Transportation Safety Planning

Introduction

Injury is the leading cause of death in the United States from about 6 months to 45 years of age, and because it so disproportionately strikes the young, it is also the leading cause of lost years of productive life. Motor vehicle injury is the largest single component of these losses. Over the past few years the number of motor vehicle related fatalities has remained essentially unchanged and injuries continue to increase each year. The human and economic consequences of motor vehicle crashes are unaffordable and unacceptable. In the absence of substantial progress, more than 400,000 people will die on the roadways over the next ten years at a cost of nearly two trillion dollars. The majority of motor vehicle crashes are predictable and preventable; the carnage is unnecessary.

The numbers speak for themselves:

• Ninety-four percent of all transportation fatalities occur on highways.
• More than 41,000 Americans are killed each year in motor vehicle crashes, and three million are injured.
• 40,000 is the population of Flagstaff, Arizona in my home state.

Mary Peters

Administrator, FHWA

As Table 1 shows, the weakest link in the safety chain is the automobile. Safety improvement requires progress toward reducing the crash experience of motor vehicle drivers and other more vulnerable road users. The United States provides a model for what can be accomplished in this important field. The record over the past 30 years is nothing short of miraculous, yet we still experience over 40,000 deaths annually, and more than three million suffer injuries ( 1).

TABLE 1 Fatality Rates by Mode of Travel, 1996-1998 Average Deaths per 100 Million Passenger Miles ( 2)

Type of Vehicle	Death Rate
Automobile	0.91
Intercity and Commuter Railroads	0.06
Airlines	0.03
Intercity Buses	0.02
Transit Buses	0.01
Heavy, Light and Other Rail Vehicles	Not reported

Safety should be the number one priority of all transportation professionals. While American highways are safer than ever, too many of our citizens are killed or injured in traffic crashes every year, and, sadly, most are preventable. We need to work doubly hard to plan and implement programs and facilities that are shown to be effective in averting these tragic events.

Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.

The major focus and commitment in the United States over at least the past two decades has been on vehicle crash worthiness and driver behavior. Yet, the effectiveness of those strategies appears to have plateaued in terms of reducing the numberof crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Although there have been gradual decreases in terms of fatality and injury rates, and despite dramatic increases in safety belt use and decreases in the proportion of alcohol-related fatal crashes, the raw number of deaths and injuries has changed little for at least the past half decade ( 3). European research indicates that further reductions in crash levels will require a change in the focus from driver behavior initiatives to actions that make it more difficult for a driver to have a crash; more specifically, prevention-oriented strategies through safety-conscious planning ( 4).

Background

An effective and efficient transportation system has been a top priority in this country for much of the last century. Transportation planning has historically focused on capacity and congestion with some attention to the operation and management of the transportation system. Over the past decade, safety has become a higher priority and the standard by which the system is to be evaluated. The stated goal of the U.S. Department of Transportation is to: "Promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths, injuries and property damage ( 5)." Implementing the safety goal, however, is a challenging task.

In theory, state safety efforts should be coordinated with the state transportation plans. In practice, however, they rarely are. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) required states to develop and maintain a transportation planning process. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) ¹revised this slightly and allowed states to focus on the most relevant issues. The key focus of both of these acts was to encourage coordination between statewide planning and metropolitan planning, with financial support and oversight provided by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration( 6) .

Each statewide and metropolitan planning process shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.

TEA-21

TEA-21, for the first time, requires state departments of transportation (DOTs) ²and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) ³to incorporate safety and security ⁴as priority factors in their respective transportation planning processes and activities. Before TEA-21, safety was sometimes a prominent factor in project development and design, but this legislation calls for safety-consciousness in a more comprehensive, systemwide, multimodal context.

Safety-Conscious Planning

Safety-Conscious Planning (TSP) is a relatively new concept in the U.S. lexicon. U.S. safety planning initiatives have traditionally been reactive in nature. The tendency is to: 1) identify a problem primarily through analysis of crash data and 2) implement an appropriate enforcement, education, or engineering-oriented countermeasure. SCP, however, implies a proactive approach aimed at preventing crashes and unsafe conditions. Opinions of what the safety planning initiatives should address vary. The range of activities include:

1. Programming safety improvements to address roadway "hotspots"-or collision-prone locations.
2. Introducing multidisciplinary programs, that is, integrating engineering, enforcement and education activities.
3. Including road safety considerations as a key decision-making parameter in evaluating projects and programming expenditures.
4. Establishing inherently safe transportation networks.

SCP achieves road safety improvements through smaller quantum changes, but targeted at the whole network. Ultimately it can be defined as that stage where the following conditions are fully achieved:

1. All planning organizations routinely consider safety as an explicit planning priority in all plans and programs.
2. All planning organizations (public and private sector) have:
   • Some practitioners trained in state-of-the-art safety techniques.
   • Access to state-of-the-art safety planning tools.
3. Decision-makers are informed about the quantitative safety implications of all planning decisions, and they are reflected in decision-making ( 4).

Transportation planners and safety practitioners in the United States are struggling to define the concept taking all of the above into account. At this point, none of the activities are omitted from consideration. The short-term objective is to integrate safety considerations into the transportation planning processes at all levels, specifically the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plans (STIPS) and the Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPS) developed by state DOTs and MPOs respectively. The next step is to consider safety objectives in the longer range, 20-year plans that the DOTs are required to prepare and update periodically.

Safety-Conscious Planning in the United States

First Steps

To initiate discussion on the TEA-21 safety-planning factor, The Transportation Research Board (TRB) convened a group of experienced professionals in Washington, D.C., in May 2000 to explore the safety and transportation planning processes and to identify data, tools, partners, and other resources that are currently available or need to be developed for implementing the safety requirement. The meeting produced several observations associated with safety integration:

• There is a lack of dialogue, coordination, and communication between safety and transportation planners.
• Safety integration is a non-traditional role for planning agencies.
• It is unwise to merge the safety and planning processes because of the many different timeframes and funding criteria; however, it is highly advisable for all segments of the safety and planning communities to work collaboratively by establishing common safety goals, sharing information, and designing complementary programs.
• Safety integration should focus on multi-modal functions, including transit and non-motorized modes.

The TRB meeting served as an important starting point for a series of initiatives that followed. It resulted in the formation of an ad hoc group (informally referred to as the SCP Working Group) and the development of action items addressing several categories.

FOUNDATIONS FOR SAFETY IN PLANNING

The overriding strategy is to integrate safety into the existing transportation planning process. One suggestion for accomplishing that was to facilitate a series of state-level SCP meetings to bring safety and planning partners together who may not have been previously engaged in collegial working relationships and to identify good practices in safety integration where and if they exist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The importance of good data cannot be overemphasized. Accurate, complete and comprehensive data are critical for all of the following functions:

• Identifying and defining current and future problems.
• Developing effective intervention strategies.
• Providing information for evaluating countermeasure results.
• Identifying opportunities for creating transportation alternatives to the personal automobile.

COLLABORATION

Nontraditional partnerships are necessary for SCP to become a reality. The participants include at a minimum:

• Land Use Planners ⁵;
• Transportation Planners;
• Transportation Engineers (traffic design, construction, operations, etc.);
• Urban designers (engineers, landscape architects, site planners, etc.);
• Transit Operators; and
• Safety Practitioners. ⁶

Activities developed to accomplish increased communication and understanding will need to be replicated many times in different geographical regions around the country and among different constituencies. One of the expected outcomes of these strategies was to identify techniques, such as incentives, persuasive dialogue, and useful tools that could be used to motivate planners to pursue Safety-conscious planning methods.

OUTREACH AND ADVOCACY

The Washington meeting identified "first steps" for promoting safety integration, and the SCP Working Group agreed to provide follow up. As noted previously, one initiative was to encourage a series of forums at the state level bringing representatives of the various interests together to discuss strategies for sharing resources and working collaboratively. The states that accepted the challenge and hosted forums include: Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas.

The forums are designed to accomplish at least two goals. The first was to bring together key players in the transportation planning and safety communities, introduce them to one another and establish a dialogue. The second was to encourage the states to generate action plans to begin the implementation process.

Transportation Safety Planning Forums

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The SCP Working Group created a set of activities to focus their efforts.

• Assist state and local entities with the implementation of the TEA-21 safety in planning requirement.
• Facilitate introductions and discussions among the key players.
• Determine the role of safety and its integration with the traditional planning targets, such as congestion, land management and environmental protection.
• Assist at all levels in meeting safety goals by promoting a continuing dialogue at the state and local levels, providing technical expertise and information and identifying resources.
• Identify the institutional, resource and other categories of challenges that must be overcome to achieve safety integration.
• Identify realistic strategies and facilitate the development of action plans.
• Build a process to assist state DOTs and MPOs with safety integration activities.

STATE PERSPECTIVES

The SCP Working Group believed it important to ensure that the states create a set of shared objectives prior to forum activity. This practice was designed to ensure ownership and promote not only collaboration but also leadership in facilitating purposeful action following the event. The participating states' objectives differed but, in all cases, they promoted information sharing, collaboration, leadership and improvements to data and information systems. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the forum approach depends on the extent to which each state accomplishes what they believe to be important. Table 2 presents the objectives for each of the participating states.

FORUM PROCESS

A specific process was developed for identifying sites, making arrangements, and facilitating the forums. Feedback over the course of the initiative served to fine tune the process to make it more adaptable and effective. (More specific details on the process can be found in Part II of this Circular: Safety-Conscious Planning Forums: Facilitator's Toolkit.) In general the steps to successful implementation track with the process described below.

TABLE 2 State Forum Objectives

State	Objectives
Florida	Raise awareness among the MPOs about the safety integration-planning factor. Establish a baseline assessment: major issues, problems, and needs assessment. Survey the MPOs to determine which of them are integrating safety in the planning processes and what they are doing. Discuss specific issues: The Florida traffic crash report was modified in 2002 to improve accuracy and consistency of reporting, which should benefit roadway analyses. Law enforcement resource needs. Integrating safety as a category in all project priorities. The MPO role in safety integration. Planning resources. Data integration. Mass transit security issues. Review and discuss strategies for updating and improving state highway and traffic safety laws. Discuss and create proactive measures for safety integration. Explore methods for connecting land use planning and safety at all levels. Look for areas not being addressed and explore new opportunities for increasing integration at the state level.
Maryland	Include safety as a priority in projects, such as neighborhood enhancements. 7 Implement a more proactive planning process. 8 Develop a process for establishing a statewide surface transportation goal. Develop a method for incorporating transit, motor carrier, pedestrian, bicycle, and other issues into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Examine and address liability and other data sharing issues.
Michigan	Identify "first steps" in bringing together Michigan's safety partners to discuss and educate one another on safety integration challenges and benefits. Facilitate a statewide safety systems structure 9by building on the existing Safety Management System. 10 Identify safety problems and conduct in-depth analyses.
Oregon	Document the OR process in a comprehensive manner to support presentations on the Oregon Safety-conscious planning approach before other state and local agencies, as well as national associations and meetings, and to help ensure continuity as people retire or go to other jobs. 11 Initiate a dialogue and actions that integrate the MPOs and local jurisdictions with the ODOT planning process. 12 Identify alternative or better methods for addressing safety issues in the planning process. Rally the energy and interest to identify and implement new opportunities.
Tennessee	Note: The Tennessee planning group adopted the national objectives and committed to develop an action plan. However, the results through a series of unpredictable circumstances left a void in leadership and follow up after the event. This experience led to insistence that each state develops a set of shared objectives.
Texas	Raise awareness among the MPOs about the safety integration planning factor. Identify MPO safety integration activities and prepare a manual for the forum. Increase integration at the local level by inviting the key players to attend as teams. Explore methods for connecting land use planning and safety at all levels, look for areas not being addressed and explore new opportunities for increasing integration at the state level. Increase access to information.

Identify States and Secure Commitments

The initial contact was not consistent across states but generally came as a result of one of two conditions: either the FHWA Division Office expressed an interest and pursued the subject with the state DOT planning department, or the SCP Working Group identified the state as a candidate because of a perceived opportunity to explore good practices.

Commitments also came from a variety of sources, but three positions ultimately proved effective for a successful initiative: a high level official in the state DOT planning department, the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety or an alternate official from the safety practitioners' community, and the FHWA Division office's safety and/or planning representatives.

Planning Meeting

Several weeks before the forums took place, each state organized a planning meeting with assistance from the SCP Working Group. Participation in the planning meetings varied widely from state to state. It came as no surprise, however, that widespread partner representation at middle to high levels within the organizations provided a sounder basis for an effective experience (Table 3). The purposes of the planning meetings were to:

Discuss the SCP Concept and the National Implementation ObjectivesIn all cases, an official from the Federal Highway Administration kicked off the planning meeting by reviewing the TEA-21 requirement, providing an update on national implementation events, and expressing appreciation for the state's interest in rising to the challenges presented by the requirement. Identify and Articulate the State's ObjectivesFacilitating a discussion among the state partners to reach conclusions about specific, measurable objectives was clearly the most difficult task of the meeting. It appeared that the meeting participants, for the most part, were prepared to do whatever the federal partners wanted them to accomplish but preferred a more straightforward, clearly articulated set of tasks. The outcome of the process is critical. If state and local partners see the objectives as irrelevant to their state, agency, or individual performance objectives, there can be little hope of follow-up action. Identify Forum ParticipantsAgain, the number and representation of the forum participants varied widely from state to state. The number of participants ranged from about 20 to over 100. The goal was to recruit participation from at least the following entities:

• High-level DOT planning and safety representatives;
• MPO planning and leadership;
• Safety practitioners, including the highway safety, law enforcement, and motor carrier safety communities;
• Transit operators; and
• Federal representation-FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, NHTSA.

Some of the states had the foresight to invite private sector participants, especially consultants, engineers, and road construction representatives. In a few cases, non-profit highway safety groups were present. On reflection, it might have been worthwhile to devote more effort to identifying and recruiting a broader cross section of the safety community as well as members of top leadership within at least the DOT. Where those individuals were present, there seemed to be a more rigorous dialogue and promises of further action and follow up.

Outline an Agenda for the MeetingThe states chose either a 2-day or a 1-day format. Some thought the turnout would be better with the one-day approach while others believed it important to provide a more informal opportunity, such as an evening reception, for dialogue and discussion. ¹³

The experience in the first forum led to a "template" for organizing the agendas. Although there was some variation, in general, the forums began with keynote speakers introducing and welcoming the participants. The first substantive report presented the TEA-21 requirement and provided context for its meaning and purpose. The introductory remarks were followed by a series of presentations outlining the various planning processes, criteria, requirements, and resources at the state and MPO levels.

Breakout sessions convened to build on the information presented by the speakers, discuss the findings and create action plans. Formats for the breakout sessions varied, but in most cases, they were structured according to a "theme" or issue for discussion purposes, and participants were assigned to a specific group through a pre-defined process. The themes included:

• Safety definition and goal(s);
• Safety data systems improvements, analysis, and liability issues;
• Safety integration planning: long- and short-range plans, the project priority process and incident and congestion management systems;
• Communication, collaboration, and public outreach; and
• Educating, informing, and influencing the leadership, other decision-makers, and the public.

The breakout groups were given the charge to:

1. Articulate action steps for implementing Safety-conscious planning: Who will do what, when, where, and how?

2. Identify the opportunities associated with SCP: Who stands to benefit?

3. Specify the resource requirements associated with SCP integration: What are the research, expertise, analytic tools, and funding needs?

4. Isolate the obstacles: What would prevent accomplishment of the objective?

The forums concluded with presentations of the action plans and, in some cases, closing remarks by the forum leadership.

Identify Speakers and Facilitators In most cases, a senior official from the state's DOT served as the keynote speaker and was followed by a federal official to discuss the TEA-21 requirement and challenge the participants. ¹⁴As a general rule, the forum planners recruited the highest-level official possible to present the planning perspectives. Facilitators with varying degrees of training led the dialogue. In some cases, the SCP Working Group's facilitator provided written materials and held a training session prior to the forum. ¹⁵ Determine the Date and Location for the ForumThe states took responsibility for identifying a date(s) and facilities for the forums. Some disseminated a "Hold the Date" announcement and all sent invitations. In some cases, dates were chosen to coincide with other events to generate more participation and enthusiasm for the meetings. Determine Action Items and ResponsibilitiesLeadership for the forums was provided by the DOT planning departments and the Governors' Representatives for Highway Safety. They were responsible for identifying the dates and locations, recruiting the speakers, generating and inviting a list of participants, preparing handout materials, and providing onsite assistance, such as registration. TRB and the SCP Working Group provided federal leadership, a keynote speaker, a facilitator, financial support, and a report documenting the forum results for distribution in each of the states. Dissemination of the forum report was shared by the states and TRB. Identify Follow Up ActivitiesIt was expected that the action-planning segment of the forums would produce a clear set of "next steps." Although this was not always the case, anecdotal evidence exists in most states of actions that were and continue to take place as a result of the forum. In reality, the forum resulted in the first steps toward developing an action plan rather than the action plan itself.

Forum Implementation, Follow Up, and Evaluation

An evaluation design is yet to be established and is a subject under discussion by the SCP Working Group. Several strategies are being examined for follow up to determine the extent to which the forums influenced the planning processes in each of the states.

TABLE 3 Planning Committee Representatives and Forum Logistics

State	Planning Committee	Planning Dates 16	Forum Date(s)	Forum Location
Florida	FDOT (Planning, Safety, MPO Liaison) MPO Planning Organization Advisory Council FL Highway Patrol and Motor Carriers Division FHWA (Headquarters and FL Division) FTA TRB	March 29, 2001	July 24-25, 2001	Orlando
Maryland	MD SHA (Planning, Motor Carriers, Safety) Baltimore Metropolitan Council Washington COG FHWA (Headquarters and MD Division) FMCSA TRB	January 17, 2001	May 15, 2001	Hunt Valley
Michigan	Office of Highway Safety Planning MI DOT (Planning, Safety) FHWA (Headquarters and MI Division), TRB	December 15, 2000 June 2001	September 10, 2001	Lansing
Oregon	ODOT (Safety, Planning, Motor Carriers, MPO Liaison, Public Transit, Rail) Oregon State Police Alliance for Community Traffic Safety FHWA FMCSA FTA (by phone) TRB	April 12, 2001	July 17, 2001	Salem
Tennessee	Governor's Highway Safety Office TN DOT (Planning) FHWA TRB	July 2000	September 21-22, 2000	Nashville
Texas	TX DOT (Planning, Operations) FHWA (Headquarters and TX Division) TRB	March 3, 2001	July 11-12, 2001	Austin

Discussion

For the most part, the forums resulted in comprehensive lists of action steps and approaches. While it is not possible to provide a complete listing in this report, it is clear that several themes emerged. ¹⁷

SAFETY GOALS

While it was generally agreed that integrating the planning processes from the various organizations would be unwise, indeed impossible because of different requirements, planning cycles, funding mechanisms, and so forth, many think it should be possible to establish a safety goal(s) that all organizations could work toward collaboratively. The Maryland Forum breakout group on this issue developed several approaches for ensuring the presence and articulation of safety goals.

• Establish a list of high crash locations.
• Analyze the interaction of crash/incident data between and among modes.
• Develop and implement a user survey on safety.
• Access more effective land use forecasts.
• Inventory safety goals across modes and develop common safety performance measures/goals across modes.
• Consider crash potential and user expectancy for all new and rehabilitation transportation projects.
• Link the strategic highway safety plan with MPO and statewide planning processes.
• Generate local awareness, understanding, and support for goals( 8) .

LONG-RANGE PLANNING

Although the focus of this Circular is the SCP Forum Initiative, several other activities have taken place simultaneously to support the TEA-21 requirement. For example, The Safety Analysis Guidebook for Transportation Planning project identified and documented "best practices" in state, regional, and local entities that appear to be successfully implementing SCP. The project began with a comprehensive literature review covering institutional issues associated with safety and transportation planning ( 6). The findings are relevant to this discussion:

For integrating safety into the transportation planning process, MPOs should, in theory be involved primarily in mid- and long-range plans, with minimal involvement in determining specific near term improvements. Yet, through all the literature we have reviewed, we have failed to find one example of an MPO or a state DOT conducting a long-range safety plan other than identifying long-term goals of such a plan, such as reducing fatalities or crashes occurring to bicyclists or pedestrians. There are several reasons for the deficiency... among the main reasons are, first, the lack of a comprehensive safety management information system that would allow a planning agency to identify crashes occurring over the state or a metropolitan area; second, the lack of an accepted, calibrated modeling procedure for making predictions about future crash levels related to specific elements of a transportation plan; third, the lack of anticipation of safety problems in developing project plans; and, fourth, a certain amount of momentum due to the historically separate activities of traffic engineers and transportation planners.

Likewise, at the state level, safety is often clearly addressed in the goals and objectives of a state transportation plan, whether short or long-term. However, the reality is that safety is taken into consideration, if at all, only after a specific problem is identified. Of course, there are safety considerations in the various design guidelines, but the extent to which safety is given serious consideration even at that stage is unclear.

Chatterjee et al. at the Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee, have also conducted a safety integration survey of MPOs at selected sites. Their findings are similar to the Levine study.

While safety and security were reflected in planning policies and goals, and short-range project selection and programming incorporated measures of safety and security, there were few instances where long-range planning incorporated these issues. In many cases the lack of data and limited analysis tools resulted in a reliance on subjective assessments of safety and security issues( 9).

Florida DOT commissioned a study of the MPO planning processes to determine the extent of safety integration. A presentation based on this study reported that fewer than half of the MPOs specifically addressed safety in the long-range transportation plans; however, the lack of documentation does not necessarily mean that the MPOs ignore safety issues. The presenter provided numerous examples of safety programs and designs initiated by Florida's MPO planners ( 10). Research

For the most part, the forum reports fall short of the action plans envisioned by the SCP Working Group. However, several of the forums resulted in a plan and commitment to create an action plan using the forum as a starting point. In all cases, plans were laid to either strengthen the safety management system in place or to develop a process that closely resembles the concept.

The Florida Forum breakout session initiatives are representative of the planning initiatives developed during the breakout sessions:

• Improve safety for all modes by re-evaluating the forecast models and revising them to place people, as opposed to vehicles, first.
• Bring about a change in current thinking by educating decision-makers, the media, the public, and others on the importance, the policy, and the process for achieving safety integration.
• Increase flexibility in the federal requirements. Avoid proscription and reward creativity. ¹⁸
• Develop multimodal levels of service.
• Ensure transportation options for non-drivers by dedicating funds to alternative projects and a widespread public information program about the transportation alternatives.

DATA ACQUISITION, MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYSIS

In all cases, lack of data was an important issue ( 11). Levine et al. point out that the "... key to any short-, mid- or long-range safety plan is an informationsystem." However, as those authors note, information systems represent more than just a data stream. The data, including crash data, traffic volumes, road inventories and land use data, must be organized and linked for proper analysis ( 6).

Upon closer examination during the forums, it turned out often to be the case that the issue is not about data; it is about information. In other words, data are available at some level in all the states, but information about high crash locations and other issues is not available to the planners who need it. A plethora of action steps from the forums relate to the data and information issue as is illustrated by the following examples from the Michigan Forum:

• Provide traffic crash data information to the MPOs and other planning jurisdictions. ¹⁹
• Include crash data as a factor when considering capital improvement projects.
• Expand the collection of data on non-state roads.
• Allow broad access of data to safety partners.
• Use consistent data and information to formulate safety strategies, develop projects and programs, and evaluate results.
• Develop and implement training programs on safety data: collection, analyses, and dissemination( 12)
• Suggestions from other forums are also important and relevant:
• Review liability issues and develop a plan for data sharing with state and local agencies. ²⁰
• Review and revise the police accident report. Involve a number of interested partners to fine tune the variables and produce a richer source of information. ²¹
• Establish and institutionalize a safety management system that includes planners from all safety and planning entities. ²²

LEADERSHIP

Leadership was discussed at many levels in a variety of settings and organizations. At the least, the chief officers of DOTs, DOT planning departments, safety organizations, MPO executives and planners, and political decision-makers must be educated about the importance and benefits of addressing safety in the planning and project selection processes. Their support and advocacy is critical to the success of SCP initiatives.

For example, during the Tennessee Forum the MPO planners explained their roles as advisory rather than decision making in nature. Furthermore, it is their impression from AMPO and AASHTO meetings and publications that neither MPO nor DOT planners address safety in the planning processes. They tend to understand the safety issues, such as dangerous intersections and driver distraction, but don't see how the planning process can address those issues. Meanwhile, the decision-makers tend to be more focused on highly visible and/or politically motivated projects, and safety is rarely at the top of their list of priorities. Also the focus on land use planning to support economic development or capacity enhancement often results in unforeseen trade-offs from a safety perspective ( 13). Action steps emanating from the Tennessee meeting included:

• Encourage the involvement of the Governor in safety integration.
• Position the MPO planners as facilitators and advisors to the transportation planning process. Provide them with the data and information they need to inform and influence decisions. ²³
• Provide the MPO planners with tools for informing and generating support from the public for safety integration( 13).

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH

The forum participants were clear about the need for increased communication, collaboration, and outreach among the various agencies, as well as the private sector, at all levels. Each of the audiences developed action steps to accomplish the objective as demonstrated by the selected examples that appear below: ²⁴

Oregon

• Educate political leaders, developers, roadway professionals and the public on safety issues and design factors.
• Identify a comprehensive list of safety collaboration partners and host another forum.
• Use websites to let others know about safety information, activities, and improvements.
• Use e-mail "blast" lists to keep partners informed (14).

Texas

• Incorporate information in the planning documents to explain the precursors (former projects) and reasons for current projects, for example, safety, mobility, and capacity.
• Survey the public to determine what safety issues are of most concern. Analyze the results to determine the relationship between the public's priorities and TxDOT's plans and programs.
• Adopt a public involvement process, including the institutionalization of a public information office, and provide incentives for participation.
• Create a public information program that provides information on making safe decisions.
• Increase communication and coordination with the enforcement community (15).

Michigan

• Educate the public on safety issues, such as driver safety problems, and information.
• Increase communication with the villages and townships to understand their needs.
• Educate all partners on the transportation and safety planning processes.
• Provide opportunities for education and cross training, such as the safety in planning forum.
• Establish a clearinghouse for access to safety expertise and communicate its existence to the safety community.
• Provide opportunities in university curriculums for planners and engineers to work together on problem identification and solution development.
• Build teams among planners, engineers and safety professionals.
• Make sure safety experts are included at the beginning of the long-range plan development process.
• Include planners in the development of design manuals.
• Provide motivation to engineers for working with planners by enumerating the benefits rather than just focusing on the regulations (12).

Maryland

• Identify target groups for outreach according to their safety issues and interests. Include a group of public officials. ²⁵
• Provide youth education through the public schools. Solicit public feedback on perceived safety problems. ²⁶
• Acquire access to safety data and information (16).

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

As might be expected, resources were discussed in the context of nearly every other issue. Resource needs can be categorized as follows: research, expertise, analytic tools, and funding.

Research

The Oregon Forum included comprehensive attention to research needs. The action steps included:

• Study the safety outcomes of different mobility options: transit, bikes, pedestrians, livability, access management, intersection design, lane width, etc.
• Review the research project selection process and criteria for both NCHRP and ODOT to ensure that safety projects are included in the list of priorities.
• Develop a safety index for countermeasures and tie it to mobility. Build the capacity in MPOs and local jurisdictions to use the index.

Expertise

Analytic experience and expertise seemed to be the largest issue in this category. Planners, especially at the local level, said they simply lack the expertise for safety integration. Furthermore, many reported that they don't even have access to a safety engineer or data analyst to assist them. Action steps from the TN Forum Report are illustrative ( 13).

• Provide planning resources and safety expertise to the MPOs and local jurisdictions.
• Develop a training course for MPO planners and other interested parties from the local jurisdictions. ²⁹
• Create a contact list identifying planners with established safety programs and facilitate peer to peer mentoring for MPO and State planners.
• Develop and institutionalize a process for information sharing among the research, training, and planning communities.

Analytic Tools

Planners are accustomed to using proactive analytic software tools in their work for identifying problems and countermeasures as well as examining potential costs and benefits. However, safety planning is, for the most part, a reactive process. Problems are identified when crashes occur in numbers larger than would be expected, all other things being equal. Predicting where safety is likely to become a problem requires the development of unique analytic tools. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program is in the process of implementing initiatives to rectify the inadequacy. In addition, the FHWA is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Highway Safety Improvement Model that will consist of a set of computerized analytical tools to identify safety improvement needs and to develop a systemwide program of the site-specific project to maximize highway safety. In the meantime, training on the collection, management, and analysis of crash data is mandatory.

Funding

According to the Tennessee participants, 10% of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding is set aside for safety improvements, but STP monies make up only a small part of the budget at the MPO level. The local governments generate most of the revenues and make programmatic decisions about how the resources are to be deployed. As the MPO planners pointed out, they have little authority to tell the locals how to program their resources. However, it appears that the MPOs do have the authority to establish funding criteria but are reluctant to do so because of the political realities ( 13).

There was little discussion during the forums devoted to increasing overall revenue for roadway building and preservation other than to note that there is never enough funding to initiate all the projects that need to be accomplished. However, funding issues did arise with respect to sufficient planning resources and resource allocation. Some participants expressed the need for special or augmented planning resources. Others suggested that federal requirements be relaxed to allow greater use of federal funds for safety improvements. Finally, several participants at all levels suggested that "challenge grants" might be provided in the next reauthorization or through some other venue to support the development of innovative research, demonstration, and implementation practices.

Summary

During the past 2 years, much has been accomplished to facilitate safety integration and much remains to be done.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Safety Analysis Guidebook for Transportation Planning is nearing completion and should be published by early 2002. This document is designed to assist planners and other professionals by providing a comprehensive review of current information and more in-depth analyses of selected programs where good practices are being demonstrated. The Safety-conscious planning forums have produced varying results. However, it can generally be stated that the forums have facilitated:

• Communication and Collaboration:In many cases, key players were introduced for the first time. Even if they were acquainted prior to the event, it was the initial opportunity for them to work collaboratively. The opportunity to share data and information provided a starting point for what could be a long-term, continuous process.
• Problem Identification:The forums began the journey toward a widely accepted definition of the challenges to building safety into the planning processes.
• Action Planning:Each of the events resulted in the identification of short and long-range activities that can be accomplished.
• Partnerships:It became clear during the meetings that most of the challenges can only be met through active and continuous partnerships. In some cases, the forums resulted in agreement to structure formalized partnerships for action. In others, the commitment was evident, but the process required additional design and agreement on definition and structure.

  This forum is the first of its kind in Maryland, but hopefully not the last. In fact, I'm going to insist that it's not the last. This forum is just the start of an ongoing process.

Neil Pedersen

CHALLENGES

Although obstacles exist, as Neil Pedersen clearly articulated during the Maryland Forum, this should not impede progress, and he challenged the partners in his state to:

• Adopt common definitions that facilitate communication.
• Integrate safety factors with planning goals and performance measures.
• Think "multimodal" when considering safety.
• Identify and share available data and analytic techniques rather than reinvent the planning tools.
• Develop a process that encompasses the 3Es (engineering, education, enforcement) to produce synergistic advantages and effects.
• Integrate marketing strategies to build support for the planning process.
• Identify methods for integrating specific issues into the planning process: bicycle/pedestrian safety, motor carrier safety, transit safety, impaired driving, and smart growth as it relates to transportation safety.
• Define a future process, develop an action plan, and commit to its implementation.
• The action steps and approaches documented throughout this report serve to illuminate the challenges identified. To summarize, the subjects include:
• Leadership,
• Communication,
• Partnerships and collaboration,
• Data and information,
• Training,
• Analytic planning tools,
• Education and marketing tools,
• Public support,
• Research and expertise, and
• Dedicated funding and other resources.

Future Needs and Actions

A catalogue of only the needs and actions emanating from the SCP forums and the SCP Working Group would produce a sizable volume. The attempt here is to provide a set of specific "next steps" for consideration and implementation. These are gleaned from the forum reports, minutes of the SCP Working Group and other "immediate" sources and are presented because they seem to be actions that meet at least two criteria:

1. The resources and expertise necessary to begin work can be made available within the next few months. ³¹
2. They will immediately precipitate progress toward SCP understanding and implementation.

LEADERSHIP

There is a profound and immediate need to educate leaders and decision-makers in the transportation planning process about the nature of the safety problem and the benefits to be derived by addressing the issues. Transportation planners at all levels need educational and marketing tools for approaching leadership and winning their support for safety planning and projects. The ultimate goal is to create "champions" for SCP-a need recognized by many of the forum participants.

On the federal level, SCP Working Group members have agreed to work collaboratively in their preparations for the FY 2003 reauthorization to ensure that safety remains a key factor in the planning process and perhaps to secure targeted funding for such efforts.

COMMUNICATION

The forums themselves result in an increase in the information flow among agencies, communities, and key players. These events can and should be easily replicated across the nation. To assist in that process, a "toolkit" follows in Part II of this Circular. It contains specific step-by-step instructions for facilitating a forum or event to bring the safety and planning communities together.

Perhaps more importantly, thought must be given to institutionalizing the communications structures so they are part of a continuous process rather than a one-time event. Several forum participants in different settings proffered three specific and consistent ideas:

1. Some entity should establish a structure for providing continuous reminders and updates about Safety-conscious planning. The participants pointed out that while they believe safety should be the top priority, other daily pressures make it difficult to keep safety in focus.
2. Develop a contact or email list of the forum participants and others to provide periodic reminders and new information.
3. Some suggested the establishment of a national event or conference to bring safety and transportation planners together periodically to share information and strategies. ³²

PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION

Safety-conscious planning requires more than information sharing among different entities; it requires true partnerships that might include regularly scheduled, joint planning events, shared resources, and eventually perhaps even a statewide safety planning process that influences not only the key planning partners, but also the Governor and the legislature.

DATA AND INFORMATION

The forums and other recent events support the idiom that there are never enough data. However, it is also true that data are available even though it may require effort to obtain information. The Traffic Records Committee of the National Safety Council is in the process of developing a series of training courses for those who collect, manage, and analyze data. Partners at all levels should support that effort by providing expertise, resources, and political support. Those who collect, manage, and analyze data should be brought into the planning process from the beginning. They need to understand how data are used and how very important good data are to support safety planning.

The first step may be to learn what data and analytic tools are currently available and used by MPO planners. At least two of the forum planning committees expressed an interest in these questions and made attempts to discover the answers. These and others efforts are a necessary first step; however, they did not produce satisfactory answers for identifying MPO needs. A comprehensive survey, perhaps coupled with focus groups and/or key person interviews, should be conducted and documented to avoid replication of effort and ensure projects are designed to meet user needs.

We need to develop a crash analysis capability because it is critical to defining needs, establishing priorities, marketing programs and assessing improvements.

Bob Kamm

Brevard County MPO

TRAINING

Beyond training for data managers, many have recommended a basic training course on SCP concepts, planning, and implementation factors. The audience is widespread, including DOT and MPO planners, U.S. DOT headquarters and field staff, law enforcement, safety practitioners, engineers, roadway consultants, and the transportation research community. ³³

ANALYTIC PLANNING TOOLS

Clearly, safety-planning techniques are available; however, they generally do not complement existing tools used by transportation planners, and are in need of development. Indeed, several current NCHRP projects hold promise for their development. ³⁴In the meantime, safety practitioners can, at the very least, provide guidance to planners about where safety problems already exist by corridor, community, or some other metric.

EDUCATION AND MARKETING TOOLS

It is a rare event that attracts not only federal/state/local decision-makers but also the public to safety planning initiatives. However, their involvement and support is critical to both immediate and long-term successful implementation of SCP. Just as with leadership, development of educational and marketing tools to attract public attention and support are badly needed.

RESEARCH AND EXPERTISE

Despite efforts on the part of FHWA and others, the comprehensive expertise for SCP implementation has not been discovered, at least within the nation's borders. Some entities, such as Michigan's Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and Oregon's Portland Metro Planning Organization (METRO), have developed and implemented tools and techniques that place them ahead of most, but the proactive, comprehensive, multi-modal approach is yet to be created. Universities, NCHRP, other national organizations, and research institutes should be offered incentives to continue investigating and developing the planning tools.

Collaborative efforts may be most important since no one discipline appears to cover the enormity of the subject matter involved. For example, one forum participant suggested that universities provide opportunities for planners and engineers to work together on problem identification and solution development. ³⁵

DEDICATED FUNDING AND OTHER RESOURCES

Many expressed the need for additional planning resources, as well as more funding to implement roadway safety improvements. An interesting idea suggested by Tennessee was to make funding available through a "challenge grant" or some other venue, to place a traffic engineer in one of the MPOs as a pilot project. The position would be responsible for performing as a "circuit rider/ombudsman/facilitator," meet with local planners and law enforcement officials, help them identify problems and design countermeasures, identify funding sources, and serve as a "bully pulpit" for safety. DOT planning department and the Governor's Highway Safety Office representatives believe it would take 3 years to fully implement the program, but the position would pay for itself many times over. Evaluation would demonstrate the effectiveness of the program, and it is likely that the legislature and Governor would support positions in other jurisdictions.

Some also expressed the opinion that a reduction in bureaucratic barriers and inflexibility would help divert resources to safety programs and projects. However, these "barriers" were never clearly articulated. If they exist, they should be identified, catalogued, and reviewed. This action could provide a starting point for useful dialogue and reform efforts.

In the end, safety considerations may depend on political priorities and realities. Safety planners and practitioners share a responsibility to ensure that the political decisions are "informed" decisions and that they reflect safety improvements and needs.

Conclusion

In some respects, Oregon leads the nation in safety integrated planning, at least in state-level planning functions. Inquiries as to how this condition has come about produced the following list:

1. The policy people are willing to entertain discussions regarding process change.
2. The program people are willing to cross boundaries and form partnerships.
3. There is a general willingness to be self-critical and implement course corrections.
4. There is an agency-wide commitment to identify opportunities and improve safety ( 14). ³⁶

These conditions are worthy of consideration for anyone moving forward to implement the next generation of Safety-conscious planning initiatives.

Postcript

The SCP Working Group is in the process of preparing an action plan to which all the partners will commit intelligence, resources, and energy for implementing the most promising actions available at the present time. For more information and continuous updates, see the SCP website.

References and Notes

REFERENCES

1. Waller, P. Introduction to Safety. Presented at the Transportation Research Board Safety-Conscious Planning Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2000.

2. National Safety Council. Injury Facts, 2000.

3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Facts 2000-Overview, 2000.

4. Roberts, K. Safety-Conscious Planning: The Development of the Safer Transportation Network Planning Process. Institute of Transportation Engineers, www.ite.org, pp. 3, 8, 13, January 2001.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation. www.stratplan.dot.gov.

6. Levine, N., P. Shapiro, K. Eccles, and J. Binder. A Review of Current Literature on Safety and Transportation Planning. FHWA Report (draft), pp. 7, 32, 2001.

7. Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Citizen's Guide. Washington, D.C., p. 8, 2001.

8. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Maryland Forum, p. 17, 18, May 2001.

9. Chatterjee, A., F. J. Wegmann, N. J. Fortey, and J. D. Everett. Incorporating Safety and Security Issues in Urban Transportation Planning. (Unpublished manuscript), Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, July 2000.

10. Mierzejewski, E. Safety Considerations in the Long-Range Transportation Plans of Florida's MPOs. Presented at the Florida Safety-Conscious Planning, Orlando, July 2001.

11. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Florida Forum, p. 9, 21-22, July 2001.

12. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Michigan Forum. Lansing, p. 10, 20, September 2001.

13. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Tennessee Forum. Nashville, p. 8-9, 11, 20, September 2000.

14. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Oregon Forum, Keizer, p. 4, 17, July 2001.

15. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Texas Forum, Austin, p. 10, July 2001.

16. Herbel, S. Safety-Conscious Planning: Maryland Forum, Hunt Valley, p 6, 22, May 2001.

NOTES

1. Author's note: A list of acronyms is provided in Appendix A.

2. State DOTs are the largest units of government that develop transportation plans and programs. They are responsible for setting the transportation goals for the state ( 7).

3. MPOs represent areas with a population of 50,000 people or more. The MPO's mission is to provide short- and long-term solutions to transportation and transportation-related concerns ( 7).

4. Security has been addressed primarily at the federal level and has been generally considered a transit issue with initiatives focused on the security of transit drivers and, to a lesser extent, passengers, e.g., personal safety at bus stops. However, since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the issue has broadened considerably, and the security of bridges, tunnels, airports, and other facilities have captured the nation's attention.

5. These professional categories operate at all levels: federal, state, regional, and local.

6. Safety practitioners include highway and motor carrier safety professionals as well as the enforcement and emergency management communities.

7. Maryland is a leader in the development of context sensitive design, i. e. "Thinking Beyond the Pavement." The next step is to include safety as an integral part of those activities.

8. The State Highway Administration's Business Plan established seven goals, together with performance measures. One of the goals focuses on safety, but the present planning process is primarily reactive in nature.

9. 9. The initial list included the Departments of Transportation, Education and Community Health, State Police, the Office of Highway Safety Planning and the Safety Commission, a statutory group in MI.

10. The SMS is a DOT/OHSP partnership and consists of 13 action teams established by subject matter, e.g. impaired driving, occupant protection, engineering, traffic records, etc. The Chairs of each of the 13 teams form the SCP Working Group whose purpose is to plan and conduct the annual MI Safety Summit.

11. The Oregon contingent views the accomplishment of this goal as a beginning strategy for supporting continued emphasis on safety planning in the next reauthorization.

12. The Forum was viewed as an opportunity to begin the process of developing and sustaining linkage between the state and local level planners and others.

13. On reflection, the time and expense devoted to the receptions probably did not produce a measurable return. The amount of time and energy devoted to forum preparation by the planning committee was a far more important variable.

14. Having a high-level state official on the agenda not only helped recruit the appropriate participants but also generated enthusiasm.

15. Florida hired professional facilitators. Their skills provided a welcome addition to the discussions, although it is not clear that the expense is necessary. The facilitators that came from within the sponsoring organizations performed very well; however, they often expressed disappointment at not being able to fully participate as discussants.

16. Three to four months lead time turned out to be adequate to affect the participants' schedules, identify a location for the meeting and make the proper arrangements.

17. For a complete review of the individual state action items and recommendations, see the individual forum reports on the FHWA website (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scp).

18. Many comments were made during the breakout sessions about the influence of the federal requirements on safety and planning. The Florida participants feel strongly that the current federal requirements, especially for the 20-year plan, create a bias for adding more lanes, which may prove detrimental to safety.

19. Some discussions suggested that the MPOs and other local jurisdictions should first be surveyed to determine what data they use and what their needs are. See, for example, the Florida Forum Report ( 11).

20. Several jurisdictions expressed issues related to liability saying that the DOT is reluctant to publish lists of high crash locations for fear that lawsuits will emanate from crashes at those locations before the hot spots can be fixed.

21. Several jurisdictions complained about police accident reports and suggested revising the police accident report form, mandating a statewide form, providing crash investigation training and high tech reporting tools for police officers, and developing programs to inform the police and the public about the importance of thorough and accurate reports.

22. This recommendation didn't make the Michigan list because the state already has a well developed SMS; however, in states where one does not exist, the recommendation was universal.

23. The Planners in the Tennessee forum were familiar with SEMCOG and its transportation planning in the safety arena. They think that SEMCOG's access to good data is the key component to their success. They can show the decision-makers where the problems are and report on impact. It was also noted that SEMCOG has access to funding for safety projects that other MPOs don't have.

24. In many cases, the action steps were redundant from state to state. The redundancies have been eliminated, but interested readers are encouraged to review the Forum Reports for a complete listing of each state's action planning steps.

25. The breakout group identified children, schools, families, commuters, drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, older citizens, business/commercial interests, the government, recent immigrants, handicapped persons, community groups, property owners, and elected officials as groups within "the public" for potential targeting.

26. The breakout group brainstormed answers to the question, "What does the public want?" The answers included active representation, a safe place to wait for public transit, education, access to people and information for answers to their questions and issues, input to the planning process, improved drive times, and an enhanced safety system.

27. It was suggested that producing an updated electronic version of the Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Vol. 1 & 2, FHWA, December 1982 would provide a valuable tool for safety planning improvements.

28. One participant cautioned that there are often trade-offs between safety and mobility; hence, this may not be a fruitful effort. However, he also agreed that a safety index would be helpful for making decisions regarding the application of ITS technologies and other initiatives.

29. Steve Richards at the University of Tennessee teaches a course on safety integration. A "short course" version of his curriculum may be adaptable for the training program. Also, it was suggested that the FHWA Safety Analysis Guidebook for Transportation Planning that is currently under development could be provided to DOT and MPO planners in stages as it becomes available. User-friendly formats and design were strongly encouraged.

30. FTA also offered this suggestion for transit operators and other transit personnel.

31. In some cases, the groundwork has already been laid to move forward on these activities.

32. This event might be accommodated as a "track" within an existing annual conference, such as those sponsored and attended by members of NAGHSR, AASHTO, AMPO, ITE, TRB, etc.

33. It may be unnecessary to start with a "clean slate" on this multi-phase, multi-purpose project. Some university curriculums are reputed to include safety planning curriculums or modules in courses. These could be identified and reviewed prior to training development to avoid duplication of effort.

34. NCHRP Project 8-36 (18), NCHRP Project 17-18 (5), NCHRP Project 8-44.

35. Dick Reynolds, Senior Transportation Planner, Oregon DOT, was a presenter at both the Oregon and Michigan Forums.

36. Troy Costales, Director, Transportation Safety Division, Oregon DOT, July 2001