LTAP Support to Local Agencies

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

Key Accomplishments

• LTAP staff routinely promote SHSP concepts when working with local transportation agencies, broadening the reach of the SHSP.
• Local agencies receive assistance with data collection and input efforts.
• SHSP working groups receive local insight and hear about local concerns via LTAP personnel.

Communicating the SHSP to local agencies is a required first step toward implementation of safety strategies at the local level. Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP) serve as conduits, transferring highway technology from FHWA, the State DOT, and universities to local transportation agencies. Utah is using the LTAP to disseminate information about the SHSP to local jurisdictions.

LTAPs provide workshops, publications, videos, and other training materials to local agencies to improve the effectiveness of their transportation programs. They also support Road Safety Audits (RSA) and provide direct technical assistance for dealing with transportation challenges.

In Utah, LTAP personnel regularly promote the State’s SHSP in their work with local agencies. Actions by local agencies can directly impact SHSP implementation efforts. LTAP personnel are helping local agencies collect and manage crash data, thereby improving its accuracy, timeliness, and completeness. LTAPs also provide software with potential safety benefits to local agencies (e.g., sign inventory software).

LTAP staff are able to give insight into local issues and concerns to UDOT through their involvement with local agencies. UDOT personnel also gain additional knowledge of local issues through their participation in RSAs. This local information is provided to the SHSP emphasis area working groups to fine tune or modify their action plans.

Results

By tapping into relationships already in place through the LTAP program, Utah is able to collect information, ideas, and other inputs from local agencies and share it with emphasis area teams, ensuring that local input is considered as the SHSP is implemented.

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

Emergency Medical Services Partner

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

Key Accomplishments

• Involved EMS agency as a prominent stakeholder and leader in the SHSP implementation effort.
• Established a separate EMS emphasis area to increase EMS role in safety implementation.
• Provides EMS knowledge and expertise to all of the SHSP implementation teams.

Originally, Maryland’s SHSP development process envisioned EMS as part of all emphasis areas. However, given the importance of EMS in improving safety, the State EMS Director felt a more focused effort was needed. The Executive Director of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Service Systems (MIEMSS) discussed the issue with the SHSP Executive Committee, and they decided to add EMS as a separate emphasis area. The EMS emphasis area team, which includes key EMS and law enforcement representatives, developed an action plan funded primarily by the State EMS agency.

The MIEMSS Public Information Director was assigned to work with the Executive Director and other members of the emphasis area team on the implementation plan and serve as cochair of the SHSP Public Information Committee. This committee meets periodically to review various public information and education activities such as the “Choose Safety for Life” campaign launched in the summer of 2008.

MIEMSS promotes safe driving through a number of other activities, such as the “Drunk Driving – It’s Been Done to Death” media campaign launched in October 2007. The agency also advises the Distracted Driving emphasis area team. For example, with their input the team eliminated an action step to implement the use of screens for blocking traffic incidents from motorist view due to the view shared by both EMS and law enforcement that the action was unworkable.

Results

Creation of an EMS emphasis area raised visibility of this important safety component among SHSP stakeholders. The EMS team made significant contributions to public information efforts. EMS stakeholders actively contribute to other emphasis areas, further reinforcing the 4E approach to safety.

Contact:
Jim Brown
Director of Public Information and Media Services
Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems
410- 706-3994
jbrown@miemss.org

New Jersey Provides Data Decision Support Tool to SHSP Partners

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

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) recognized a need to provide transportation safety data in a more user-friendly format. Providing easier access to data and enhanced analytic capabilities would encourage participation by safety partners in the State’s various safety programs, including its SHSP efforts.

The State contracted with the Rutgers University Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) to develop a roadway safety decision support tool. This software program enables users to quickly filter, analyze, and map crash records. The tool also allows merging of specialized data sources with crash records, enabling in-depth analysis.

The TSRC developed the software as a web-based application to enable public agency personnel to quickly analyze safety data. By hosting the tool on a platform of servers, large amounts of data can be accommodated with little effect on execution speed. The application processes queries submitted on-line, produces reports mapping crash location and severity, and identifies contributing factors. Users can access the software from any Internet-enabled computer without requiring a high level of computing power. The program is secured through the use of login IDs and passwords to protect content and allows users to save filters and preferences. The program enables network screening, economic analysis, and diagnosis. The network screening layer integrates methodologies currently used by safety engineers to locate high-crash intersections or segments. Crash rates can be calculated for any filter/query. The software also includes a model to predict crash frequencies and severity for selected roadways. Future elements will incorporate the safety performance function calculations from the new Highway Safety Manual into the program for all classifications of roadways to determine which locations have the greatest potential for safety improvement.

The Center also provides engineering, planning, training, and outreach services to local governments and assists with crash data analysis to support SHSP implementation. NJDOT funds work of the TSRC through the HSIP.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed new system for on-line access to transportation safety data enabling safety partners to make data-driven safety decisions.
• Enhanced capabilities to analyze data and tailor reports to support safety initiatives.
• Distributed safety data broadly to encourage greater SHSP participation.

Results

The web-based software tool supporting collection, analysis, and distribution of transportation safety data has been instrumental in the development and implementation of the SHSP. The approximately 500 agencies using the analysis software enjoy easy access to transportation safety data and can perform analyses to support their local safety initiatives as well as those at the state level. Broad dissemination of safety data and the availability of this tool has encouraged participation in the SHSP by safety partners at all levels.

Contact

Patrick Szary
Associate Director
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT)
732-445-0579, Ext. 106
szary@rci.rutgers.edu

Motor Vehicle Administration Partner

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

Key Accomplishments

• Assumed a strong leadership role in SHSP implementation.
• Secured MVA employee involvement and buy-in on SHSP implementation.
• Created Driver Safety Division within MVA.

The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) is a member of the SHSP Executive Committee and signed a MOU stating their support for the SHSP. Once the SHSP was developed, it was important to the Management Committee and the SHSP Champion that Executive Committee members live up to the commitments in the MOU and take responsibility for implementation. This was a theme mentioned at each Executive Committee meeting and at both Traffic Safety Summits. At an Executive Committee meeting in December 2006, members were asked to assume responsibility to monitor implementation of the various emphasis areas. Given their important role in safety, the MVA agreed to lead implementation for the following emphasis areas:

• Distracted Driving;
• Older Drivers;
• Younger Drivers;
• Motorcycle Safety; and
• Truck and Bus Safety.

Each of these areas relates specifically to work conducted by the MVA. Because these efforts involve several offices and divisions within the MVA, the Administrator felt it was important to have a single individual coordinate all activities, including the preparation of quarterly progress reports. In January 2007, the Administrator designated an individual within the MVA to monitor the work of the emphasis area teams because “we are a safety agency, and it is important we do our part to improve safety through the SHSP,” he said. No additional funding was necessary for this position as the SHSP coordinator responsibilities were assigned to an existing MVA staff member.

In addition to the SHSP coordinator, two MVA staff members volunteered and continue to be actively involved as emphasis area team leaders, and the MVA has taken a lead role on numerous individual strategies and action steps.

Results

Propelled by the Administrator’s leadership, the Maryland MVA has taken an active role in ensuring SHSP implementation: a single designated coordinator overseeing five emphasis areas, two emphasis area team leaders, and a number of leaders for strategy and action steps. Reflecting this commitment to the SHSP, and safety as a whole, the MVA created a Driver Safety Division.

Contact:
Nanette Schieke
Chief, Driver Safety Division
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
410-787-7977
nschieke@marylandmva.com

SHSP Project Seed Money

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

Key Accomplishments

• Dedicated significant funding to SHSP implementation.
• Developed criteria for project identification and a prioritization process based on expected fatality reduction.
• Reenergized emphasis area teams.

After Georgia’s initial development of the SHSP, stakeholder participation in the process slowed and dedication to the implementation process needed a boost. Stakeholders needed clear incentives to participate in the process and tangible implementation tools. Therefore, Georgia decided to allocate $10 million seed money from the §406 Safety Belt Performance Award to fund implementation of SHSP programs and projects.

The SHSP Leadership Team is responsible for deciding which projects are funded through the seed money. Project ideas first come from the emphasis area task teams, and the Leadership Team prioritizes projects based on benefit/cost, expected fatality reduction, and the extent to which projects address SHSP emphasis areas. A project prioritization matrix is used to rank proposed projects based on the extent to which each one will reduce fatalities. The matrix uses the estimated percent contribution of each emphasis area addressed by the project to the total number of fatalities Statewide to calculate a project score. The score is then used to rank proposed SHSP projects. The team intends to fund strategies and/or projects that address as many of the 4Es (e.g.; engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency response) as possible.

The implementation funds serve as an incentive for SHSP stakeholders to collaborate on multidisciplinary projects and work beyond agency boundaries. Because projects addressing the 4Es are difficult to implement within a single agency, the Leadership Team places an emphasis on providing resources for these projects.

Results

The SHSP process has gained momentum and received renewed interest as a result of this new funding strategy. Dedicated funding provides an incentive for partners representing the 4Es to collaborate on projects and for the 4Es to be incorporated into overall strategies.

Contact:
Randy Clayton
SHSP Operations Manager
Georgia Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
404-651-8503
rclayton@gohs.ga.gov

Illinois Develops SPFs for All State Routes and Intersections

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Identification; FHWA-SA-11-02; 2011(PDF, 2.7MB)

While the development of SafetyAnalyst and the Highway Safety Manual was still underway, Illinois decided to incorporate a new analysis technique to assist the state in moving forward with the implementation of SafetyAnalyst. Within a year, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), with the assistance of the University of Illinois, developed safety performance functions (SPF) for state routes and intersections throughout the state using the Empirical Bayes (EB) method. The SPFs have been used in the HSIP network screening process since 2008 to identify potential locations for safety improvement projects.

SPF equations were developed for 12 peer groups of roadway segments (e.g., rural two-lane highway, rural multilane undivided highway, rural multilane divided highway, etc.) and eight peer groups for intersections (e.g., rural minor leg stop control, rural all-way stop control, rural signalized, etc.). The SPFs are used in the network screening process to calculate a Potential for Safety Improvement (PSI) for all locations. The PSI is the difference between the corrected crash frequency (calculated using the EB method) and the expected crash experience (based on the SPF) for a given traffic volume within the peer group.

Since the focus of the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, the PSI calculation is weighted to emphasize the most severe crashes. The weighted PSI calculations are then ranked in ascending order by location and peer group to identify locations with the greatest safety need or highest PSI value. Once the sites with the greatest potential for safety improvement are identified, the IDOT Districts review the locations and make recommendations for improvement. Candidate HSIP projects on the state roadway system are selected by the District’s Safety Committee and submitted to the Bureau of Safety Engineering.

When the SPFs were originally developed, there was not enough data to develop SPFs for the local roadway system. Illinois has been expanding the crash database for local roadways and, in the near future, the state will begin discussions about the development of SPFs for local roadways, as well as updating the existing SPFs for state roadways. Currently, local roadways are evaluated using an aggregate level analysis to identify potential safety issues (e.g., counties with overrepresentation of a particular crash type, crash severity, behavioral issue, etc.). Local agencies can submit safety improvement projects to the State Safety Committee for funding consideration through the Local Road Program component of the HSIP.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed SPFs for state routes and intersections throughout the state.
• Expanded knowledge and acceptance of analysis techniques.
• Provided data-driven safety decision making tools.

Results

Incorporating SPFs into the network screening process for safety improvement projects has led to several positive outcomes. Although other factors may involved, Illinois has seen a significant reduction in fatalities. In 2009, Illinois had the lowest number of fatalities since 1921. Transportation professionals are embracing the analysis results and making data-driven safety decisions. Using SPFs has helped shift the focus of the state’s program away from the urban, densely populated areas and provided a broader focus for safety projects, including low-cost safety improvements or systemic improvements that may not have been identified using previous analysis methods. Engineers throughout the state have become more familiar and comfortable with the use of SPFs through the state’s efforts, leading to a greater acceptance of SPFs and appreciation for improved quantitative data.

Contact

Roseanne Nance
Illinois Department of Transportation
217-785-5875
nancer@dot.il.gov

Collaborative Process Improves Work Zone Safety

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

Key Accomplishments

• Developed collaborative process for safety planning focused on work zones.
• Increased consideration of safety in work zone design.

Work zones are often high-crash locations, and many of the crashes in work zones involve commercial vehicles. Enforcement can be challenging, especially if the work zones are not designed to accommodate enforcement activities. For example, if the work zone covers a long stretch of road, law enforcement officers may not have adequate room to safely pull vehicles over.

Ohio’s SHSP identified work zone safety as an emphasis area. A team consisting of engineers, law enforcement officers, and Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) personnel was formed to better understand the issue of work zone safety. This Work Zone Safety Team collaborated with key agencies to discuss issues, pool resources, target efforts, and develop a comprehensive work zone safety plan.

To improve work zone safety performance, the Team develops a comprehensive plan to improve safety and enable improved enforcement for all work zones scheduled by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) each year. This multiagency effort incorporates resources and input from the highway patrol, engineering, MCSAP, and the Ohio Traffic Safety Office. The group works together to identify work zone areas to target with increased enforcement and inspection efforts. The highway patrol identified appropriate locations for speed enforcement. MCSAP provided truck enforcement and truck inspection support. In some cases, the Department of Public Safety used §402 funds to provide additional non truck-related enforcement. The Team also provides construction zone signage information to improve safety and aid enforcement efforts.

Results

The Work Zone Safety Team now conducts annual strategic planning related to safety in and around work zones. As a result, the ODOT engineering department has changed its construction zone design practices to better accommodate trucks. The department also has adopted practices that better accommodate enforcement activities in its work zones.

Contact:
Michelle May
Safety Program Manager
Ohio DOT
614-644-8309
Michelle.May@dot.state.oh.us

Tracking Local Project Implementation

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

Key Accomplishment

• Developed a database enabling ODOT to track implementation of district safety countermeasures by location.

Ohio’s SHSP includes an emphasis area focused on the reduction of fixed-object, intersection, cross-median, and head-on crashes. Strategies include identifying locations with high numbers of such crashes and making safety improvements to them. To monitor project implementation, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) developed a formal process to track district-level progress on safety projects, countermeasures, and studies.

ODOT monitors district performance via the Safety and Congestion Work Plan. The database supporting the Work Plan includes recommended low- and moderate-cost countermeasures for specific locations. It also provides fields for estimated and actual costs, estimated and actual start date, estimated and actual completion date, progress, and crashes over the past three years. If a project milestone is not met, the project appears on a past due list. Project locations are populated by ODOT, and county managers provide status updates on countermeasures for each location.

Results

The project tracking tool has enabled ODOT to closely monitor safety project implementation in the districts. The system has been effective in informing ODOT of project delays and backlogs so issues can be addressed quickly.

Contact:
Michelle May
Safety Program Manager
Ohio DOT
614-644-8309
Michelle.May@dot.state.oh.us

Funding Goals for Proactive Improvements

Original publication: HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series, HSIP Project Identification; FHWA-SA-11-02(PDF, 2.7MB)

The data analysis conducted for the development of Minnesota’s original Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) in 2004 indicated a large percentage of severe crashes were occurring on local roadways. All Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding was managed by eight Area Transportation Partnerships (ATP)1, and a small portion of the funding was allocated to local road safety improvements. To ensure the state was using HSIP funding in the best way possible, Minnesota restructured the program to provide funding for local agencies in Greater Minnesota (areas not within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area) and developed funding goals for proactive and reactive improvements.

Minnesota distributes HSIP funding to each district based on the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in the district. The district funds are then allocated to local roads and state highways based on the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring on the corresponding roadways. The split ranges from 28 percent to state highways and 72 percent to local roadways in the Metropolitan District, to a 50/50 split in District 1 (average across districts is 35 percent to state highways and 65 percent to local roadways).

In Minnesota approximately 70 percent of all crashes occur in urban areas; however, approximately 70 percent of the fatal crashes occur in rural areas. To address the inherent differences in the safety issues of urban and rural areas, Minnesota has established two separate goals to guide safety investments:

• Metropolitan District (Minneapolis/St. Paul area): at least 30 percent of the safety funds go towards proactive low-cost safety improvements, and
• Greater Minnesota (8 Rural Districts): at least 70 percent of the safety funds go towards the proactive deployment of low-cost strategies.

Minnesota developed a “proactive spectrum” decision support tool for use in project selection, which has been in use since 2007. The spectrum ranges from proactive low-cost projects (e.g. pavement markings, rumble strips, lighting, sign enhancements, etc.) to reactive/high-cost improvements (e.g., interchanges, roadway realignments, etc.). The proactive improvements are focused on improving the safety of the system overall, rather than focusing on a high crash location.

Projects are selected for funding through a competitive selection process. Proactive projects are prioritized using a point system based on factors such as whether the project meets the intent of the SHSP, fatal and serious injury crashes per mile, cost per mile or per intersection, and traffic levels. Additional points are awarded if the location was identified in the High Risk Rural Roads Program or the Five Percent report. Reactive projects are prioritized based on the project’s benefit-cost ratio and other factors. The objective of this process is to prioritize and fund safety projects with the greatest impact on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.

Key Accomplishments

• Implemented proactive approach to the HSIP project selection process.
• Shifted funding to local jurisdictions.

Results

Minnesota has successfully shifted the focus of its HSIP to a proactive approach through the development of the “Proactive Spectrum.” This enables the state to focus on projects with the greatest potential impact on safety.

The proportion of funding spent on proactive improvements has been increasing over the last few years. Of the projects programmed for fiscal year 2010-2011, almost 90 percent were proactive. Since 2007, Minnesota has funded safety projects on local and state roads to implement over: 6,714 miles of 6-inch wide edge lines; 80 miles of edge line rumble strips; 594 miles of edge line rumble stripes; 236 rural intersections with street lighting; 1,347 curves with chevron signing; and 230 miles of cable median barrier.

Contact

Julie Whitcher
Minnesota Department of Transportation
651-234-7019
julie.whitcher@state.mn.us

Centralized HSIP Funding and Evaluation Results in Safety Projects Aligned with SHSP

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

Key Accomplishments

• Established district-level safety teams to identify hazardous locations and develop projects aligned with the SHSP.
• Developed objective criteria for project identification and prioritization resulting in increased alignment with the SHSP.
• Provided support for safety studies by local governments and MPOs providing more opportunities for local agencies to propose safety projects.

To continue to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) recognized the need to ensure safety projects were being developed at the local level. It was critical that projects be evaluated based on criteria designed to ensure that locations with the greatest safety needs were being addressed throughout the State. ODOT also wanted to provide more opportunity for local agencies to propose safety projects.

To achieve these goals, ODOT centralized Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding and developed a management process that includes district safety review teams (DSRT). In each ODOT district, a safety review team was formed, including ODOT representatives from planning, production, highway management, and traffic engineering, as well as representatives from law enforcement agencies and local metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). Representatives from the Ohio Traffic Safety Office and the FHWA were also invited to participate. Many members of DSRTs were actively involved in the SHSP process, which encouraged the alignment of district safety activities with State priorities. Each DSRT develops and adopts annual work plans, reviews safety studies, and recommends countermeasures.

To identify high-risk locations and countermeasures, each DSRT reviews an ODOT-provided list of intersections and highway segments with high-crash frequencies. Districts are required to perform safety studies to determine contributing crash factors and to develop plans to implement safety improvements. As part of this effort information on high-risk locations also is provided to local jurisdictions. Project sponsors are encouraged to examine a full range of mitigation options, including those that are short-term and low-cost (e.g., new signs, pavement markings, and drainage improvements), as well as those that are mid-term and mid-cost (e.g., new traffic signals, turn lanes, and realignments).

District offices may pay for these improvements through their annual district budgets or they may apply for HSIP funding. The DSRTs submit project applications for funding consideration on behalf of local agencies. Local governments and MPOs can also propose projects with support from the DSRT and receive assistance with safety studies.

A six-member committee at ODOT headquarters reviews applications for projects generated via the DSRT process. Projects are evaluated and prioritized based on uniform and objective criteria that align with the SHSP. Selection criteria include:

• Crash frequency/density;
• Crash rate;
• Severity Index (represents the relative cost to society of a specific type of crash);
• Equivalent property-damage-only rate;
• Percent commercial motor vehicle-related;
• Rate of return; and
• High-risk rural roads.

The committee may approve a project proposal, select a different safety strategy, or request further study before allocating funding.

Results

The centralized HSIP funding process has resulted in the development of safety projects closely aligned with the SHSP. The process is generating increased safety project proposals by local agencies and MPOs.

Contact:
Michelle May
Safety Program Manager
Ohio DOT
614-644-8309
Michelle.May@dot.state.oh.us