Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
Planning · Environment · Real Estate

HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts

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 21stCentury 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:

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:

Maryland Perspective

The Maryland planning meeting also articulated several objectives:

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:

"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.

  1. Review, examine and fully articulate the action steps.
  2. 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

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

Transportation Safety Planning

Maryland Forum

Appendix A

Participants

FORUM PARTICIPANTS

Last

First

Organization

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.

Updated: 10/19/2011
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000