University Conducting HSIP Project Evaluations Using Empirical Bayes

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Evaluation; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.3MB)

Wisconsin DOT contracted with the University of Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory to investigate multiple project evaluation methods through a research grant for HSIP evaluation support. Initial research efforts included project evaluations based on before and after collision maps using the software Intersection Magic and before-after evaluations using benefit-cost analysis. From the beginning of the research, the intent was to use Empirical Bayes (EB) analysis in the project evaluations, but Wisconsin did not have safety performance functions (SPFs), which are required for the EB method. However, once the State acquired the SafetyAnalyst software, the TOPS Laboratory was able to incorporate the EB method into the project evaluations by using the SPFs contained in SafetyAnalyst. The SPFs in SafetyAnalyst were developed using national data and are intended to be calibrated to local conditions. While it was not possible to calibrate the SPFs to Wisconsin conditions due to lack of data, the TOPS Laboratory uses the SPFs to provide a comparison of performance in Wisconsin to that of the nation.

The TOPS Laboratory developed a process to extract the appropriate crashes (by location, type, and year) from the Wisconsin crash database based on the project location and scheduled start and completion dates for evaluation purposes. HSIP projects are evaluated based on five years of before data and three years of after data. Fatal and injury crashes are the focus of the evaluation, but the analysis also considers target crash types based on the nature of the improvement.

The TOPS Laboratory conducts a benefit-cost analysis based on results of both a simple before-after evaluation and an EB analysis to evaluate the projects from an economic perspective. This provides a simple comparison of the results of the two evaluation methods (In the table shown, “S. No.” refers to the site number for the project evaluated, and the “FOS (financial operating system) ID” is used by Wisconsin DOT as the specific project identifier.) and demonstrates how a simple before-after evaluation can overestimate the safety benefits.

Table 1. Benefit-Cost Analysis

Key Accomplishments

• Developed a project evaluation process incorporating Empirical Bayes analysis into all HSIP project evaluations.
• Demonstrated the importance of using statistical evaluations to reduce the overestimation of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean bias.

Results

Originally, engineers in Wisconsin were reluctant to use EB. However, with the assistance of the TOPS Laboratory, the Wisconsin DOT was able to successfully implement a project evaluation process incorporating EB analysis and to receive buy-in at the regional level. The TOPS Laboratory demonstrated the importance of statistical EB techniques in project evaluations through a comparison benefit-cost analysis using simple before and after results to before and after using EB. The results demonstrate the EB analysis reduces the overestimation of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean bias.

Contact

Andrea Bill
Traffic Safety Engineering Research Program Manager
Traffic Operations and Safety (TOPS) Laboratory
University of Wisconsin
608-890-3425
bill@wisc.edu

Links to Existing Organizations

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Leveraged existing resources to implement SHSP action plans.
• Engaged additional stakeholders in the SHSP action planning and implementation process.
• Avoided duplication between SHSP implementation and other efforts.

Once the SHSP is developed, it is important to integrate SHSP implementation activities into the efforts of existing groups and coordinate with other implementation plans. In Maryland several safety Task Forces had been operating for a number of years prior to development of the SHSP. These included the Young Driver Task Force, Impaired Driving Coalition, Safety Belt Coalition, and Pedestrian Safety Coalition. SHSP leadership worked with these groups to include SHSP emphasis area strategies in their work plans.

Maryland also legislatively mandated a Task Force to Combat Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol, which examined current impaired driving laws in the State and recommended improvements. The Impaired Driving emphasis area incorporated the work of this task force into its plan and leveraged the progress already made on impaired driving legislation. To strengthen implementation of the motorcycle section of the SHSP, Maryland used information from an existing motorcycle assessment performed by NHTSA to help develop the action plan for the Motorcycle Safety Emphasis Area. The NHTSA assessment was conducted by a team of experts from outside the State and provided a fresh look at the issue. Using the results of the assessment improved the action plan and avoided duplication of effort.

Results

Integrating SHSP implementation efforts into the work of existing task forces institutionalized the SHSP implementation process, avoided duplication of effort, and increased the number groups involved in implementation. SHSP action plans are now aligned with other State efforts enhancing coordination on action planning, ensuring seamless implementation of SHSP strategies, and increasing efficiency.

Contact:
Vern Betkey
Chief
Maryland Highway Safety Office
410-787-5824
vbetkey@sha.state.md.us

Data Analysis for County Highway Safety Plans

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, Safety Data Collection, Analysis, and Sharing; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 1.6MB)

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has made $3.5 million available to develop Highway Safety Plans for each of the State’s 87 counties. The concept is to build on the foundation established by Minnesota’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), with the primary objective of identifying a specific set of safety projects directly linked to the causation factors associated with the most severe crashes on each county’s highway system.

The first step in developing each county plan has been to conduct a comprehensive crash analysis to disaggregate crashes by system (state or local), severity (serious injury, fatal), location type (urban or rural), and crash type. Through comprehensive crash analysis, MnDOT assisted counties with identifying whether the majority of the severe crashes are occurring on the state or local system and in urban or rural areas. This helps identify where the greatest proportion of crashes are occurring, as well as the primary crash types.

The counties have then disaggregated the crashes based on the 22 emphasis areas identified by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) to identify the critical emphasis areas (e.g., young drivers, seat belt usage, road departure, intersections). The identified emphasis areas represent the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of severe and fatal crashes in the corresponding county.

Once emphasis areas were identified, an initial list of potential safety countermeasures was compiled using the strategies included in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 500 Series Reports – Guidance for Implementation of AASHTO’s SHSP. The county staff reviewed the initial list and eliminated strategies considered too expensive or experimental, and the remaining strategies were prioritized through a Safety Strategies Workshop, which included various safety partners in the county (e.g., public works, law enforcement, planning, public health, elected officials, MnDOT staff, etc.). During the workshop the results of the data driven analytical process were shared with the safety partners, who then discussed and prioritized the list of safety strategies.

Following the prioritization of safety strategies, a detailed crash analysis was conducted to identify contributing crash factors and characteristics based on the findings of the initial crash analysis. This analysis identified high risk locations (e.g., segments, horizontal curves, intersection) based on systemwide factors such as number of severe crashes, design features, traffic volumes, curve radius, etc.

In most cases the severe and fatal crashes have been spread over many miles of roadways, resulting in a low density of crashes. To address this issue, one of the key objectives of the county safety plans is to identify low-cost safety-related projects focused on the county’s identified emphasis areas to implement on a systematic basis. At this point in the process, projects were identified based on the results of the detailed crash analysis and the identified high-priority strategies. Some county lists of potential projects have included multiple years of projects – ultimately implementation will be dependent on securing HSIP funding or integration of these low cost measures into other programs such as 3R (Resurfacing, Restoring, Rehabilitation).

Key Accomplishments

• Established a process for developing data-driven county safety plans.
• Provided data analysis support to counties for improved problem and project identification.
• Established a better link between crash causation and implementation of safety strategies on local roadways.

Results

As of December 2010, 23 counties have developed safety plans. The data analysis used to develop the plans has helped position counties to more effectively identify projects eligible for future HSIP funding cycles and to make improvements on local roadways with greater potential to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. The comprehensive data analysis has also positioned MnDOT to more subjectively quantify safety needs on the local roadways as part of the State’s systemic approach to safety improvements. Furthermore, through a process similar to the development of the statewide SHSP, development of county safety plans have fostered a greater safety culture among county stakeholders.

Contact

Brad Estochen
Minnesota Department of Transportation
651-234-7011
bradley.estochen@dot.state.mn.us

Local Government Assistance

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Established dedicated funding source for off-system safety improvements.
• Distributed off-system safety funding to 103 counties.
• Reduced off-system crashes.
• Improved safety knowledge at the county and municipal level.

In 2005, Georgia represented nearly 20 percent of the total increase in motor vehicle fatalities nationally. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) had traditionally spent most of its safety dollars on improvements to State route intersections. However, approximately 36 percent of fatalities and 41 percent of crashes were occurring on off-system routes. The State realized it could not reach its goal of 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel by addressing on-system locations alone.

The State developed an off-system safety program in 2005 by providing each district $1 million per year dedicated to off-system safety projects. Each district hired an off-system coordinator (consultant) to manage the program. The off-system coordinators provide technical assistance and traffic engineering expertise to local governments to help identify projects and prepare cost estimates. GDOT and local governments entered into agreements enabling local governments to let and award their own projects. Some districts divide dollars evenly among counties based on need. Others require local participation to leverage funding. If districts are not able to prepare projects in time to obligate the full $1 million, remaining balances are distributed among the other districts. GDOT conducts spot inspections once work begins.

Program eligibility criteria were developed with input from FHWA, GDOT senior management, and district engineers. Eligible activities include:

• Centerline raised pavement markers;
• Shoulder, centerline, and edge line rumble strips;
• Edge line (20 feet or wider roadways), centerline, and stop-bar pavement markings;
• Signing;
• Chevrons;
• Vegetation removal;
• Guardrail – excluding routine upgrades;
• Guardrail delineation; and
• Traffic signals if a crash warrant is met and adequate turn lanes exist.

Results

As a result of dedicated funding for off-system improvements, local jurisdictions have received increased technical assistance and traffic engineering expertise to identify projects and prepare cost estimates. County and city interest in identifying safety issues and making safety improvements has increased. Off-system safety improvements have reduced crashes in a number of SHSP emphasis areas.

Contact:
Kathy Zahul
Traffic Safety and Design
Georgia DOT
404-635-8134
kzahul@dot.ga.gov

Electronic Communication System

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Utilized existing communication tool that was easily implemented at no cost.
• Established single Web site location to post documents, disseminate information, and communicate updates.
• Reduced need for travel and face-to-face meetings while increasing level of information sharing.

In developing the SHSP and following up on its implementation, New Jersey needed a means to efficiently communicate with the members of its Safety Management Task Force. NJDOT wanted to establish a system enabling safety partners to post documents and resources, communicate information, and distribute updates on SHSP progress. A similar system had already been established on the Rutgers University Web site to facilitate student-faculty communication utilizing a free, open-source collaboration and courseware management platform. In partnership with NJDOT, Rutgers developed and hosted a Web-based communication system specifically for SHSP participants, utilizing the capabilities of the preexisting Web-based system.

The NJDOT safety coordinator directed specifications and design of the system. Once the concept was established, the university developed and launched the system within a week. No formal agreement between the State and Rutgers was necessary and no funding was required other than staff time to set up the system. This system supports communication among safety partners outside NJDOT, which is fundamental to the success of SHSP implementation.

While the system was designed to be a tool useful for educators, it has a wide range of components enabling group interaction. Project sites can be made publicly available or limited only to users invited to join. Some of the tools made available for the SHSP group were announcements, chat room, e-mail, e-mail archive, schedule, and resources. Each site incorporates an e-mail listserv so the site owner can communicate with the group easily, without having to manage large groups from personal e-mail accounts. One of the best features is the resources page that allows users to post documents to share with the group, negating the need for a separate FTP site.

Results

The electronic communication system provided an effective tool to keep SHSP partners informed and engaged, without being overbearing. The tool not only allows for the distribution of information but also for interaction and communication among partners, reducing the need to conduct time-consuming and expensive face-to-face meetings.

Contact:
Sarah Weissman
Program Manager
Transportation Safety Resource Center
732-445-0579, Ext. 135
scweiss@rutgers.edu

Tiered Emphasis Areas for Statewide and County Safety Planning

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, Revisiting SHSP Emphasis Areas; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 1.9MB)

In 2000, prior to SAFETEA-LU, Washington State wrote Target Zero: A Strategic Plan for Highway Safety. The Target Zero Steering Committee, in cooperation with state, local, and private agencies, designed a plan to support a 30-year vision to achieve zero traffic deaths and disabling injuries. When SAFETEA-LU mandated states develop Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) in 2005, Washington State was well prepared to meet the challenge.

Previously, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and other partners focused on trying to meet all traffic safety needs by spreading resources over a multitude of emphasis areas and projects. The analytic nature of the SHSP made it clear that a change in tactics and strategic planning was required to more effectively prioritize the traffic safety emphasis areas and apply the resources needed to address the Target Zero vision.

The Target Zero workgroup conducted an exhaustive analysis of 11 years of crash and trend data to determine which emphasis areas had the greatest potential to reduce deaths and disabling injuries. Recognizing traffic collisions are often attributable to multiple factors, data analysis revealed impairment and speed were highly associated with every other category of crashes (e.g., impairment and/or speed accounted for over one-half of all run-off-the-road collisions) The Target Zero Committee concluded if Washington State can meaningfully reduce impaired driving and speeding, death rates will be cut across the board, therefore, they identified impaired driving and speed as the top priority areas.

In setting priorities for the remaining traffic safety issue areas, the committee looked at the number of over-all traffic crashes, disabling injuries, and deaths; the ability of strategies to reduce disabling injuries and deaths; and the importance of the issue in promoting overall traffic safety (such as improving traffic data and EMS services). The resulting Target Zero update (published in February 2007) established four priority levels covering 22 emphasis areas to serve as a guide for related safety programs and for allocating limited safety resources. It also established a schedule of annual evaluation and revision every few years. Data analysis measuring progress and strategy effectiveness are the basis for revisiting emphasis areas and strategies.

Following that model, the process for updating Target Zero began again with intensive data analysis and review of traffic safety planning documents between June and November 2009. The 2010 Target Zero update maintains the four-tier priority structure for guiding resource allocation and implementation efforts, with changes made to address new trends in fatal and serious injury crashes:

• Run-off-the-road collisions have been moved to Priority Level One, based on their involvement in 42 percent of all fatalities between 2006 and 2008. The update continues to focus on behavioral aspects of run-off-the-road collisions maintaining impaired driving and speed as priority level one emphasis areas. However, it also acknowledges the importance of engineering strategies specifically to decrease the likelihood a vehicle will leave the roadway and minimize the consequences of leaving the road.
• Distracted drivers have been separated from drowsy drivers and moved into Level Two priority based on their involvement in fatal collisions. (Drowsy drivers were moved to Level Four).
• Drivers without a valid license have been removed as a priority area. Recent analysis found that impairment, speeding, and distraction were the primary contributing factors in fatal crashes involving these drivers so focus will be on these factors.

In addition to revising statewide emphasis areas, updating Target Zero included efforts to improve county level safety planning through use of a consistent framework. A review of data found prioritization of statewide emphasis areas was heavily influenced by the most populous counties and cities, which did not necessarily reflect the same priorities for all areas. To address these discrepancies, data analysis was conducted for each individual county and presented in the same four-tier priority level framework.

Key Accomplishments

• Tiered priority-level emphasis areas provide clear planning and resource allocation framework.
• County level data analysis and emphasis area prioritization provides sound basis for local level planning.

Results

Washington’s SHSP defines the emphasis areas and the priorities the State has determined have the greatest potential to continue reductions toward the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2030. Fatalities in the State have steadily dropped since 2005, down 8.6 percent from 2007 to 2008, with preliminary figures for 2009 showing a 6.1 percent decline in fatalities. The traffic fatality rate is also trending downwards dropping to 0.94 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, the State’s lowest rate on record.

Contact

Lowell Porter
Director
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
360-725-9899
LPorter@wtsc.wa.gov

A Systems Approach to Project Selection

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Made a paradigm shift to a safe systems approach to HSIP project selection.
• Established a process for the DOT Central Office to nominate HSIP projects based on objective criteria.
• Implemented a process to review all transportation projects with respect to safety and to add safety improvements to the scope where beneficial.
• Achieved high annual expenditures of HSIP obligations.

Historically, States focused problem identification analysis on fatal crashes to identify locations for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This long-standing practice was reinforced by Federal agencies’ performance goals focusing on fatal crash reduction. Fatal crashes should be a foundation of the process, but not the exclusive focus.

To reduce the tendency to “chase fatalities and injuries,” Utah is adopting a proactive and preventive “safe systems” approach. The SHSP process provided focus and guidance for the Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) migration to this approach. The State has fundamentally changed the way crash problems are addressed leading to a comprehensive approach to the HSIP.

Historically, all or most projects were nominated by regions or districts. Through this new, broader approach, UDOT now analyzes Statewide data and the Central Office nominates half of the safety projects Statewide. This is a fundamental change in UDOT’s safety planning culture. Bringing the Central Office into the project selection process helps to avoid regional political issues and pressures and encourages objectivity. The deciding factor for project selection is not which entity is submitting the project, but which project has the most favorable benefit/cost ratio.

The UDOT Central Office reviews every project, not just safety-specific projects, to determine safety deficiencies and, if necessary, adds safety-related improvements to the project scope. To resolve complaints that too much money was being spent on safety to the detriment of pavement preservation, exceptions were made when an element fit into a UDOT project programmatic focus area (e.g., rumble strips), which meant the element would have been added anyway. Exception requests can also be considered if the cost of the safety improvement is significant (i.e., 20 percent or more of the total project cost).

Results

Utah has moved towards a safe systems approach to developing transportation projects. It is now standard practice to consider systematic safety solutions. As a result, the State maintains a high annual expenditure of HSIP obligations.

Contact:
Robert Hull
Director, Traffic and Safety Division
Utah DOT
801-965-4273
rhull@utah.gov

LTAP Provides Software and MDOT Provides Support for Local Safety Data Analysis

Original publication: SHSP Implementation Process Model, Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies; FHWA-SA-10-025; 2010(PDF, 1MB)

Key Accomplishments

• Increased the number and quality of local safety projects.
• Developed local agency analysis capabilities on safety trends including development of charts and maps.
• Aligned local safety efforts with the SHSP.

Because the fatal crash rate on non-State highways was higher than on State highways, Michigan recognized that additional tools were needed to support local safety planning and programming. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) developed a GIS-based integrated roadway management system to analyze and report on local roadway inventory, safety, and condition. The software’s safety module helps local practitioners conduct several analyses, including identifying trends in crash frequency and severity, determining segments eligible for the High-Risk Rural Roads funding program, and identifying intersections of concern in their jurisdictions. Crash report data are embedded in the software so users can easily access crash reports when conducting safety analysis. These new analysis capabilities result in projects targeted to locations with high rates of fatal and serious injury crashes. Previously, it was common for projects to be targeted at locations based on resident complaints. Development of standard data queries aligned with SHSP emphasis areas is underway.

The software also includes diagnostic tools to analyze crash patterns to identify locations where infrastructure improvements can reduce crash frequency and severity. Once problem areas are defined, users can follow built-in links to National Cooperative Highway Research Program safety documentation to identify promising countermeasures. MDOT-funded enhancements to the safety module and provides funding for the LTAP to offer the software and training at no cost to local agencies.

Since the establishment of the MDOT Local Safety Initiative in 2004, three dedicated staff have provided engineering support to local agencies by conducting local crash analysis using the software. Additionally, MDOT conducts field reviews of locations of interest with the local agency and provides suggestions for safety countermeasures. When staff conducts outreach to local agencies they provide information on the State’s SHSP to increase alignment of local activities with Statewide safety goals and strategies.

Results

More than one-half of counties have voluntarily sought support on safety data analysis, countermeasure development, and training from the local safety initiative. The local capacity for safety analysis has improved, and the number and quality of local safety projects has increased.

Contact:
Tracie Leix
Supervising Engineer, Local Safety Initiative
Michigan DOT
517-373-8950
LeixT@michigan.gov

Project Evaluation Using Empirical Bayes

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Evaluation; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF 2.3MB)

Incorporating the Empirical Bayes (EB) method into project evaluations reduces the potential overestimation of safety benefits due to regression-to-the-mean. While the EB method is not difficult in itself, it requires safety performance functions (SPF) for the type of facilities on which projects are being evaluated.

SPFs were originally developed by Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for use in the network screening process. While crash rates are commonly used to measure safety, the crash rate implies a linear relationship between safety and exposure, which can often be misleading since rates change with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). To capture how this rate change takes place, design engineers at the CDOT started to calibrate SPFs in the late 1990s, as part of the development of the Level of Service of Safety (LOSS) concept. LOSS is used to identify locations with potential for safety improvement and reflects how a roadway segment is performing in regard to its expected crash frequency and severity at a specific level of AADT, based on the SPF. By 2001, CDOT had calibrated SPFs for all public roadways (state and local) in Colorado, stratified by the number of lanes, terrain, environment, and functional classification. In 2009, CDOT in collaboration with consultants developed SPFs for all intersection types.

The development of SPFs has not only advanced CDOT’s network screening process, it also has enabled CDOT to institutionalize the use of the EB method as a standard procedure for safety evaluation analysis. Colorado has traditionally used a simple spreadsheet with three to five years of before and after data to conduct project evaluations. CDOT is currently working on applying an EB correction to evaluate sites on an SPF graph as shown. The use of the EB method is particularly effective when it takes a long time for a few crashes to occur, as is often the case on Colorado rural roads.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed SPFs for all roadway facility and intersection types in the state.
• Institutionalized the use of the Empirical Bayes method as a standard procedure for safety evaluation analysis to reduce effects of regression-to-the-mean.

Results

CDOT developed SPFs for all state and local roadway facilities and intersection types. The development of the SPFs has enabled CDOT to fully institutionalize the EB method for all safety analysis at CDOT and reduce the effects of regression-to-the-mean.

Contact

Bryan Allery
Colorado Department of Transportation
303-757-9967
bryan.allery@dot.state.co.us

Jake Kononov
Colorado Department of Transportation
303-757-9973
jake.kononov@dot.state.co.us

Nevada Funds Education and Outreach Programs with HSIP Flex Funds

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, Use of the HSIP Flexible Funding Provision; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.8MB)

The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) flexed $800,000 of its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in FY 2009 (seven percent of the total) to fund a range of outreach and education campaigns linked to the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) emphasis areas.

SHSP partners actively participated in identification of the flex projects. SHSP critical emphasis area (CEA) teams identified several projects focusing on seat belts, impaired driving, lane departures, intersections, and pedestrians. Other flex projects involving marketing and communications were identified by the Nevada Strategic Communications Alliance (SCA), comprised of public information officers from state agencies and private sector organizations with an interest in safety. The SCA manages communications and marketing related to the SHSP, and recommended strategies within the SHSP emphasis areas. The list of recommendations from the SCA and the CEA teams was reviewed by the SHSP Technical Working Group and then by the Nevada Executive Committee on Traffic Safety.

The increased communications among partners from the SHSP process resulted in several key developments. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) reported a reduction in funding for safety belt and impaired driving media campaigns. It is doubtful that without the SHSP forum NDOT and others would have been aware of this situation. The $300,000 in flex funds, which were used to increase media buys, extended these campaigns and augmented the outreach already underway.

The creation of the SCA resulted in innovative programs receiving much-needed support and expansion of successful programs statewide. NDOT invested $114,000 in flex funds in Nevada’s Prevent All Crashes Every Day (PACE) program, which increases awareness of seatbelt use and the dangers of impaired and distracted driving among teens through presentations on the program at assemblies, teacher meetings, and other events. The flex funds enabled OTS to roll out the program beyond the Las Vegas area to other teens statewide.

To reach the Latino population, NDOT invested $310,000 to hire regional coordinators and develop a comprehensive Latino community highway safety awareness and education program. The objective was to engage Latino audiences, particularly first- and second-generation Latinos, through culturally responsive media campaigns, enforcement operations, and educational programming targeting highway safety messages in the areas of seat belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.

NDOT used $20,000 in flex funds to support the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in publishing up to 150,000 educational tip cards on topics related to the SHSP emphasis areas, including teen driving, impaired driving, seat belts and child safety seats, pedestrian and bicycle safety, lane departures (move over law), and other new legislation. This project was an update and revitalization of the DMV’s existing “Quick Tip” series.

NDOT allocated an additional $56,000 to the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County to provide and promote a “Safe Ride Home” with free public transportation on New Year’s Eve and St. Patrick’s Day in Reno/Sparks along with a “Don’t Drink and Drive/Safe Ride Home” education campaign.

NDOT staff found the flex fund application process to be fairly simple since the agency met the requirement of obligating funds for the infrastructure projects it had identified for the year. Additionally, given the FHWA division office’s participation in SHSP implementation activities, the Nevada Division Office FHWA representative was familiar with the proposed projects.

Performance measures and tracking mechanisms are included in funding agreements with each of the implementing agencies. For example, process measures for tracking successful implementation include, among others, the number of materials distributed, the number of active partners, and the number of news stories about the issue. Outcome measures include changes in target audience behavior and attitude on seat belts, impaired driving, and pedestrian safety.

Key Accomplishments

• Used Emphasis Area teams to identify safety projects for flex funding.
• Used HSIP flexible funding provision to expand successful and proven programs.
• Initiated a new education program to reach the Latino population.
• Strengthened relationships with safety partner agencies.

Results

Flexing of HSIP funding enabled NDOT to support multiple education and outreach programs related to the SHSP that would not have received funding or support otherwise. Included with efforts targeting the general population are programs to reduce fatalities and serious injuries among two high-risk groups – young drivers and Latinos. The successful PACE program was expanded from just one area to students all over the State. The proven effective Click It or Ticket and Over the Limit Under Arrest campaigns were also expanded. The RTC free ride program provided 7,326 rides between 7 p.m. and 4 a.m. on New Year’s Eve in 2009. While data is not available for the specific day, the number of crashes involving driving under the influence (DUI) in December 2009 was 30 percent lower than in December 2008.

Contact

Chuck Reider
Chief Safety Engineer
Nevada DOT
775-888-7335
creider@dot.state.nv.us