Skip to contentU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home Feedback
Planning
FHWA > HEP > Planning > Forums

Transportation Safety Planning

Appendix

Acronyms

AASHTO

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

AMPO

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

COG

Council of Governments (one of a variety of titles given to MPOs)

DOT

Department of Transportation

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

ISTEA

Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act

ITE

Institute of Transportation Engineers

METRO

Portland Metro Planning Organization

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization

MD SHA

Maryland State Highway Administration (equivalent to the DOT in most states)

NAGHSR

National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives

NCHRP

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (a shared state DOT research initiative administered by AASHTO and TRB)

NHTSA

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SCP

Safety-Conscious Planning

SEMCOG

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

TCRP

Transit Cooperative Research Program

TEA-21

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TRB

Transportation Research Board (The National Academies)

APPENDIX A

Safety-Conscious Planning and the Forum Process

An Overview

What is 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 through analysis of accident data and 2) implement an appropriate enforcement, education, or engineering-oriented countermeasure. SCP, however, implies a proactive approach aimed at preventing accidents and unsafe conditions. The range of SCP activities may include:

  1. Programming safety improvements to address roadway "hotspots"-or collision-prone locations and unsafe transportation conditions.
  2. Introducing multidisciplinary programs, i.e., integrating engineering, enforcement, emergency management, and education activities.
  3. Thinking "multimodal" in planning initiatives, i.e., including consideration of transit needs, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other issues.
  4. Including transportation safety considerations as a key decision-making parameter in evaluating projects and programming expenditures for all transportation modes.
  5. Establishing inherently safe transportation networks.

The short-term objective is to integrate safety considerations into the transportation planning processes at all levels, specifically the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPS) developed by MPOs and DOTs respectively. The longer-term objective is to coordinate all safety planning activities so they are complementary rather than conflicting or redundant.

What is a safety-conscious planning forum?

An SCP forum is a meeting that brings transportation and safety planning partners together and identifies good practices in safety integration where and if they exist. They are designed to accomplish at least two goals. The first is to bring together key players in the transportation planning and safety communities, introduce them to one another, and establish an ongoing dialogue. The second is to create an action plan that begins the implementation process.

Specific objectives and outcomes for SCP Forums include:

  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, data, analytic tools, and funding needs?
  4. Isolate the obstacles: What would prevent accomplishment of the objectives?

Transportation Research Circular E-C025: Safety-Conscious Planning

PURPOSE

An effective and efficient transportation system has been a top priority in this country for much of the last century. The goals are clearly defined in the U.S. Department of Transportation's strategic plan. They include:

This vision requires the successful accomplishment of several objectives not the least of which is to ensure the planning process focuses on several independent, but not necessarily mutually exclusive variables. The variable under consideration in this project is safety. The short-term objective is to integrate safety considerations into the transportation planning processes at all levels, specifically the Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPS) and the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) developed by the state departments of transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) respectively. This step should be followed by consideration of safety objectives in the longer range, 20-year plans that the state DOTs are required to prepare and update periodically.

Achieving a longer-term mission requires cooperation, collaboration, and integration of the planning processes of several agencies including federal, state and metropolitan transportation and transit planning agencies, highway safety offices, and commercial vehicle safety operations. The end product of this initiative is a metropolitan and statewide planning process that incorporates safety as a priority factor.

PROBLEM

Injury is the major cause of death in the nation from about 6 months to 45 years of age. 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. The U.S. 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 and more than three million injuries annually. Clearly much remains to be done.

The human and economic consequences of motor vehicle crashes are unaffordable and unacceptable. While we continue to make modest progress in reducing highway fatality rates, over the past few years the number of motor vehicle related fatalities has remained essentially unchanged and injuries continue to increase each year. If these numbers continue unchanged, 400,000 people will die on our 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.

BACKGROUND

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 or ISTEA announced a change in focus regarding highway programs from construction to preservation and emphasized mobility and environmental protection. The goal was to produce a transportation system that provides safe and efficient mobility and accessibility as well as protection of the human and natural environments.

ISTEA required 23 planning factors for statewide transportation plans and 16 for metropolitan plans under the general headings of 1) mobility and access for people and goods, 2) system performance and preservation, and 3) environment and quality of life. However, nowhere in the legislation was safetyspecifically mentioned or mandated in the planning process. Transportation planning has historically focused on capacity and congestion with some attention to the operation and management of the transportation system.

ISTEA was reauthorized in 1998 by a bill titled the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century or TEA-21. It required that the states and metropolitan planning organizations incorporate safetyand security as criteria in their respective planning processes and activities. This marked the first time safety was included as a planning factor. No further explanation or discussion was given in the legislation. TEA-21 consolidated the ISTEA planning factors into seven broad areas, one of which reads, "Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users."

PROCESS

To begin the safety integration process, it is imperative to understand the planning factors and timelines that guide each of them. Transportation planning is accomplished primarily by the state DOTs and local MPOs, with technical assistance and oversight by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The DOTs and MPOs are responsible for establishing both long and short-term plans. The longer-term plan, known as the Transportation Plan, establishes goals and objectives over a 20-year period. The short-term plans are, in a sense, implementing documents and include specific projects to be accomplished over a three-year period. TIPs and STIPs are designed to implement the longer-range Transportation Plans and are updated every two years at a minimum.

The planning process includes several key steps.

  1. Problem Identification and Definition
    1. Identifying and defining problem areas
      1. Collecting and managing the supporting data and data systems
      2. Data analysis
      3. Monitoring and performance feedback
    2. Establishing goals and objectives
  2. Planning
    1. Establishing long-range plans (20 year horizon)
    2. Developing short-term (3 year) programs at the state and local levels
    3. Identifying, analyzing and evaluating policies, projects and strategies
  3. Programming: Developing and implementing projects
  4. Monitoring and Feedback
  5. Evaluation
    1. Conducting process and impact studies
    2. Reporting results

Integrating safety into the transportation plans requires coordination with the established safety planning processes of the state highway safety and commercial vehicle safety agencies. Neither of these processes requires a long-term 20-year plan. Otherwise, the planning steps followed by the safety communities are remarkably similar to those listed previously.

If the planning factors are essentially the same for all constituencies, integrating the planning processes should be simply a matter of educating management and acquiring their support and introducing the groups to one another. However, it is somewhat more complex than that. There are inconsistencies in the various planning processes regardless of the planning factors. For example, the state highway safety agencies follow an annual planning process while the transportation, transit, and MPO planners develop plans for a 20-year horizon with three-year program implementation documents. Converging the two processes requires some method that is not at present understood.

Safety-Conscious Planning Process

To initiate discussion on how to address the new planning factor, approximately 40 interested professionals convened in May 2000 to explore the independent planning processes and to identify the data, tools, partners, and other resources that are currently available, as well as those that need to be developed, for implementation of the safety requirement. The invitational workshop was planned and organized by a steering committee of representatives from FHWA, FTA, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the Roadway Safety Foundation (RSF), the National Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the National Safety Council. FHWA and NHTSA provided sponsorship. The meeting was designed to accomplish several objectives.

The participants represented three arenas that presently execute independent planning processes-1) general surface transportation, which includes federal, state, and local transportation and transit planners, 2) highway safety, and 3) commercial vehicle safety. Those who are responsible for developing, collecting, and analyzing data were also invited. In many instances, it was the first experience in communicating across planning cultures for the participants.

EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICES

An example of safety-conscious planning was provided by one of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) represented at the meeting - The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). On another level, a representative of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia discussed the subject from a larger geographic perspective. The lesson to be learned from the presenters is that it is not only possible to integrate safety into the planning process, but also there are substantial benefits to be gained. In both cases, a relatively simple format was used to achieve integration:

  1. Convince upper management and other stakeholders of the value to be gained by safety integration.
  2. Identify, collect, and analyze crash data to determine high-risk locations.
  3. Convene a group of stakeholders to identify and discuss potential solutions and to determine the most cost-effective methods for proceeding.
  4. Design and implement specific projects and programs.
  5. Evaluate the outcomes and publicize the project results.

PLANNING FOCUS

It is soundly established that to improve safety, one must impact the accident experience of motor vehicle drivers and other more vulnerable road users by, among other things, creating a safe roadway environment that is as forgiving as possible in the event of an accident. The weakest link in the safety chain is the driver. The idea of safety integration is to reduce crashes, injuries and deaths by focusing attention on not only improving driver behavior but also on mitigating the consequences of driver error by enhancing infrastructure safety investments.

ACTION PLANNING

The meeting participants shared information and brainstormed ideas for accomplishing the safety integration task. They developed a set of potential strategies for integrating safety into the planning process, created a series of initiatives necessary for implementing the strategies, and developed lists of information, tools, partners, and resources required to support the action steps.

STRATEGIES

A wide variety of strategies were discussed. Many of them have similar and overlapping characteristics. The following subheadings consolidate the suggested strategies into a set of common themes.

Foundations for Safety in Planning

The overriding strategy is to integrate safety into the existing transportation planning process. The participants provided several ideas for accomplishing the objective in both the near and the long term.

Data Collection and Analysis

The importance of good data cannot be overestimated. It is crucial for accurate problem identification and definition. It points the way to effective intervention strategies, helps identify future problems, and provides information for evaluating countermeasure results.

Much of the data needed to identify and define safety problems resides at the state level and does not translate well to the local level for use by the MPOs. The meeting participants outlined several steps for improving access to safety data and encouraging its use.

Expanding the Data Issue

Analysis of data and identifying high-risk locations, e.g. specific sites, corridors, and roadway sections, are not the only considerations in identifying and defining problem situations. It is necessary in many cases to go beyond the crash statistics and think about safety in ways not normally considered. For example, safety can be affected by providing transportation alternatives with a range of choices for trip making. It might be assumed that with more and better sidewalks and bicycle paths, people will consider alternatives to the private automobile. Addressing personal safety and security in public transportation will enhance alternative mode choice.

The social consequences of providing effective, efficient, safe, and secure transportation are enormous. Viable and widespread transportation alternatives will dramatically improve the nation's potential for solving some of its most difficult problems such as public health, poverty, mobility for older and disabled persons and congestion.

Collaboration

The participants discussed the need to enhance communication and understanding among safety and transportation/transit planning practitioners about the respective planning processes that currently exist. It is also clear to the stakeholders involved in the planning process that the activity developed to accomplish increased communication and understanding should be replicated many times in different geographical regions around the country and among different constituencies. These forums will serve to ensure that representatives of the planning groups are identified at all levels and encouraged to work collaboratively.

How to accomplish this obvious strategy is less well understood. Who is responsible for the necessary outreach that will initiate the process? Who will conduct these forums? What are the appropriate formats, agendas, and timelines? What incentives can be offered? Finally, and of utmost importance, who are the stakeholders and how can they be encouraged to participate? Several ideas were shared for accomplishing the collaboration initiative.

The current transportation planning process contains an explicit requirement for public involvement; however, inclusion of the user groups might be more aggressively pursued in some cases. Who better to identify their transportation and safety concerns than those who regularly use the roads? The planning process should incorporate the concerns of all system users and include a proactive element for identifying and recruiting the participation of at least the following groups-employees, motor vehicle operators, transit passengers and other members of the traveling public, shippers and recipients of goods and services, and property owners.

Policy

Some participants believe that safety integration must be made mandatory before it will be fully implemented. They believe that the concept must be explicitly addressed in federal and state regulatory environments, such as has been done in the environmental protection arena.

States also have the option to improve or revitalize the Safety Management System (SMS) concept and require SMS review and approval for new construction and maintenance plans.

Outreach

Advocacy is an imperative part of the safety integration process. It is not enough to simply inform groups and individuals. It might be assumed that planners, like other professionals, conduct business according to established routines. Changing the routines will require that planners be motivated through incentives, persuasive dialogue, and the provision of user-friendly tools and models for easy implementation. Beginning with the need for safety data collection at the local level, all phases of the integration process will need to be marketed to the user groups.

One suggested strategy is to identify "champions" who have integrated safety into their planning processes and promote their programs through publications, speeches, conference panels, and awards programs.

NEXT STEPS

This product is one step in a long-term process. The key stakeholders have established a framework for discussion, investigation, research, and further collaboration. They must now add energy to an inert document by defining and prioritizing specific action items, assigning responsibilities, and identifying resources for integrating safety into the transportation planning process. Several initiatives are already underway.

NOTES

1. Funding for the planning process is provided under current regulations and practices. However, some of the meeting participants suggested that a full integration of safety, including more comprehensive data analysis, into the planning process would require additional resources.

2. Many suggested that safety becomes an issue in the planning process at the project design stage after the planning process is completed. However, even at that stage, there is evidence that safety is given minimal and/or uneven consideration in many instances.

3. One method suggested for efficiently accomplishing this initiative as well as recruiting management support and participation is to develop a video and/or CD ROM-based program package with a Leader's Guide and other tools. Members of the planning group and their staffs, colleagues, and customers could disseminate the program quickly and broadly.

4. The meeting participants offered specific suggestions on incentives including "challenge grants" and a waiver of the required 20% local match for planning activities.

Planning Meeting Participants List

The planning meeting presents the first opportunity to gain the necessary support and commitment from partners whose participation will be necessary for a successful outcome. Commitments will more easily be gained during the planning meeting if the attendees are at a high enough level within their organizations to make decisions about policy and resource issues. Consider inviting representatives from the following groups:

NOTE

1. In some cases, you might consider including rural planning organizations as well.

Invitation Letter

Note: Success in recruiting key players to the planning meeting will more likely be achieved if facilitators take time to make contact by phone or a brief email announcing that the invitation is being sent and asking participants to block the dates on their calendars. It is best to try to keep this letter to a single page. You can use the file/page set up function to adjust the margins as needed.

List the invitees so the recipients understand that many of their respected colleagues will also attend the planning meeting.

Date

Dear _________:

Subject: Safety-Conscious Planning: TEA-21 Implementation

In 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). For the first time, the state Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to incorporate safety as a major factor in the transportation planning process.

In May 2000, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) hosted a meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss how the TEA-21 safety requirement can be addressed in the planning process and the availability of data, tools, partners, and other resources for implementing the requirement. A TRB E-Circular was published to document the meeting results. For background and understanding, I/we have enclosed a copy of the Circular.

One result of the TRB meeting was recognition that communication and collaboration among safety experts and transportation planners is generally incomplete at best. A recommended solution is to implement a series of Safety-Conscious Planning (TSP) forums across the nation to bring together representatives from planning and safety organizations at all levels of government, including appropriate private sector representatives. To date, six statewide forums have been held. The federal partners continuously examine the results of these and future forums to identify the actions and resources necessary for successfully implementing SCP at all levels.

Name of lead organization(s)is interested in conducting a safety forum. Before it can be finalized, several issues and the logistics must be addressed. We have scheduled a planning meeting for dateat location (room, building, street address) .

Because of your area of expertise and your involvement with safety and/or planning, you are invited to participate in this planning meeting. If you are not able to attend, please send a delegate with authority to represent your interests. An agenda for the planning meeting is attached.

Since you will be the primary representative from your agency, please be prepared to provide a brief, 5-7 minute overview in answer to the following questions:

If you have any questions, please contact name/title/organization/phone number/email address of person to contact for more information.

Sincerely,

Signature of highest level official possible, e.g., Secretary or Deputy of the Department of Transportation, Chief of the DOT Planning Department, Governor's Highway Safety Representative, FHWA Division Administrator, MPO Director

Planning Meeting Agenda

TEA-21 Implementation: Safety-Conscious Planning

Forum Planning Meeting

Location

Date

Agenda

  1. What is safety-conscious planning?
    1. Concept
    2. Process
  2. What's in it for me?
    1. Federal/state/regional/local perspectives
    2. SCP benefits
    3. Objectives and evaluation measures
  3. III. Forums
    1. Purpose
    2. Participants
    3. Agenda
    4. Logistics
      1. Date(s)
      2. Location
    5. e. Responsibilities
      1. Lead persons/contacts
      2. Logistics: space, equipment, meals
      3. Participant list
      4. Invitations: design, development, and dissemination
      5. Speakers, moderators, panelists, and breakout group facilitators
      6. Conference support: registration materials, staffing, hotel liaison, etc.
      7. Final report
      8. Follow-up process
  4. Adjourn

Appendix B

Suggested Forum Participants List

The first step in developing a list of potential participants is to create a database. This can be accomplished in table or spreadsheet format. Think through the fields that you need before you design the database. It will depend on what your intentions are for its use. Prepare the database for printing mailing labels for distributing invitations and follow-up materials. Design fields for noting whether individuals notify you that they will attend and if, in fact, they do attend. This will help alert you to those individuals you want to follow up with to make sure they received the invitation and understand the importance of your event. It will also give you an accurate final audience count.

There is no set "list" to invite because your audience will depend on the geographic spread of your event, the key decision-makers, transportation safety activists in your area, and other available opportunities.

Safety practitioners

It is well worth your time and effort to identify and recruit a broad cross section of the safety community, as well as members of top leadership within at least the DOT. The individuals and organizations you identify as important for inclusion during the planning meeting should be actively pursued and recruited if they do not respond to your invitation.

Notes on Planning a Forum Agenda

Conference Management

At least five positions are important for conference management on the day of the event.

  1. Conference Facilitator-someone "in charge" on the day of the forum, the authority for making decisions on the spot.
  2. Speaker/Moderator Facilitator-a person who assists the speakers and presenters and keeps the conference running smoothly and on time. As you are identifying this person, keep in mind that he or she may have to ask high-level administrators to please complete their remarks and move on. That can be somewhat uncomfortable for some people and certainly for some positions.
  3. Technical Director-even though the facility where you hold the forum may have an AV expert on site, you remain better prepared if you have someone who understands not only the technical issues but also the purpose and process of the forum.
  4. Hotel Liaison-a person with responsibility for notifying hotel staff of needs and changes as the event progresses. This individual will want to become acquainted with the hotel staff people (sales, catering, front desk, etc.) before the event and know how to reach them throughout the meeting.
  5. Participants Support-one or two people should be available to answer participant questions and support their needs.

Breaks

There is no consensus on whether to list breaks as an official part of the agenda. The only really important thing is that you take them. There is a limit to anyone's attention span, and all of us need occasional breaks to reenergize ourselves mentally and physically. Also, remember that one of the reasons for holding the forum in the first place is to introduce planning and safety professionals to one another and initiate a dialogue among them. To accomplish that, they need time to talk to each other informally. One caveat is in order: if you list breaks on the agenda, try to stick with the timeframes. Audiences typically get restless if it says on the agenda that they are on a break and they are not!

details, details, details

Final planning will include preparing nametags, table tents for speakers, and posters for guidance in finding the rooms where the various events take place. If you have time and resources, consider making a table tent for everyone and hand them out along with the nametags. Having them available for the breakout sessions will improve communication. Be sure to put the name on both sides of the tent so everyone, not just the people in the front of the room, can identify the person.

Sample Forum Agenda

Date:

Location:

Phone:

AGENDA

Welcome / Forum Purpose and Overview

The first rule of thumb is to recruit the highest-level, most visible person you can to kick off the conference. Think "large" and go for the Governor or Secretary of the Department of Transportation. The number of welcoming speakers depends on what you want to accomplish and also the politics of your situation. Be careful not to offend anyone by leaving him or her off the podium for the kick-off event. At this stage of the event, you want to accomplish two major objectives:

  1. Articulate and explain the concept and the TEA-21 requirement.
  2. Stimulate the audience's energy, intelligence, and commitment.

In most cases, an official representative of your planning area and perhaps, a federal official should be sufficient to emphasize the importance of your event, articulate their meeting expectations, and generate enthusiasm by challenging the participants to think creatively, produce an action plan, and continue their involvement.

Overview of the Current Planning Processes

The purpose of this section is to establish some common ground by familiarizing the individual participants with the basic ground rules of the various planning processes. Try to recruit presenters from the following perspectives:

Ask the speakers to briefly answer the following questions:

  1. What do you do? What is your job definition?
  2. Where does your funding come from and what are the requirements and regulations for accessing the funds?
  3. What are your timeframes for the planning process?
  4. What products (plans) do you publish; when and how can they be accessed?
  5. Who has oversight of your planning process?
  6. At what point in the process do you or could you integrate safety aspects?

In many cases, presentations on the planning processes will sound foreign to the participants who are not already a part of that structure. Ask the speakers to give examples wherever possible. You might set this section up as a "panel of experts" and encourage them to ask questions of each other, draw comparisons and begin the mutual planning process right then. We can assume that the questions one would ask of the other will be questions on the minds of the audience as well.

Data and Planning Tools

This segment could be a panel discussion, a workshop, or a single speaker. It will depend on how much information you have and the expertise that you are able to recruit to help you lead the discussion. However, the subject is critical to the future success of your effort. Experience shows that access to data and information is the principle reason given for not addressing safety. Therefore, it is vital that you have the information present:

  1. What data are available to help in the planning process?
  2. How can you access the data, that is, where are they located?
  3. Who collects, manages, and analyzes the data for your area? (Note: These may not only be three separate people, they may also be three separate organizations; and, furthermore, you may find that they do not regularly communicate with one another!)
  4. Where can you get help in analyzing the data for identifying high-risk locations and other purposes?
  5. What planning tools are available that can help predict safety problems and analyze cost/benefit ratios?
  6. What data are available to assist in evaluating countermeasure efforts?

Panel Discussions

You may want to consider other speakers or a panel discussion at this point in the agenda. For example, there may be a new piece of research that you can introduce to broaden the thinking. You might also consider recruiting a panel of experienced professionals to address a topic, such as what each of them is doing to integrate safety into their planning processes. The topics and speakers will be dependent on your situation and objectives.

It is usually the case that panels are more stimulating and interesting than single speakers or "talking heads." There is also a greater likelihood that more of the audience will be drawn in because of the diverse perspectives. However, simply placing three speakers and a moderator at a head table does not necessarily constitute a panel discussion. Think about answers to the following questions if you intend to structure panel discussions on the planning process or safety integration activities:

  1. Are the subjects truly related in any fashion; that is, why did you decide to group these speakers together?
  2. What are the linkages?
  3. Do the speakers understand the linkages so they can relate their experiences to those of the others?
  4. Has the moderator been informed of the panel's purpose and the speaker linkages?
  5. Is the moderator prepared to transition from one speaker to the next and ask questions to which all can respond?

Breakout Groups

The forums are intended to produce an action plan. At the very least, they should produce a set of action steps that will eventually result in an action plan with the commitment and support to move safety planning forward. The most important work of the forum is accomplished in the small group sessions.

Topics

The following topics have served well as discussion themes.

Instructions

Provide specific instructions for the breakout groups:

  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, data, analytic tools, and funding needs?
  4. Isolate the obstacles: What would prevent accomplishment of the objectives?

Breakout Group Presentations

Undoubtedly, one of the concluding sessions will be devoted to presentations from the breakout groups. This process stimulates thinking, legitimizes the small group activity, and puts everyone on notice that a decision has been made, and "someone is watching or at least listening!"

Conclusions, Recommendations, and Next Steps

The forum will end on a higher note if someone or a panel of leaders wraps up with concluding remarks. This could be as simple as having someone reflect on what he or she has learned to as detailed as having a panel representing state and local planners, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit operators, and so on announcing and committing to future initiatives.

Appendix C

Group Themes and Questions

Safety definition and GOAL(s)

  1. What is an appropriate process for establishing safety goals to which all can contribute and support?
  2. Who or what organization should lead this effort?
  3. What data and analytic tools can be used to support the goal(s)?

Safety data systems improvements, analysis, and liability issues

  1. What types of data are available? (Examples: Traffic crash/incident, safety/security, safety belt, facilities, characteristics, exposure, risk, demographics, and emergency response) Are there gaps in the data?
  2. Which analyses/methods are appropriate for examining safety issues (global/community wide, location/hot spots, deficient facilities, lack of risk control/exposure)?
  3. Is the data that you receive in a useful format? Can it be easily incorporated into the long-range and project priority planning processes?
  4. Do you know whom to contact to get safety data?
  5. Is there a desire to do more safety analyses, particularly on local maintenance roadways? If so, do the Metropolitan Planning Organization's and other planning groups have trained staff to do so?
  6. How can transit safety/security data be coordinated with data from other modes for multi-modal analysis of crashes/incidents/security issues? Is transit incident data geo-coded for comparison to other safety/security data?
  7. Are there organizational structure issues that impede safety analysis (modal vs. functional organizations at the federal, state, and local levels)?

Safety integration planning: LONG- AND SHORT-RANGE PLANS, PROJECT PRIORITY PROCESS, AND INCIDENT AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

  1. To what extent is safety factored in the long-range planning process?
  2. How can long-range safety issues be addressed?
  3. What are the long-range safety issues (sidewalks, bikeways, lane/capacity, wider roads vs. parallel facilities)?
  4. How can conflict points (actual and potential) be minimized and still maintain access (frontage/access roads, shared driveways, etc.)? Can hazard analyses from previous incidents indicate patterns or problems that should be addressed in the long-range plans?
  5. To what extent has safety been factored in the project priority process?
  6. How can safety data be linked to proposed project locations for prioritization?
  7. What techniques have you found to be successful for integrating safety in the project priority process?
  8. What is the key threshold that shifts safety projects to a higher priority?
  9. When does safety become a lesser priority?
  10. How can security issues be addressed?
  11. Is there a desire to set-aside MPO funds for safety improvements?
  12. Can the transit agencies' system safety program plans be used to identify potential capital projects?
  13. When safety and security issues involve more than one mode, how are responsibilities assigned?
  14. Are there joint actions that can be taken to enhance the security of transit patrons at bus stops?
  15. In what instances does incident management supersede incident prevention or capacity improvements? (Congestion management)
  16. Do you use an advance message system to notify travelers of alternate routes?

Communication, collaboration, and public outreach

  1. How can we continue the dialogue established at this forum?
  2. What structure(s) do we need to create to ensure that we communicate regularly on safety issues?
  3. What are the best delivery mechanisms for our messages?
  4. Who among us has a well-established public information process that can be used to structure and send messages as well as for training the organizations that lack such skills?

Educating, informing, and influencing the leadership, other decision makers, and the public

  1. Who are the decision makers that we need to influence?
  2. Who has and who needs the skills to educate and inform the leadership about safety issues?
  3. How can we craft a convincing message about the benefits of SCP?
  4. How can we get the public involved and supportive of our safety planning efforts?

Breakout Group Guidelines

  1. Call the session to order as soon as practical.
  2. Begin by discussing the timeframe for the breakout group session(s). How much total time do you have? Set up a schedule for making introductions, brainstorming, action planning, and preparing for the reporting out session.
  3. Have everyone introduce themselves and the organizations they represent. You will not have much time for introductions. Have the participants give a brief statement about their interest and experience on this issue. You should speak first to demonstrate the introductory remarks that you're asking for and put the others at ease. Remember -- keep it short and simple!
  4. Assign someone the responsibility to keep notes. There are several ways to accomplish this.
    1. Recorders may be assigned prior to the event.
    2. You may ask for a volunteer from the group; however, this means one less person to participate.
    3. You may choose to document the basic points on a flip chart as you lead and listen to the discussion.
  5. Ensure that everyone understands the purpose of the forum. Ask someone from the group to articulate the purpose from his or her perspective and add to the explanation as needed. (TEA-21 implementation, safety-conscious planning, action plan, etc.)
  6. Explain the purpose and function of the breakout groups.
    1. The planning committee has identified specific subject areas for further investigation and brainstorming. The topics are:
      1. Safety definition and goal(s).
      2. Safety data systems improvements, analysis, and liability issues.
      3. Safety integration planning: long- and short-range plans, the project priority process, and incident and congestion management systems.
      4. Communication, collaboration, and public outreach.
      5. Educating, informing, and influencing the leadership, other decision-makers, and the public.
    2. Each group is charged with a number of tasks:
      1. Develop action steps for forum follow-up. (What steps should be taken to implement safety-conscious planning. Who needs to do what? Ask for specific recommendations no matter how limited they may seem, i.e., read something, call someone, meet with someone, etc.)
      2. Identify barriers and challenges. (What could prevent you from doing the things you listed as action steps?)
      3. Identify information, tools, partners, and other resource requirements. (What help do you need? Who or what organizations might be able to assist?)
  7. Introduce the subject(s) for your breakout group.
  8. Keep the conversation moving by probing for more information, asking questions, and reiterating decisions made by the group.
  9. Manage the discussion.
    1. Make sure everyone participates. ( Name, you haven't commented on this subject. Do you have thoughts that you'd like to share?)
    2. Be careful that a few participants don't dominate the discussion. ( Name, that's a good point; now let's hear what others have to say about this issue.)
  10. Watch the time and make sure you accomplish what you need to do in the time allowed.
  11. You might want to stop the brainstorming and discussion 15-20 minutes before your time is up and ask the participants to list what they would like you to present or to help you construct the basic points of your presentation. You are responsible for collecting your thoughts and being prepared to present the results of your breakout group to the entire audience. 1
  12. Please turn in your notes, flip chart sheets, and other materials to conference facilitator. Include your name or group number on all the materials.

NOTE

1. In some cases, a member of the group is selected to present the report.

Appendix D

Planning Checklist

DATE

(Referenced to the forum)

TASK/EVENT

RESPONSIBILITY

STATUS

Not started, in progress, red flag, complete

Forum -3 months

PREPARE FOR A PLANNING MEETING

Forum facilitator(s)

  

Note: These time frames are minimums, if you have more time, your planning will undoubtedly be more effective and less pressured.

Identify participants

Find a location

Issue invitations

Send information to participants

Create an agenda

Follow up to ensure participant attendance

    

Forum -2 months

HOLD PLANNING MEETING

    
 
  • Discuss SCP concept and establish a common understanding
  • Establish forum objectives and evaluation measures
  • Set a date(s)
  • Determine a list of locations for inspection
  • Identify participants
  • Create an agenda
  • Identify potential speakers, moderators, and facilitators
  • Determine contents of participant materials
  • Identify the "person in charge" if it is not already obvious
  • Assign duties and responsibilities
    

Forum -1 month, 3 weeks

FOLLOW UP THE PLANNING MEETING

    
 
  • Confirm dates
  • Confirm location; if a hotel, begin negotiations to confirm space and other agreements
  • Create and disseminate a "Save the Date" email or postcard
  • Finalize list of invitees and collect the contact information in a database
  • Begin calling and confirming the speaker, moderator, facilitator list
    

Forum -1 month, 2 weeks

 REVIEW AND FINALIZE LOCATION

 

 
 
  • Conduct a walk-through of the facility; make sure you have general meeting space, registration area, number of breakout rooms you need
  • If a hotel, sign hotel contract identifying rooms that you will use, meals, hotel assistance
  • If necessary, block hotel sleeping rooms
  • Identify audio visual equipment requirement needs and make preparations

 

  

Forum -1 month

FINALIZE AND CONFIRM COMMITMENTS

    
 
  • Confirm speakers, provide information and guidance, set a deadline for speaker slides
  • Confirm panelists and moderators, provide information and guidance
  • Confirm facilitators and set date for training
  • Confirm keynote speakers
    
 

SEND INVITATIONS

    
 

ASSIGN TASKS

    
 
  • Participant materials
  • Name tags and speaker/participant tents
  • Room identification, directional posters, and easels
  • Follow up with participants who do not respond to the invitation
  • Conference Facilitator
  • Hotel or onsite Liaison
  • Technical Director
  • Facilitator Trainer
  • Breakout Session Recorders
  • Speaker, Moderator Facilitator
  • Author for the evaluation form
  • Author for the forum report
    

Forum -1 month (cont.)

Hold a planning committee meeting to review progress and address red flags

    

Forum -2 weeks

Hold a planning committee meeting to review progress and address red flags

    

Forum -1 week

FINAL PREPARATIONS

    
 
  • Assemble all information for participant kits
  • Collect and assemble speaker's slides on a CD
  • Meet with the forum staff and brief them on the agenda, facility, speakers, participants, etc.
    

Forum Date

HOLD THE FORUM

    
 
  • Check audio visual equipment early and often
  • Check with hotel/meeting place staff to ensure all arrangements are in place
  • Greet participants and ensure their comfort
  • Collect all CDs, flip charts, evaluations, and other material for follow up
    

Forum + 3 to 4 weeks

CONDUCT FORUM FOLLOW UP

    
 
  • Revise and update the database.
  • Write, print and disseminate forum report
  • Send thank you notes to conference speakers, panelists, moderators, facilitators, and other helpers
  • Review action plan and determine next steps
    

The National Academies

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation by stimulating and conducting research, facilitating the dissemination of information, and encouraging the implementation of research results. The Board's varied activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Lorrie Lau at lorrie.lau@dot.gov.

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration