Maryland Forum

May 15, 2001

PREFACE

"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

In 1998 Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^stCentury or TEA-21. For the first time, this legislation requires state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate safety and security as priority factors in their respective transportation planning processes and activities. Prior to TEA-21, safety was sometimes a prominent factor in project development and design, but this legislation calls for safety consciousness in a more comprehensive, system wide, multi-modal context. It implies collaboration with the highway safety and motor carrier safety communities, transit operators, local jurisdictions and others.

To initiate discussion on the TEA-21 safety-planning factor, approximately 40 interested professionals convened in Washington, DC in May 2000 to explore the independent 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 identified several issues, as well as some areas of agreement, 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 road safety community to work collaboratively by establishing common safety goals, sharing information and designing programs that compliment rather than conflict or repeat each other.
Safety integration should focus on multi-modal functions, including transit and non-motorized modes.

The Washington meeting also identified several key steps for promoting safety integration and a Steering Committee was formed to provide guidance and follow up. One of the recommended initiatives 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. Maryland was one of six states that agreed to accept the challenge.

FORUM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The National Steering Committee recognized the importance of establishing goals and objectives from both the national and state perspectives to ensure the forums produced measurable results. A planning meeting between representatives of the steering committee and the state precedes each forum to discuss goals and objectives, identify appropriate forum participants, draft an agenda and determine responsibilities for follow up.

The Maryland Transportation Safety Planning Steering Committee met on January 17, 2001 to discuss the Forum's purpose, agenda, logistics and participants. Attendees included participants from the Maryland State Highway Administration (Planning, Motor Carriers and Traffic Safety), the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), the Washington Council of Governments, the Federal Highway Administration (Planning and MD Division Offices), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Transportation Research Board.

National Perspective

The steering committee established national objectives for the forums:

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, e.g. congestion, land management and environmental protection.
Assist at all levels in meeting safety goals by providing technical expertise and information, identifying resources, etc.
Identify the institutional, resource and other barriers/hurdles 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.

Maryland Perspective

The Maryland planning meeting also articulated several objectives:

Include safety as a priority in projects, such as neighborhood enhancements.[1]
Implement a more proactive planning process.[2]
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.[3]

THE MARYLAND FORUM

Participants

The Maryland Forum was held on May 15, 2001. Approximately 60 people attended. (See Appendix A for a list of Forum participants.) A broad cross section of the transportation planning and safety communities was represented.

Agenda

The Forum began with introductions and overviews provided by leaders from the state and national transportation and planning communities (See Appendix B for a copy of the formal agenda.) The second set of presentations provided insight into the planning processes of MSHA, MPOs, transit operators and safety representatives. These presentations were followed by an analysis of the data and analytic tools that are available to assist planners. Finally, the attendees participated in a series of breakout sessions to develop an action plan and identify opportunities, challenges and resource requirements for implementing the plan.

Transportation Safety Planning Introduction and Overview

Parker Williams, Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) Administrator, introduced the workshop agenda. He emphasized MSHA's commitment to safety, discussed the TEA-21 planning requirement and expressed appreciation for the participants' time and attention to the issue.

Neil Pederson, MSHA's Deputy Administrator for Planning and Engineering, provided background on safety as a planning factor in Maryland. He noted that, while safety is addressed at the project level, it seldom receives attention during the planning process. He challenged the audience to focus on accomplishments and outcomes:

Adopt common definitions that facilitate communication.
Integrate safety factors with planning goals and performance measures.
Think "multimodal" when considering safety.[4]
Identify and share available data and analytic techniques rather than reinvent the planning tools.

"This forum is the first of its kind in MD, 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 Pederson

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.

"Safety deserves greater attention than the 'lip service' that is common today. It needs to be scientifically, seriously and significantly integrated into all transportation operations."

Jill Hochman

Jill Hochman, Director, Office of Statewide and Intermodal Planning (FHWA) and Harry Saporta, Safety Director (FTA) presented additional introductory remarks to provide focus and enhance an understanding of the safety conscious planning mission.

Ms. Hochman reviewed the accomplishments of the national forum in Washington, DC and the first state forum in Tennessee. She enumerated the goals of safety conscious planning: to reduce fatalities, injuries and crashes; to improve the safety of transit operations, highway/rail grade crossings, commercial vehicle operations, pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized vehicles, seaports, and public airport facilities; to minimize the time it takes to respond to incidents; and to implement response and evacuation plans in cooperation with emergency management agencies.

Mr. Saporta urged the audience to include transit operators early in the planning process and take advantage of the analytic strategies they use in their work for assessing the probability of potential hazards

The Planning Processes

"We use a 'fly-fix-fly' approach which means that we generally react to problems. We need to be more proactive in our thinking and planning efforts."

Harry Saporta

Dennis Simpson, (MSHA-Planning), Regina Aries (BMC), Stu Bates (MSHA-Highway Safety Office), Rey Walker (MSHA-Motor Carrier Division) and Harry Saporta (FTA-Office of Safety) introduced the participants to the planning tools, processes, partners, timelines and requirements for their respective areas. These presentations served to demonstrate the challenges, as well as the opportunities for working collaboratively.

There are a variety of funding sources available for safety planning. The timelines, criteria and requirements differ among all the sources. All planners use data for problem identification, as well as program development and prioritization; however, the specific processes are highly varied.

As previous speakers had already pointed out, safety is most often a consideration at the project level, after the longer-term comprehensive plans are completed. The challenges and opportunities were further discussed during the breakout session reports.

Data and Analysis

"Whether safety issues are identified before, during or after construction and maintenance activities, they need to be addressed by the planning processes. We ought to be designing highways that meet motorists' expectations.

Tom Hicks

Manu Shah, Rey Walker and Tom Hicks, all MSHA employees, discussed collecting, storing and analyzing data. Maryland, like most other states, collects and storesdatathat is, in all probability, adequate to support the planning processes. However, the issue is makinginformationavailable. In other words, planners need access to information, such as the intersection collision diagrams that were shown at the Forum.

For the most part, planners are unfamiliar with analytic techniques and require support from those who work in the area.

Breakout Groups: Addressing the Issues

To ensure that the Forum focused on Maryland's specific issues and produced results, the planning committee identified five issues and assigned each to a breakout group. The charge was to develop action plans for addressing each of the issues. The process involved articulating specific action steps, identifying existing opportunities, defining the barriers and challenges that must be overcome to make progress and cataloguing the human, technical and financial resources required to achieve success. (See Appendix C for a complete listing of the breakout group reports.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

Maryland's leadership is committed to continue the safety integration process in Maryland. The next steps may appear obvious, but consideration should be given to the following initiatives.

Review, examine and fully articulate the action steps.
Categorize the action steps:
1. Plans and processes currently in place to address the issues.
2. Those that need to be developed.

"For next steps, we need to identify our data needs for safety conscious planning, integrate safety planning into long-range planning processes and move toward safety integration in management and operations."

Regina Aries

Prioritize the action steps.
Assign responsibilities.
Create milestones or expectations for delivery.
Develop performance measures for ongoing review and progress reports.
Develop performance measures for ongoing review and progress reports.

Transportation Safety Planning

Maryland Forum

Appendix A

Participants

Last	First	Organization
FORUM PARTICIPANTS
Andrews	Meg	Maryland Department of Transportation
Aris	Regina	Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Baker	Beth	U.S. Department of Transportation
Balsoma	Dominic	Maryland State Police
Bates	Stuart	Maryland State Highway Administration
Bridges	Bernadette	Maryland Transit Administration
Burton Ways	Sherry	US Department of Transportation
Chiarella	Don	Maryland State Highway Administration
Cunningham	Bob	Maryland State Highway Administration
Deitz	Mary	Maryland State Highway Administration
Eccles	Kim	BMI
Farkas	Z. Andrew	Morgan State University
Fazio	Jeannie	Maryland Department of Transportation
Herbel	Susan	Transportation Research Board
Hersey	Ann	Federal Highway Administration
Hicks	Thomas	Maryland State Highway Administration
Hill	Marlyn	State Highway Administration
Hochman	Jill	Federal Highway Administration
Hoffman	Kathy	Federal Highway Administration
Hoffman	Michelle	Maryland Department of Transportation
Holland	Christopher	Maryland Transit Administration Police
Jackson	Michael	Maryland Department of Transportation
Jones	Jocelyn	Baltimore Metropolitan Council
Keeley	Mark	Harford County Department of Planning & Zoning
Keller	Mary	Maryland State Highway Administration
Ketenheim	Bob	US Department of Transportation Eastern Service Center
Kocy	Joseph	Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning
Kumm	Karen	Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Lake	Jamie	Maryland State Highway Administration
Larsen,	Dean	Federal Highway Administration
Lipps	Ron	Maryland State Highway Administration
Miller	Gerald	Washington Council of Governments Department of Transportation Planning
Mirack	Frank	Federal Highway Administration
Mowry	Robert	Maryland Transit Administration
Nelson	Donna	University of Maryland Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Olan	Kenneth	Maryland State Police
Pain	Rick	Transportation Research Board
Parrott	Neil	Maryland State Highway Administration
Pedersen	Neil J.	Maryland State Highway Administration
Petzold	Roger	Federal Highway Administration
Price	Jeff	Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission
Rapley	Steve	Federal Highway Administration
Ratcliff	Diane	Maryland Transit Administration Office of Planning and Programming
Ricchiuti	Tony	Montgomery County Dept. of Public Works and Transportation
Rockel	Hank	U.S. Department of Transportation
Saporta	Harry	Federal Transit Administration
Scott	Andy	Maryland Department of Transportation
Shah	Manu	Maryland State Highway Administration
Sharp	John	Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Simmons	Douglas H.	Maryland State Highway Administration
Simpson	Dennis N.	Maryland State Highway Administration
Smith	Walter	Maryland State Police
Spalding	Ron	Maryland Department of Transportation
Tabacek	Eric	Maryland State Highway Administration
Vecera	Richard	Maryland State Police
Walker	Rey	Maryland State Highway Administration
Wiles	Darrell	Baltimore County Department of Public Works
Williams	Parker F.	Maryland State Highway Administration
Woodward	Tom	Maryland State Police
Zaied	Khalil

Transportation Safety Planning

Maryland Forum

Appendix B

Agenda

May 15, 2001

Hunt Valley Marriott

I.	8:00-8:50	Registration and Continental Breakfast
II.	8:50-9:00	Introduction - Parker F. Williams, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA)
III.	9:00-9:45	Forum Purpose and Overview a. Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Administrator for Planning and Engineering, MSHA b. Jill Hochman, Director, Office of Intermodal and Statewide Programs, FHWA and Harry Saporta, Director, Office of Safety, FTA
IV.	9:45-10:15	Overview of the Planning Process a. Major Planning Studies - Dennis Simpson, Chief, Regional and Intermodal Planning Division, MSHA b. Metropolitan Planning Organization - Regina Aris, Manager, Planning & Policy Development, Baltimore Metropolitan Council
V	10:15-10:30	Break
VI.	10:30-11:15	Overview of the Planning Process (continued) c. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - 402 Program Stu Bates, Chief, Maryland Highway Safety Office, MSHA d. Motor Carrier Safety Grant Program - Rey Walker, Special Project Manager, Motor Carrier Division, MSHA e. Transit Operator Safety - Harry Saporta, Director, Office of Safety, FTA
VII.	11:15-12:00	Maryland Safety Data Overview a. Collection and Storage/Analysis of Maryland's Highway Safety Programs - Manu Shah, Chief, Traffic Safety Analysis Division, MSHA b. Commercial Vehicle Issues - Rey Walker, Special Project Manager, Motor Carrier Division, MSHA c. Highway Safety Programs - Tom Hicks, Director, Office of Traffic and Safety, MSHA
VIII.	12:00-2:45	Breakout Groups/Work Lunch a. Responsibilities i. Develop action steps for Forum follow up ii. Identify barriers and challenges iii. Identify resource requirements b. Group Facilitators i. Group I: Dennis Simpson, Chief, Regional and Intermodal Planning Division, MSHA/Rick Pain, TRB Process for establishing safety goals ii. Group II: Bob Ketenheim, FMCSA/Diane Ratcliff, MTA Integrating pedestrian, bicycle, motor carrier and other issues areas into the planning process. iii. Group III: Roger Petzold, FHWA/Mary Keller, MSHA Public Outreach - involving the general public(s) in decisions and promoting information sharing. iv. Group IV: Beth Baker, NHTSA/Doug Simmons, MSHA Data - sources, sharing, analysis, liability issues v. Group V: Jocelyn Jones (BMC)/Michelle Hoffman (MDOT) Planning and Funding Process - sources of funding, decision-makers on safety projects, establishing proactive processes for safety integration.
IX.	2:45-3:00	Break
X.	3:00-4:00	Reports and Recommendations from the Breakout Groups
XI.	4:00-4:30	Determining Leadership, Follow Up and Other Actions
	4:30	Adjourn

Transportation Safety Planning

Maryland Forum

Appendix C

Breakout Group Reports

Group I: Develop a process for establishing safety goals Facilitators: Dennis Simpson (MSHA) and Rick Pain (TRB)
Action Steps	Opportunities	Challenges	Resource Requirements[5]
Establish a list of high accident locations.	-Use technology to get data in a more timely fashion - Web access -Garner political support	-Consistency in accident reporting across jurisdictions -Lack of traffic data on local streets -Lack of clearly defined responsibilities and goals among agencies	-Existing budget: public affairs takes lead; planning and traffic interpret
Link strategic highway safety plan with MPO and statewide planning processes.	-Educate local planners -Broaden the plan to include all modes	-How to broaden plan to include all modes
Consider accident potential and user expectancy for all new and rehab transp. projects			-National research
Develop and implement a user survey on safety.	-Use MSHA web link		-Planning, traffic and districts to analyze results
Access more effective land use forecasts.		-Inconsistent growth forecasts -Local government responsibility
Achieve statewide cooperation/buy-in.			-Cross functional/ multimodal team to follow up on action plan.
Analyze the interaction of accident/incident data between and among modes.			-Meeting: MTA and TRCC to determine feasibility and benefits.
Inventory safety goals across modes and develop common safety performance measures/goals across modes.	-Incorporate into MTP performance measures.		-MTP/PM Team
Generate local awareness, understanding and support for goals.	-Incorporate into MTP public involvement. -Incorporate into MTA customer safety information campaign.	-Information delivery mechanisms
Identify local information needs.	-Safety brochure to be produced by OOTS
Include safety in CTP Tour.		-Obtain buy-in from administration and the Secretary.
Incorporate "Thinking Beyond the Pavement" concepts in planning process.			-Follow up with Chief Engineer's Office
Ensure relevant areas of agencies are included in planning efforts.		-Getting agencies from all areas to participate.

Group II: Integrate pedestrian, bicycle, motor carrier and other issue areas into the planning process. Facilitators: Diane Ratcliff (MTA) and Bob Ketenheim (FMCSA)
Action Steps		Opportunities
Develop and implement cross training for community and land use planners, traffic engineers, judges, bike/ped planners, enforcement, operations and transit.		-Tap into available resources -Public school curriculum infusion -Community support -Interest group support. -Judicial outreach program
Reexamine and identify roadway classifications for mixed-use, e.g. thru movements at slow speed.
Assign a high priority to the integration of bike/ped, bus routes and stops and ADA planning.			-Lip service without commitment and follow through -Breaking the status quo
Increase enforcement of traffic laws.	-Partnership with the enforcement community -Safety for bike/ped users.		-Inadequate resources
Raise public awareness
Educate pedestrians and bicyclists.
Identify alternative road strategies for dealing with trucks and educate on safe driving practices around large displacement vehicles.

Group III: Involve the general public(s) in decisions and promote information sharing. Facilitators: Mary Keller (MSHA) and Roger Petzold (FHWA)
Action Steps	Opportunities	Challenges	Resource Requirements
Identify target groups for outreach according to their safety issues and interests. Include a group of public officials.[6]		-Different perceptions and expectations of groups on safety issues -Different communications styles and methods. -Keeping a group involved over time.	-Accident analysis to identify target groups. -Resources produced with marketing expertise for outreach
Provide youth education through the public schools.	-Curriculum infusion, e.g. accident analysis examples in math classes - Private sector, e.g., fast food restaurants	-Time constraints -Focus on standardized tests	-PTA involvement -Free safety programs - handouts, local traffic engineers and police
Solicit public feedback on perceived safety problems.[7]	-Increase the accuracy of the public's perception on safety issues	-Getting representative feedback -Identifying the most appropriate people to talk to	-Problem analysis, identification -Market research -Deliver mechanisms - hot line, email, web site, phone book
Acquire access to safety data and information.	-Information available from many sources	-Liability issues -Determining appropriate formats -Getting data and information	-New MARRs manual, computer friendly data and training -Data standards/quality control -Access to computer networks for information -Training on computer analysis -Training on new technology

Group IV: Identify and articulate data issues - sources, sharing, analysis, and liability. Facilitators: Doug Simmons (MSHA) and Beth Baker (NHTSA)
Action Steps	Opportunities	Challenges	Resource Requirements
Retool and automate the crash files (MARRS) and reporting system.	Traffic Records Coordinating Committee	-Data quality: limited oversight and review -Limited training and no in-service training for law enforcement on accident reporting. -Reporting thresholds	-Funding -Agency cooperation -Leadership
Standardize data reporting and provide access to data and information to local jurisdictions and MPOs.			-Review practice in other State DOTs to learn how they report and share data and information. -Interview planners to determine their data needs.
Review liability issues and develop a plan for data sharing with state and local agencies.		-Current policies (MSP and the Attorney General)	-Determine the basis for restrictions on data sharing. -Canvas other states to learn how they handle liability issues.
Conduct a comprehensive review of accident and exposure data with respect to pedestrians and bicyclists and develop a 3E program for ped/bike safety.		-Requires a collaborative relationship among state agencies: MSHA, MSP, MBPAC	-Analysis -Research -Funding

Group V: Investigate the planning and funding processes - sources of funding, decision-makers on safety projects - and establish a proactive process for safety integration. Facilitators: Jocelyn Jones (BMC) and Michelle Hoffman (MDOT)
Action Steps	Opportunities	Challenges	Resource Requirements
Create a regional/state interagency group on safety.	-Tie in with modal planning directors and MPO groups	-Funding -Priorities -Turf -Time	-Commitment -Money
Design and train for safety and enforcement integration in the early planning stages.	T²Center (Univ. of MD) -UTC (Morgan State) -Project planning manual (in development) -Traffic engineering safety training (OOTS) -Technology for automated enforcement	-Time for training -Employee turnover -Funding -Laymen/technical communications barriers -Enforcement is external to DPW/DOT entities	-Curriculum development -Pilot testing -Dissemination
Create early and continuous cross functional education opportunities: safety planning and design.	-TES training (SHA - OOTS)	-Lack of common definitions	-Curriculum development -Pilot testing -Dissemination
Create higher standards for the traveling public including bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers.	-Insurance industry -Employers (NETS)	-Cost -Administration/logistics -Public acceptance	-Research -Leadership
Create a diverse safety stakeholder checklist for planning projects.	-Efficient in terms of time and money for the long term -Creates early consensus and support	-Definition of "Safety Stakeholders" -Entity to create and maintain (TRB or IAR group)	-Funding for police agencies to coordinate education and engineering training and initiatives -Funding for safety awareness education.
Include safety considerations in alternatives analysis.	-Adequate data available -Analytic tools and models available (TSIMS)	-Difficult to quantify -Funding
Use capital project funds for smaller safety retrofit aspects.		-Increases overhead -Federal match is different -Design exceptions

[1]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.

[2]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.

[3]Data sharing is an issue in Maryland. The liability issues need to be examined and resolved before the local governments and MPOs can address safety in an effective fashion.

[4]As Neil Pederson suggested, perhaps Maryland should consider developing a transportation safety management system.

[5]Other than areas where research is needed, most of the action steps can be supported by existing budgets; however, most will also require staff time so they must be given priority status.

[6]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.

[7]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.