representing tribal leadership in the 4Es (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response) of traffic safety, which meets monthly and works on education and enforcement projects.
• Northwest Association of Tribal Enforcement Officers (NATEO), a traffic safety partner unrelated to state government, which meets semi-annually.

Inclusive Highway Safety Planning

The Centennial Accord gives State agencies a protocol for officially interacting with Tribes, which includes a requirement that agencies have a tribal liaison on staff. The transportation and traffic safety boards and organizations create a framework that is used for communicating with Tribal staff involved with education, enforcement, engineering and Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

By way of example, for the 2016 Target Zero update, WTSC sent letters through the U.S. mail to Tribal leaders asking for Tribal representatives. A sample letter was distributed via email to members of WITPAC, TTPO, TTSAB, and NATEO. The communication system netted the three requested representatives, one for the top-level Steering Committee and two for the Project Team.

This method of identifying representatives is also an example of Washington's approach toward continuous improvement with each Target Zero update. Previously, WTSC identified Tribal representatives who had been enthusiastic and actively involved in other transportation safety efforts. This shift to casting a wider net to attract participants is a more transparent, open process and is another way to remind Tribal leadership of the importance of transportation and traffic safety to the quality of life in their communities.

The current update of Washington State's SHSP is focusing in part on expanding data-driven decisionmaking in Tribal transportation projects by inviting safety data experts to present Tribal data to the advisory boards and organizations. For example, to prepare for the current Target Zero update, during a TTSAB meeting:

• A WTSC staffer presented on Tribal fatalities (FARS) overlaid with U.S. census data by county.
• A WSDOT staffer presented on serious injury data on reservations, enhanced by the use of GPS coordinates in crash reports.
• A WTSC sub-grantee, currently conducting Tribal traffic safety assessments, presented on reservation fatality and serious injury data obtained from multiple sources including FARS, state collision database, CDC, Tribal police, and Tribal EMS.

Tribes will have a variety of ways to contribute to the 2016 version of Target Zero:

• Project Team representatives have asked Tribal planners to share with the SHSP team their safety plans, most of which were developed through grants from FHWA's Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.
• Tribes will be invited to the Partners' Meeting as usual. Representatives from 11 tribes attended the last Meeting.
• When writing teams are formed more Tribal representatives will be sought.
• When Target Zero is nearing completion, following the official consultation protocol, hardcopy drafts will be mailed to Tribal Chairs for comment. Additionally, electronic versions will be distributed for comment through the communications infrastructure of WITPAC, TTPO, TSAB, and NATEO.

When the 2016 SHSP is final, copies will be mailed to Chairs, and a link to the web version being broadly disseminated. TTSAB will distribute a news release on the 2016 version of Target Zero to the 29 Tribal newspapers and newsletters throughout Washington.

Key Challenges

All large organizations can develop silos, and Tribal government is no exception. Tribal planners work in environments that require collaboration, but it can be difficult to engage Tribal police and other programs in SHSP updates.

Data-sharing continues to be a major issue. State and Tribal planners need crash data on Tribal roads to make the case for federal and state grant money. But there are many challenges to data being freely shared between tribes and state and local highway agencies, including staffing and the resources it takes to process data. To help with the data-sharing challenge, WTSC funded an ongoing programming project that will allow each Tribe's codes to be uploaded in an automated fashion to the state's electronic ticketing and crash reporting system used by law enforcement. This will enable full functionality with a pull-down menu for jurisdiction. Tribes may choose to share only crash data with WSDOT/WTSC, which may remove some barriers to data-sharing.

Finally, limited funding is an ongoing barrier to creating Tribal educational and enforcement programs that could further Target Zero® goals and save lives on reservations.

Benefits Realized

Tribes and Washington State experience numerous benefits when Tribes are involved in SHSP updates, including the following:

• Tribes gain increased awareness on the importance of addressing roadway safety.
• Tribes take ownership of the final SHSP plan.
• Tribes are more likely to use the SHSP as a guide and source of information for their own transportation plans.
• Tribal planners, enforcement, and EMS become familiar with Target Zero strategies, which researchers have found to be effective and can be invaluable when applying for State grant funding.
• Tribal-State and Inter-Tribal relationships are strengthened.
• A broader understanding of the State's roadway safety requirements and needs in Washington is gained.
• Washington's data on behavioral factors in fatal and serious injury crashes is more complete and accurate allowing for more correct analyses.

Contact

MJ Haught
Tribal Liaison
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
(360) 725-9879
MJHaught@wtsc.wa.gov

The Evolution of Tribal Involvement in Montana's Road Safety Planning

The Montana practice is discussed after the following introduction about Tribal Government Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan process.

Other states in this SHSP/Tribal Government Noteworthy Practices series: ND, SD, WA

Involving Tribal Governments in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Process - Approaches and Benefits

As States move toward achieving zero deaths on their roadways, the impact of motor vehicle crashes in tribal communities and on tribal roads cannot be overlooked. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations experience higher rates of fatalities associated with transportation than does the population as a whole. Crashes are also the leading cause of unintentional death for AI/AN ages 1-44.

States and tribal governments are working together in an effort to reduce roadway injuries and fatalities in tribal communities. This includes collaborating during the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) process, an effort that brings together a diverse group of stakeholders to identify critical roadway safety challenges and establish potential solutions. Tribes are also developing Strategic Transportation Safety Plans of their own, which may allow access to additional resources such as the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

These noteworthy practices highlight the activities of four States and tribal communities to collaborate during and after the SHSP process. They contain several recurring themes:

• Establishing a government-to-government relationship between State offices and tribal governments is very effective because it establishes respectful lines of communication and agreed-upon approaches that facilitates discussion on roadway safety issues.
• Tribal involvement in the SHSP process insures tribal concerns and strategies are addressed in the SHSP.
• Tribal safety summits are an effective platform for information-sharing among tribes on roadway safety issues and often strengthen inter-tribal relationships.
• An established network for communicating between tribes and State agencies leads to better project coordination and delivery, lower project costs, stronger relationships, and better information sharing.

Montana

Background

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) began developing its Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 2006, in response to Federal surface transportation funding legislation. In developing the CHSP, it became clear from crash analyses that fatalities and serious injuries among Native Americans were disproportionately represented in Statewide fatal and serious injury crashes.

Over the past decade, Montana has also developed and adopted its long-term Vision Zero goal of eliminating deaths and injuries on its State highways. MDT's outreach to tribes concurrently grew over that time into a mutually beneficial government-to-government effort that includes education, planning, and technical support.

Evolving Tribal Involvement in Montana's Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan

Native Americans comprise 6.2 percent of Montana's population but make up about 17 percent of total motor vehicle fatalities per year. MDT is committed to consistently working with tribal planners and engineers, law enforcement, health service professionals, and other tribal representatives. These collaborations help identify strategies that can reduce fatalities and serious injuries on tribal roads, and contribute to Montana's Vision Zero goal.

The 2005 Montana Tribal Safety Conscious Planning Forum kicked off MDT's concerted collaboration on road safety with the seven land-based tribes in Montana. This forum brought together tribal leaders, the Governor of Montana, and the MDT director. This government-to-government, high-level communication was critical in achieving the forum's objective of encouraging tribes in Montana to participate in developing and updating the CHSP.

Since the forum convened, MDT's relationship with tribes has evolved to include regular communication on transportation safety issues between tribal safety representatives and MDT program managers. In addition to tribal participation in statewide annual meetings, MDT has two full-time staff who focus on tribal relations.

The cultural liaison in the State Highway Traffic Safety Section is funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This liaison manages the Safe on All Roads (SOAR) program for traffic safety education that supports a SOAR coordinator on each reservation. These individual SOAR coordinators create and provide culture-specific messaging focused on safety awareness, education, and consequences of impaired driving, lack of occupant protection, and other risky driver behavior. MDT encourages each tribe to assign their own SOAR coordinator to help develop messages aimed at changing behavior, such as lack of seatbelt or car seat use. The SOAR coordinator positions were recommended in the CHSP.

The CHSP safety planner provides technical assistance, participating in development of tribal-led safety plans, quarterly meetings, and road safety audits. Starting in 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocky Mountain Region Road Safety Audit Pilot Program conducted training and several road safety audits across the seven reservations. The pilot program used FHWA's Road Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments for guidance. Road safety audit programs have been included in individual tribal transportation safety plans. The CHSP safety planner also maintains relationships by proactively reaching out to tribes on a regular basis. Regular communication from these liaisons is key to maintaining tribal involvement in the CHSP, which was updated in 2015.

Montana's CHSP Update

Leading up to the CHSP update in 2014, MDT and tribal representatives collaborated and conducted four annual Tribal Transportation Safety Summits. Coordination involved providing technical support and other resources, such as venues. These summits were hosted by tribes in Montana, with rotating sponsorship each year to encourage tribal ownership over sharing road safety best practices.

Many CHSP strategies were a result of the summit process. Others came out of the transportation safety plans each tribe developed, as required as part of FHWA Federal Lands Tribal Transportation Program beginning fiscal federal year 2013. In those plans, tribes use their own fatal and serious injury data and MDT fatality data to identify critical safety issues. While tribal safety plans tend to be more specific than the higher-level strategies in the CHSP, many tribal strategies—whether addressing impaired driving, occupant protection, lane departures, or other issues—are consistent with the emphasis areas in the CHSP. In addition, Tribal planners shared quarterly updates with MDT staff to identify opportunities for tribal safety plan development strategies to consider SOAR efforts and the CHSP update.

Tribes are now so well integrated into Montana's safety stakeholder group that separate tribal summits are no longer necessary. All seven tribes have been actively involved in the statewide annual Transportation Safety Meeting and tribal partners are also represented on CHSP committees.

Montana's 2015 CHSP update also reflects the integration of tribal issues. The CHSP update process identified several areas of overlap and determined it would be better to have fewer emphasis areas. The update no longer has 12 individual emphasis areas or a specific CHSP Native American emphasis area. Rather, tribal issues and strategies are found throughout the emphasis areas, and the emphasis areas in the CHSP are safety concerns for all Montanans.

Key Challenges

Getting tribal government leaders to discuss transportation safety was initially challenging. MDT brought those critical partners to the table by having MDT leadership connect with tribal leadership, and also offering financial assistance to cover costs of attending meetings, which underscored the importance of tribes' attendance.

Data continues to be the major challenge in Montana and other States engaging in proactive tribal outreach. Tribal traffic incident records tend to be incomplete, although fatality data is reliable because the Montana Highway Patrol responds to all fatalities on all public roads in Montana. One tribe has adopted all the State's traffic codes and consistently provides MDT with crash data. Other tribes have few traffic codes and do not consistently provide data to MDT.

Tribes in Montana are concerned about confidentiality issues when it comes to sharing data. There is also frequent turnover among tribal leadership, making it challenging for MDT to form lasting partnerships. MDT encourages better crash data by building trust with tribal representatives through consistent communication.

Benefits to Tribal Participation in the CHSP

• Brings all Montanans closer to a cohesive goal of on Montana's roads: Vision Zero - zero fatalities, zero serious injuries.
• Tribal issues and strategies are integrated into the CHSP emphasis areas.
• Realizing a downward trend in Native American fatalities.
• Participation from tribal safety representatives provides an opportunity to share best behavioral and infrastructure safety practices, and identify hurdles with other safety stakeholders.
• Helps builds trust among state agencies, tribal governments, and other safety stakeholders.

Contact

Pam Langve-Davis
Statewide and Urban Planning
CHSP Coordinator/Safety Planner
Montana Department of Transportation
(406) 444-7646
PLangveDavis@mt.gov