• Forums
• Resources
• Related Links
• Working Group
• Newsletter

FHWA → Planning → Transportation Safety Planning → Forums

Michigan Forum

September 10, 2001

PREFACE

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 experienced 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 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 complementary programs.
• 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. Michigan was one of six states that agreed to accept the challenge.

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.

National Perspective

The Steering Committee established national objectives for the forums:

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

Michigan Perspective

The planning meeting for the Michigan Forum took place on December 15, 2000. Attendees included participants from the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT - Planning and Safety), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA -national and division offices) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Subsequent to the initial planning meeting, a second meeting was held to finalize arrangements in June 2001.

Objectives

1. Identify "first steps" in bringing together Michigan's safety partners to discuss and educate one another on safety integration challenges and benefits.
2. Facilitate a statewide safety systems structure ^[1] by building on the existing Safety Management System. The SMS is a DOT/OHSP partnership and consists of 13 action teams established by subject matter, e.g. impaired driving, occupant protection, engineering, traffic records, etc. The Chairs of each of the 13 teams form the Steering Committee whose purpose is to plan and conduct the annual MI Safety Summit.
3. Identify safety problems and conduct in-depth analyses.

Expectations

1. Integrate and make progress on the MI goals.
2. Accomplish the goals by involving key players in the decision-making structure and process.
3. Continue to build a safety management system for the State.

THE MICHIGAN FORUM

Participants ^[2]

The Michigan Safety in Planning Forum was held on September 10, 2001 with nearly 100 participants.

Agenda ^[3]

Welcome and Introductions

Betty Mercer, Director, OHSP, welcomed the participants to the Michigan Forum, recognized and thanked the forum planning group and introduced Michael Robinson, Colonel, Michigan Department of State Police and Greg Rosine, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation. She informed the audience that this meeting would be devoted to a new way of thinking and working and that the information presented would transcend their normal daily activities. She encouraged them to actively participate and emerge from the process with a higher-level vision.

State Perspective

Col. Robinson focused his remarks on partnerships and communication as the keys to safety improvements. In Michigan, law enforcement is encouraged and rewarded for working cooperatively with the public health, education and transportation communities as well as many others. Robinson said that increased belt use, reduced impaired driving and other initiatives could only be accomplished through partnerships and increased communication. He acknowledged that it won't be easy and said it takes a sincere commitment to establish and nourish new relationships.

He announced that his agency has encouraged the Governor to combine the State Safety Committee and the Safety Management System and to form a virtual partnership through the Internet. This initiative should support information sharing and give all entities a voice. In his view, the MI Safety in Planning Forum has great potential for furthering those goals. ^[4]

Director Rosine praised the Forum for bringing MDOT and the safety community together for the first time. He informed the audience that his agency is conducting public meetings throughout the State to update the State Long Range Plan (SLRP) and to develop a safety goal.

He reviewed a survey conducted by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and said the survey shows that the public places a priority on traffic flow and safety, which are closely interrelated. He compared safety planning to the marketplace. The auto industry has learned that the public wants safe vehicles and they are responding to the demand. The transportation and safety planning communities must respond as well. Rosine held out hope that the Forum would produce information to further grow and support the partnerships reflected in the audience.

Federal Perspective

Roger Petzold, FHWA emphasized that the TEA 21 safety planning factor is due to the size of the traffic safety problem: more than 41,000 fatalities and in excess of 400,000 people hospitalized each year. He noted that it is a major public health problem and the economic costs are enormous. Progress can be stimulated if common issues are addressed. For example, the traditional planning process needs to address safety beyond the project and individual facilities level and, second, education and enforcement efforts can be incorporated and coordinated in the DOT and MPO planning processes.

Petzold reviewed the TEA-21 planning requirement and history of the state forum process. The state forums are producing a set of common issues and challenges that inhibit safety integration efforts. They focus on data, leadership, knowledge, expertise, tools, resources and politics. There are a number of potential roles for planning agencies, but at the same time, there are several important questions to answer and challenges to overcome.

Planning Agency Roles

• Provide a forum for safety with state/local jurisdictions.
• Establish safety goals and performance criteria.
• Collect, integrate and analyze data.
• Provide information to leaders on the safety effects of plans and projects.

Challenges

• Review current processes. Who's doing what?
• Define action steps. What do we need to do?
• Identify challenges, opportunities and resource requirements. What would prevent us from doing it? What do we have to gain? What do we need to do it?
• Define next steps. Who's going to make the first call?

Feedback

The Michigan Forum introduced a unique feature to the forum process, "Interactive Sessions". ^[5] Using radio transmitters intermittently during the forum, Renee Farnum, MDOT, led the group through a series of questions to which the participants electronically submitted answers. The idea is to involve the audience and solicit continuous feedback on the proceedings. In a matter of seconds, the data are aggregated and displayed on the screen for instant analysis. The first interactive block was used to familiarize the participants with the tool and gather general data about the audience. The participants included:

• State Government - 37 percent
• Local Government - 29 percent
• Other - primarily from the private sector, universities and the federal government.

The participants were about evenly divided between those whose primary interests were either the roadway infrastructure or driver behavior characteristics and countermeasures. About 50 percent reported that their agencies place a high level of importance on safety planning and about the same proportion believe that safety should be given a higher priority status.

Other interactive sessions were used to prioritize issues and gather additional information on participant characteristics as reported later in the document. ^[6]

Statewide Planning Processes

The second substantive set of presentations focused on statewide planning processes. It began with the Oregon perspective, a state known for pioneering safety integration activities.

Oregon Planning Perspective

Dick Reynolds, OR Senior Transportation Planner, said the primary challenge is to bring professionals in the construction and behavior modification arenas together on the same page.

Key Elements: Oregon (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Oregon Transportation Planning Process

In Oregon, as in virtually all other states, the two subject matter areas are normally viewed as separate entities. Their integration is key to improving road safety.

1. All local entities are required by state law to develop long-range system improvement plans. In most other states, only the MPOs must meet this requirement. The state plans at the corridor level and the locals plan at both the system and the facilities level.
2. As in other states, the DOT is required to develop long-range (20-year) and short-term (TIP) plans. However, each of the modes is also required to produce these plans including the transportation safety division.
3. Traditional safety programs focused on behavior modification are included in both the long-range and short-term plans.

Implementation of the Oregon Transportation Plan incorporates safety in a number of ways:

• Endorsing safety in its long-range vision
• Establishing a statewide transportation safety policy
• Developing a transportation safety action plan
• Improving enforcement of safety laws.
• Providing education and training programs for system users.
• Improving delivery of emergency medical services.
• Increasing interagency cooperation.
• Improving safety data collection.
• Reducing the number of impaired operators.
• Building, operating and regulating the system to be safe for all users.

Oregon uses statewide accident data to develop a Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) and identify priorities. However, the state also uses public perceptions and comments about safety concerns. The data systems are developed and coordinated through a Safety Management System. These data are displayed in maps for identifying problems and educating the public. Sometimes the skid marks on the highway tell you more than the accident data. Public perception and satisfaction is what the system's all about. Dick Reynolds

But, the maps are simply a first step. Once problem areas are identified, a range of alternative solutions is discussed. They try to answer the question: "What's going on here?" Oregon takes citizen input seriously. They want to know what the public's fears are. The planners look for opportunities during the traditional planning process, such as when they are identifying existing conditions, determining travel demand, identifying specific system needs and developing and evaluating alternative solutions. Reynolds admitted that Oregon has not solved all the planning challenges. "It is very difficult to get people to think and talk about the future. We still need to build bridges especially between the safety programming and facilities planning functions. Also, the safety plan needs to address issues other than just the behaviorally oriented programs."

Recommendations

Reynolds provided advice to the Michigan audience and the planning process in general:

• Provide opportunities in university curriculums for planners and engineers to work together on problem identification and solution development.
• Build teams among planners, engineers and safety professionals.
• Make sure safety experts are included at the beginning of the long-range plan development process.
• Include planners in the development of design manuals.
• Provide motivation to engineers for working with planners by enumerating the benefits rather than just focusing on the regulations.

Feedback

Feedback from the interactive monitoring equipment showed that almost 80 percent of the participants felt that the Oregon experience provides opportunities for Michigan's planning initiatives. More than 90 percent supported investigating the possibility of integrating its safety planning process as has been done in Oregon.

Michigan Planning Process

Susan Mortel, Director of Planning and Program Operations, MDOT and Betty Mercer, Director of the Office of Highway Safety Planning, MI State Police provided an overview of safety planning and programming within the State. As Figure 2 shows, MDOT is responsible for the development and implementation of several plans.

The SLRP covers a 20-year horizon, first required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA), the precursor to TEA-21. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the shorter-term plan required by the same legislation. The Regional Planning Agencies under contract to MDOT are responsible for generating public involvement, collecting data and overseeing transportation planning in the rural areas. ^[7] The Five Year Program and

Figure 2: Michigan Transportation Plans

Annual Construction Program are Michigan specific business plans that guide the Department's activities. These are the "policy" documents and individual projects are fit within that framework. Their importance is sometimes not fully understood by citizens and opinion leaders in terms of how their local priority projects become a part of the statewide plan. There are a variety of opportunities for the public to have input to the development of these plans but stimulating their interest and involvement has been difficult.

The current process for updating the SLRP is as follows:

1. Develop draft goals and objectives.
2. Identify issues.
3. Present the results to the Transportation Commission.
4. Generate public involvement.
5. Prepare a draft plan.
6. Present the plan to the Commission.
7. Incorporate their revisions and finalize the plan.
8. Develop the regional elements.

The final task has recently been added to the list. It will focus additional attention on implementation planning.

To save lives and reduce injuries on Michigan roads through leadership, innovation, facilitation and program support in partnership with other public and private organizations. OSHP Mission

Goals and Objectives MDOT's stated safety goal is to, "Promote the safety and security of the transportation system for users, passengers, pedestrians, motorized and non-motorized vehicles." The MPO plans contain goals that are consistent with the MDOT goal. Furthermore, the OHSP mission statement is remarkably consistent in tone. It appears obvious that the various entities in Michigan are committed to building and sustaining a safe roadway environment. The remaining tasks are to continue building and sustaining the requisite partnerships, generate political, public and funding support and implement the many programs that will improve safe transportation for all citizens.

The SLRP provides a potential starting point by listing a number of safety objectives.

• Reduce the rate and severity of crashes.
• Educate and provide information to the public.
• Improve the safety of different traffic using the same network, such as cars and trucks.
• Improve flow where networks intersect such as locations where pedestrians, bicyclists and cars share the same roadways.
• Use sound engineering practices.
• Promote high professional standards.
• Improve public and private transit system safety, e.g., transit, inter-city buses and trains.
• Address the needs of aging drivers, pedestrians and the visually/hearing/physically impaired.
• Consider the safety of community residents in all planning operations.

There is no disagreement among the agencies responsible for safe roads. However, the programs and implementation approaches differ. MDOT's safety investment approach focuses on:

• Safety improvements especially at high crash locations.
• Signs, signals and pavement markings.
• Guardrails and lighting.
• Safety integration in preservation projects.
• The Transportation Management System (TMS) that gathers data on crashes and road features for analysis.
• Local grade crossings to promote rail safety.

OHSP's responsibility, on the other hand, is focused primarily on programs to improve safe driving, walking, biking, and etc. In other words, activities center on human behavior rather than infrastructure. Integrating the responsibilities into a single system or approach has been planned, and the implementation stages are in process.

Safety Integration

In Michigan, we don't have to struggle to gain support for safety. Everyone's message is consistent. Susan Mortel MDOT

Integration activities must address location, programs and geography. There are real differences in the definition of safety depending on whether the subject is state or local, rural or urban and behavioral or capital improvement programs. Bringing the elements together in a comprehensive fashion requires excellent communication and organization skills, reliable information, an efficient system for collecting and analyzing data, clear lines of responsibility and authority and a set of common priorities. The State's officials speak in unity about safety at the goal and mission level. The challenge is developing measurable objectives that all agree to support and achieve.

Structure

There are currently two partnerships with statewide safety responsibility. One is the Michigan State Safety Commission (MSSC), which was statutorily created in 1941. Its role is formally prescribed and voting is limited to a set of identified state agencies. ^[8] The other structure is the Michigan Traffic Safety Management System (MTSMS), which was mandated by ISTEA. Although the mandate is no longer in effect, MI has chosen to continue facilitating the organization because it is a successful partnership approach for encouraging collaboration and coordination. The MTSMS is co-chaired by OHSP and MDOT.

Our ultimate goal is to create a state safety plan that incorporates everything. We have a long list to accomplish, and we will succeed with effective communication, collaboration and coordination among all our partners. Betty Mercer OHSP

Statement of Purpose: Provide leadership in the identification of state and local traffic safety issues and to recommend and promote strategies to address them. Governor's Traffic Safety Advisory Commission

The two structures create confusion and some duplication of effort. The lack of coordination also leaves some unfilled gaps in the decision making process. The MSSC Steering Committee has recommended to the Governor that the two entities be combined to provide a more dynamic mechanism for full participation at the state and local level. The new structure will be named the Governor's Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC). Other state agencies and local representatives, many of which are already active in the MTSMS, will join the original six agencies. MTSMS will perform as the Advisory Group. The

organizational structure will consist of four standing committees: legislative, elderly mobility, traffic records and Traffic Safety Summit agenda. The Chair of the group will rotate annually.

Activities

The GTSAC will be assigned a number of activities with the long-term objective being to develop a state traffic safety plan incorporating all elements from all stakeholders. The immediate action steps include:

• Coordinate traffic safety programs.
• Manage and share traffic information (data) systems.
• Identify and promote best practices and innovation.
• Support evaluation of the new structure and its programs.
• Conduct recognition programs for safety achievements.
• Influence direction of grants and program expenditures especially those administered by OHSP.

Communication

A major effort of the new structure will focus on effective two-way communication.

Meetings:The group will meet on the third Friday of every month at least for the present

OHSP Website:Michigan's traffic safety stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input and comment on the agenda for the annual Traffic Safety Summit via the OHSP website. ^[9]

Internet:A "virtual organization" to solicit and collect input, survey the membership and issue invitations to meetings and other event will be supported by a listserve on the Internet.

Recommendations and Next Steps

Both Mortel and Mercer suggested "next steps" and activities to help the forum participants become immediately involved and connected to the safety community.

MDOT:

• Incorporate behavioral objectives into the SLRP.
• Conduct pilot programs to help local planners develop evaluation tools and methods.
• Consider safety as a local investment category to give safety projects a higher priority in the planning process.

GTSAC

• Identify "crosswalks" between behavioral and capital investments and develop strategies for joining the two.
• Conduct research and outreach to identify and implement "state of the practice."

Forum Participants and Other Stakeholders

• Sign up for the listserve.
• Attend meetings.
• Participate in surveys.
• Volunteer for committees.
• Attend the annual Traffic Safety Summit. ^[10]

Feedback

Several questions were posed concerning the planning process. The forum was focused most specifically on the state and local (MPO) planning processes; therefore, those results are presented in Table 1. The participants were asked about both their current use of safety planning initiatives, as well as their future intentions following the forum.

The audience was also asked to reflect on the challenges they face in achieving safety integration in their planning processes. They were given a list of challenges and asked to vote on the strength of each. The results are portrayed in Table 2. The challenges were listed as follows:

1. Politics
2. Financial
3. Access to information
4. Communication
5. Unclear lines of responsibility
6. Management priority within the agency
7. Differing priorities between agencies
8. Other

Table 1: Use of Safety Initiatives in Planning at the State and Local Level

Safety Initiative	Current Use				Future Intentions [11]
	State		Local		State		Local
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Data Collection	25%	3	19	4	27	1	8	0
Data Analysis	22	5	17	4	27	2	19	2
Safety Plan Development	23	5	10	12	25	2	17	4
Education	26	3	11	11	27	1	15	6
Research	22	6	11	11	26	3	13	8
Investment in Safety Projects	25	4	14	8	23	5	16	5
Coordination with Traffic Safety Partners [12]	28	2	20	3	26	3	20	1
Long Range Safety Planning	20	10	7	16	NA	NA	NA	NA
Participation in SLRP Development	5	24	10	13	NA	NA	NA	NA
Participation MPO Long Range Plan Dev.	3	18	15	8	NA	NA	NA	NA
Participation in the MTSMS	25	10	10	14	NA	NA	NA	NA

 

Table 2: Challenges to Safety Integration by Organization

Organizations	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
County Government	1	5				1	1
Metropolitan Planning Org.		3	2		3	1	3	1
State Government	3	1	1	2	4	11	6	1
Private Sector	3	2	1				1
University					2
Other	1	3					6	1
Total	8	14	4	2	9	13	17	3
Percent	11	20	6	3	13	19	24	4

Problem Identification

After providing the audience with a thorough understanding of the structure and process associated with safety planning in the State, the agenda turned to an analysis of the specific problems on Michigan's roads. The structure for the presentation was the AASHTO Strategic Plan, which lists 22 issues for improving safety. Fritz Streff, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, presented state data on 10 of the 22 issues. ^[13] He demonstrated the size of the problems and discussed AASHTO's proposed strategies for addressing the issues.

The presentation focused on a number of traffic safety initiatives. ^[14]

Feedback

Table 3: Priority Traffic Safety Issues

Traffic Safety Issue	Highest Priority		Lowest Priority
	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
1. Aggressive Driving	20	28	3	5
2. Impaired Driving	11	15	0	0
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motorcycles	3	4	13	24
4. Safety Belts	16	22	3	5
5. Truck Travel	2	3	6	11
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway	1	2	11	20
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road	1	2	16	30
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections	16	22	2	3
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes	1	2	3	5
10. Designing Safer Work Zones	0	0	0	0

The audience was asked to prioritize the safety issues by identifying the areas that should receive both the highest and the lowest priority from their individual perspectives. The results are provided in Table 3. As stated previously in this document, about half the participants were professionally involved with the infrastructure and the other half on driver behavior.

Group Activity

After informing the audience to the extent possible in the time allowed, the planning committee decided to form several discussion groups to discuss theopportunitiesthe participants had identified during the presentations; to develop a list ofaction stepsthey would take to better integrate safety into their planning processes; and to enumerate the human, technical and financialresourcesthey need to implement the actions. The group brainstorming activity lasted approximately 45 minutes and was followed by several participants who volunteered to report their group's results to the entire audience.

Data Improvements

As has been the case in virtually all the state forums, data issues loomed large during the discussion. A repeated action step from the small group discussions was to improve the process of developing, collecting, storing, analyzing and communicating data and information. Some of the specific suggestions were as follows:

• Provide traffic crash data information to the MPOs and other planning jurisdictions.
• Include crash data as a factor when considering capital improvement projects.
• Expand the collection of data on non-state roads.
• Allow broad access of data to safety partners.
• Useconsistentdata and information to formulate safety strategies, develop projects and programs and evaluate results.
• Develop and implement training programs on safety data: collection, analyses and dissemination.

Planning

Several suggestions were made to improve safety integration in the planning processes.

• Standardize a safety planning process (calendar) through the MTSMS.
• Identify high crash locations, bring stakeholders together to develop appropriate solutions and prioritize planning and projects at those locations.
• Utilize data, information and evaluation to elevate the priority level of safety improvements in the planning process as well as the project design stage whether it be for preservation, maintenance or new construction.
• Integrate non-motorized mobility options into all planning and implementation processes.
• Bring safety issues from the program level to the project level.
• Assist MPOs in becoming involved in broad-based safety issues, such as the mature driver issue.
• Identify and incorporate mobility improvement techniques that may also affect safety in a positive fashion, e.g., roundabouts, "skinny streets," access control strategies and traffic calming measures.
• Incorporate safety as a priority factor in all maintenance projects, i.e., look at alternative strategies and evaluate them according to the safety factor.
• Focus more effort on crash prevention strategies.

Leadership

Most discussion groups agreed that political and other leaders would have to be recruited, informed and motivated to not only support but also champion safety integration.

• Develop a common safety goal for the State.
• Educate elected officials on safety issues.
• Garner the support and sponsorship of individuals who are the centers of influence for traffic safety initiatives at the county level.
• Generate a way for the leadership of all safety-related agencies and groups to publicly announce their support for safety.

Partnerships

Partnerships were a common theme throughout the forum. The small groups discussed methods for improving and expanding the State's safety partners.

• Address safety as an integral part of the transportation process rather than as a separate issue.
• Start a dialog between safety planners and engineers.
• Motivate the MPOs to work more closely with law enforcement and the trucking industry.
• Include MPOs in the behavior oriented safety programs, e.g., Tie One On, Click It or Ticket, etc.
• Expand partnerships and networking with other state agencies and the auto industry.
• Approach planning at the local level through a partnership including at least MDOT, the County Road Commission, the MPOs, law enforcement and the safe communities groups.
• Build a clearinghouse at the county level to coordinate safety issues and partners.
• Integrate MDOT personnel, transportation planners and safety engineers into the safe communities coalitions.

Communication

More and better information is a broader issue than simply data sharing. Pockets of expertise exist that are not available to all. The public must be educated and made aware of traffic safety as a serious public health issue and enlisted as foot soldiers on the road to improvement.

• Educate the public on safety issues, such as driver safety problems and information.
• Increase communication with the villages and townships to understand their needs.
• Educate all partners on the transportation and safety planning processes.
• Provide opportunities for education and cross training, such as the safety in planning forum.
• Establish a clearinghouse for access to safety expertise and communicate its existence to the safety community.

Resource Requirements

Resource limitations are always an issue, but most partners agreed that with good information and a sound process for setting priorities, resources would not necessarily hinder opportunities to improve safety. Additional resources will be required to accomplish all that needs to be done.

• Political and organizational will and influence
• Funding - increased as well as alternative sources
• Data and information
• Research and technical expertise
• Evaluation to show what works and help prioritize programs and projects
• A tool to evaluate the cost/benefit return on safety improvements
• Greater human, technical and financial resources devoted to increasing public awareness of safety integration processes and potential benefits
• A spirit of partnership and coordination to accomplish safety goals
• Funding regulations that allow more flexibility and crossover from one source to the other

CONCLUSION

The MI Safety in Planning Forum was intended, among other things, to provide a baseline or starting point for consideration as the new transportation safety structure evolves and matures. The GTSAC will use this document and the data gathered during the forum to develop and prioritize strategies for the future.

Feedback using the electronic interactive devices was somewhat disappointing with respect to the level of enthusiasm the participants expressed about the forum and its usefulness. However, 78 percent reported they would be interested in attending future meetings on safety integration and another 17 percent reported that they "probably" would attend. This response indicates that the attendees found the forum of more value than they admitted on earlier questions.

---

Transportation Safety Planning

Michigan Forum

Appendix A

Participants

MICHIGAN SAFETY IN PLANNING FORUM

Participants List

NAME	ORGANIZATION
Scott Ambs	Region 2 Planning
Bagdade, Jeff	AAA Michigan
Bauman, Grant	St. Clair County Transportation Study
Baumann, Joe	MI Dept Community Health
Bell, Douglas	Saginaw County Metro Planning Commission
Betterly, Steve	Office of Services to the Aging
Blackmore, Terri	Urban Area Transportation Study
Bradshaw, Derek	Genesee Co. Metro Planning Commission
Bruff, Tom	SEMCOG
Bubar, Gary	AAA Michigan
Burnell, Tamiko	FHWA
Cameron, Don	FHWA
Canfield, Chad	OHSP
Cardimen, Frank	TIA of Oakland County
Carrow, Pat	OHSP
Cato, Talma	Traffic Safety Association of Michigan
Charney, Elaine	Department of State
Clery, Ann	MDOT
Couling, Lt. Tom	Charter Township of Meridian
Craft, Mark	Eaton County Road Commission
Cramer, James	FHWA
Dolan, Jamie	OHSP
Donohue, Dr. Bill	MSU
Durrenberger, Cindy	FHWA
Eliason, Pat	OHSP
Ellis, Officer Scott	Lansing Police Department
Engelberts, Paul	Northwest MI Council of Governments
Epstein, Ken	FHWA
Farnum, Kathy	OHSP
Farnum, Renee	MDOT
Fitzpatrick, Joel	East Central MI Planning/Development
Gaffney, Ed	Michigan Center for Truck Safety
Gibbons, Chief Gary	Meridian Township Public Safety
Guggemos, Sue	OHSP
Harself, Gerry	TC-TALUS
Hasenohrl, Kathi	Genesee County Health Department
Herbel, Susan	TRB
Hissong, Tina	OHSP
Hockanson, Heather	MDCH
Holt, Don	Chippewa County Road Commission
Iansiti, Mark	OHSP
Jackson, Denise	MDOT
Johnson, Lt. Eric	MSP - Traffic Services
Joseph, Susan	OHSP
Jungel, Sheriff Terry	Michigan Sheriffs' Association
Kennedy, Bill	SOS
Koenigsknecht, Sgt. Al	MSP - 5thDistrict Headquarters
Kuhn, Jane	Tuscola County Road Commission
Kunde, Kurt	MDOT - Traffic and Safety
Lantzy, Greg	MDE
Lariviere, Robert	MDOT - Metro Region
Latunski, Lonny	Shiawassee County Road Commission
McBurrows, Dal	MDOT
McGreevy, Lt. Patrick	MSP - 3rdDistrict Headquarters
McNamara, Don	NHTSA
Means, Lucinda	League of Michigan Bicyclists
Mercer, Betty	OHSP
Miller, Richard	AAA Michigan
Mitchell, Jeff	Van Buren County Road Commission
Morena, Dave	FHWA
Morrison-Harke, April	AAA Michigan
Mortel, Susan	MDOT - Planning
Nordberg, Jason	Genesee County Metro Planning Commission
O'Doherty, John	MDOT
Ort, Capt. John	MSP - Special Operations
Page, Theresa	MSP - Criminal Justice Info Center
Palombo, Carmine	SEMCOG
Pavick, Cathy	MLBA
Perukel, Dianne	OHSP
Petzold, Roger	FHWA
Powell, Jack	Shiawassee County Road Commission
Powers, Capt. Robert	MSP - Motor Carrier
Rabourn, Mack
Readett, Anne	OHSP
Reynolds, Richard	ODOT
Robinson, Col. Michael	MSP - Office of the Director
Rod, Capt. Tim	MSP - 7thDistrict Headquarters
Rosine, Greg	MDOT
Savage, Debbie	OHSP
Schoonover, Wayne	Ionia County Road Commission
Scott, Larry	MDCH/DSAQP
Sisiopiku, Dr. Virginia	MSU - Civil Engineering
Skells, Matt	TC - TALUS
Skinker, Steve	Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
Sledge, Alicia	OHSP
Smith, Donna	NHTSA
Snell, Jim	Grand Valley Metro Council
Stanley, Gary	Bay County Planning Department
Steele, James	FHWA
Streff, Dr. Fritz	UMTRI
Taylor, Sheila	Prevention Network
Tilma, Andy	BCATS
Torres, Alicia	Calhoun County Road Commission
Vaughn, David	Lapeer County Road Commission
Vartanian, Dan	OHSP
Voss, Dan	SCAO
Vriebl, Dan	Clinton County Road Commission
Wallace, David	PACC/PAAM
Ward, Beverly	Jackson TS Commission
Waddell, Ed	MDOT

---

Transportation Safety Planning

Michigan Forum

Appendix B

Agenda

MICHIGAN SAFETY IN PLANNING FORUM

Monday, September 10, 2001

Auditorium- Kellogg Center

8:30 Registration/Coffee

Moderator- Betty Mercer, Director, Office of Highway Safety Planning

9:30 Welcome Col. Michael Robinson, Director

Michigan Department of State Police

Greg Rosine, Director

Michigan Department of Transportation

10:00 Federal Perspective Roger Petzold, Team Leader

International Analysis & System Management

Office of Intermodal & Statewide Programs-FHWA

10:25 Interactive Block 1

10:30 Break

Moderator- Carmine Palombo, Director Transportation Programs, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

10:45 Oregon Planning Presentation Richard Reynolds, Senior Transportation Planner

Oregon Department of Transportation

11:30 MDOT Long Range Plan Susan Mortel, Planning & Program Operations Director

Michigan Department of Transportation

11:45 Michigan SMS Betty Mercer, Director

Office of Highway Safety Planning

12:00 Interactive Block 2

12:15 Lunch

Moderator- Susan Mortel, Planning & Program Operations Director, Michigan Department of Transportation

1:00 Data Trends Presentation Dr. Frederick Streff, Associate Research Scientist

U of M Transportation Research Institute

1:30 Interactive Block 3

1:45 Group Activity

2:30 Summary Discussion

2:45 Interactive Block 4

3:00 Q & A/Wrap-Up

---

Transportation Safety Planning
Traffic Safety
Problem Analysis

Appendix C

AASHTO Strategic Plan: Implications for Michigan
Fredrick M. Streff, Ph.D.

Appendix C is not available on this web site. For more information or to request a copy, contact Roger Petzold at roger.petzold@dot.gov or 202-366-4074.

---

Transportation Safety Planning

Interactive Session Results

Appendix D

MI Safety in Planning Forum, September 10, 2001

Question 1

Which designation best represents your agency?

Organization	Number in Attendance
City Government	1
County Government	11
Metropolitan Planning Organization	15
State Government	34
Private Sector	9
University	3
Other	16
Unknown	4
Total	93

Question 2

The primary focus of your interest in safety is:

Organization	Construction of safety projects	Influencing behavior (seatbelts, pedestrian, impaired driving, bicyclists, motorcycle, enforcement, education etc.)
City Government		1
County Government	7	4
Metropolitan Planning Organization	10	4
State Government	10	24
Private Sector	2	7
University	1	2
Other	6	10
Unknown
Total	36	52
Percent	41	59

Question 3

Indicate the level of importance your agency has historically placed on safety planning.

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
Enough	Not enough

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government			1
County Government	1	1	6	2	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	2	1	4	5	3
State Government	15	7	4	4	4
Private Sector	3	2	3		1
University				1	2
Other	6	2	2	4	2
Unknown		1
Total	32	18	23	19	14
Percent	30	17	22	18	13

Question 4

In your opinion, is this enough emphasis?

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
Enough	Not enough

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government				1
County Government	1	1	2	6	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	1	3		6	5
State Government	12	5	2	7	8
Private Sector	2	1	2	2	2
University	1			2
Other	5	2	4	3	2
Unknown					1
Total	22	12	10	27	19
Percent	24	13	11	30	22

Question 5

Based on the information presented in the Oregon presentation, do you see the opportunity for applications in Michigan?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	8	3
Metropolitan Planning Organization	8	4
State Government	25	6
Private Sector	6	2
University	2
Other	14	1
Unknown	1	1
Total	65	17
Percent	79	21

Question 6

Should our state begin to investigate the possibility of beginning to similarly integrate its safety planning process?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	9
Metropolitan Planning Organization	11	2
State Government	27	3
Private Sector	9
University	2
Other	14	1
Unknown	1	1
Total	74	7
Percent	91	9

Question 7

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Data collection?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	9
Metropolitan Planning Organization	9	4
State Government	25	3
Private Sector	3	3
University	1	1
Other	7	4
Unknown	2
Total	57	15
Percent	79	21

Question 8

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Data analysis?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government		1
County Government	6	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	11	1
State Government	22	5
Private Sector	4	1
University	2
Other	7	3
Unknown	2
Total	54	13
Percent	81	19

Question 9

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Safety plan development?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	1	7
Metropolitan Planning Organization	8	5
State Government	23	5
Private Sector	4	1
University	1	1
Other	7	4
Unknown		1
Total	45	24
Percent	65	35

Question 10

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Education?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	4	4
Metropolitan Planning Organization	6	7
State Government	26	3
Private Sector	7
University	2
Other	8	3
Unknown		1
Total	54	18
Percent	75	25

Question 11

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Research?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	4	4
Metropolitan Planning Organization	6	7
State Government	22	6
Private Sector	5	1
University	2
Other	8	6
Unknown	1
Total	49	24
Percent	67	33

Question 12

I your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Investment in safety projects?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government		1
County Government	7	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	7	6
State Government	25	4
Private Sector	4	1
University	1	1
Other	7	4
Unknown	1
Total	52	18
Percent	74	26

Question 13

Is your agency currently using the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Coordination with traffic safety partners?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	7	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	12	1
State Government	28	2
Private Sector	7
University	2
Other	9	2
Unknown	1
Total	67	7
Percent	91

Question 14

What is the extent of your current coordination with your safety partners?

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
High	Low

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government			1
County Government	2	1	3	1	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	1	4	2	5	1
State Government	7	10	8	4	1
Private Sector	5	1	1
University	1		1
Other	1	3	6	1	1
Unknown			1
Total	17	19	23	11	5
Percent	23	25	31	15	6

Question 15

Is your agency currently doing long range safety planning?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government		1
County Government	1	8
Metropolitan Planning Organization	6	7
State Government	20	10
Private Sector	3	5
University	1	1
Other	7	4
Unknown	1
Total	39	36
Percent	52	48

Question 16

Have you ever participated in the development of a State Long Range Transportation Plan (SLRP)?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government		1
County Government	2	7
Metropolitan Planning Organization	8	5
State Government	5	24
Private Sector	4	4
University		2
Other	4	8
Unknown	1
Total	24	51
Percent	32

Question 17

Have you ever participated in the development of a Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	2	7
Metropolitan Planning Organization	12	1
State Government	3	18
Private Sector	3	5
University		2
Other	5	7
Unknown
Total	26	40
Percent	39	61

Question 18

Have you ever participated in the Michigan Traffic Safety Management System?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government	1
County Government	2	7
Metropolitan Planning Organization	7	7
State Government	25	4
Private Sector	7	1
University	2
Other	6	6
Unknown
Total	47	22
Percent	68	32

Question 19

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the HIGHEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government	2	3				1	1	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	4	2	1	1	1			3
State Government	8	4	1	9				7	1
Private Sector	2		1		1			2
University				1				1
Other	4	2		5				2
Unknown
Total	20	11	3	16	2	1	1	16	1
Percent	28	15	4	22	3	2	2	22	2

Question 20

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the 2ND HIGHEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government	1	1		2			1	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	5	2		1			1	4	1
State Government	5	9	1	4	1	3	1	3	3
Private Sector	1	1		1				1	1
University	1	1
Other	3	5		1		1	1	2
Unknown
Total	16	19	1	1	1	4	4	11	5
Percent	25	30	2	2	2	6	6	18	8

Question 21

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the 3rd HIGHEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government	3	1	1			2		1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	1	4	6	1		1
State Government	5	5		7	1	2	1	5	2
Private Sector		1		2	1		1		2
University			1				1
Other	4	2		1	2	1	1	2
Unknown
Total	13	13	8	11	4	6	4	8	4
Percent	18		11	15	6	9	6	11	6

Question 22

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the LOWEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government	1		2	1		2			1
Metropolitan Planning Organization				1	1	1	5		1
State Government	2		7		3	1	8	1
Private Sector			1		1	2	2
University			1
Other			2	1	1	5	1	1	1
Unknown
Total	3		13	3	6	11	16	2	3
Percent	5		24	5	11	20	30	3	5

Question 23

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the 2ND LOWEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government			1	1	2		2	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization				1	3	1	4		3
State Government	3	1	9	1	1	3	7	2	1
Private Sector			1			1	2
University
Other				1	1	1	5		1
Unknown					2
Total	3	1	11	4	9	6	20	3	4
Percent	5	1	18	7	14	9	33	5	7

Question 24

Indicate which of the following traffic safety issues should be given the 3^rdLOWEST priority:

1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Pedestrians, Bicycles & Motorcycles
4. Safety Belts
5. Truck Travel
6. Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway
7. Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road
8. Improving the Design and Operation of Highway Intersections
9. Reducing Head-on and Across-Median Crashes
10. Designing Safer Work Zones

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
City Government
County Government		1			1	1	1		2
Metropolitan Planning Organization		1	2	1	2	4	2
State Government	4		6		6	4	5	1
Private Sector			1		2	1
University	1						1
Other			1		1	1	4		3
Unknown
Total	5	2	10	1	12	11	13	1	5
Percent	9	3	17	1	20	18	22	1	9

Question 25

As a result of today's meeting, has your awareness of how to integrate safety into the planning process increased?

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
Substantially increased	No increase

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government
County Government	1	1	2	2	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	2	2	4	4	1
State Government		2	13	10	4
Private Sector		2	1	4
University	1			1
Other		4	4	4	1
Unknown
Total	4	11	24	25	7
Percent	6	15	34	35	10

Question 26

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Data collection?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	8
Metropolitan Planning Organization	13
State Government	27	1
Private Sector	5
University	2
Other	12	1
Unknown
Total	67	2
Percent	97	3

Question 27

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Data analysis?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	6	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	13
State Government	27	2
Private Sector	5	1
University	2
Other	12	1
Unknown
Total	65	6
Percent	92	8

Question 28

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Safety plan development?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	6	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	11	2
State Government	25	2
Private Sector	4	2
University	1	1
Other	8	5
Unknown
Total	55	14
Percent	80	20

Question 29

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Education?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	5	3
Metropolitan Planning Organization	10	3
State Government	27	1
Private Sector	7
University	2
Other	12	1
Unknown
Total	63	8
Percent	89	11

Question 30

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Research?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	6	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	7	6
State Government	26	3
Private Sector	6
University	2
Other	9	4
Unknown
Total	56	15
Percent	79	21

Question 31

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Investment in safety projects?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	8
Metropolitan Planning Organization	8	5
State Government	23	5
Private Sector	4	1
University	1	1
Other	8	5
Unknown
Total	52	17
Percent	75	25

Question 32

In the future, will your agency use the following initiatives to address safety concerns: Coordination with traffic safety partners?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	8
Metropolitan Planning Organization	12	1
State Government	26	3
Private Sector	7
University	2
Other	12	1
Unknown
Total	67	5
Percent	93	7

Question 33

What is the NUMBER ONE challenge you feel will be faced by your agency to integrate safety in the planning process?

1. Politics
2. Financial
3. Access to information
4. Communication
5. Unclear lines of responsibility
6. Management Priority within your agency
7. Differing priorities between agencies
8. Other

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
City Government
County Government	1	5				1	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization		3	2		3	1	3	1
State Government	3	1	1	2	4	11	6	1
Private Sector	3	2	1				1
University					2
Other	1	3					6	1
Unknown
Total	8	14	4	2	9	13	17	3
Percent	11	20	6	3	13	19	24	4

Question 34

What is the NUMBER TWO challenge you feel will be faced by your agency to integrate safety in the planning process?

1. Politics
2. Financial
3. Access to information
4. Communication
5. Unclear lines of responsibility
6. Management Priority within your agency
7. Differing priorities between agencies
8. Other

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
City Government
County Government	2	2				2	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	2		2		3	1	5
State Government	6	3	4	1	5	6	4
Private Sector	2	3					2
University		1				1
Other	1			3	2	1	3	2
Unknown
Total	13	9	6	4	10	11	16	2
Percent	18	13	8	6	14	15	23	3

Question 35

What is the NUMBER THREE challenge you feel will be faced by your agency to integrate safety in the planning process?

1. Politics
2. Financial
3. Access to information
4. Communication
5. Unclear lines of responsibility
6. Management Priority within your agency
7. Differing priorities between agencies
8. Other

Organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
City Government
County Government	4	1			1	1	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	4	3	2	1	1		2
State Government	7	4	3	6	1	1	6	2
Private Sector		1	1	1	1		2	1
University	1	1
Other	2	1	1	1	1	4		1
Unknown
Total	18	11	7	9	5	6	11	4
Percent	25	15	10	13	7	8	15	6

Question 36

Based on what you have heard today, indicate the level of importance your agency will place on safety planning in the future.

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
High	Low

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government
County Government		3	4	1
Metropolitan Planning Organization	2	5	6
State Government
Private Sector	3	1	2	2
University	1				1
Other	5	5	1	1	1
Unknown
Total	11	14	13	4	2
Percent	24	32	30	9	5

Question 37

How beneficial do you feel this meeting has been for you?

<---5------------4-------------3-------------2-------------1--->
Very Beneficial	No Benefit

Organization	5	4	3	2	1
City Government
County Government	1	3	2	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization		6	3	4
State Government	2	6	9	8	4
Private Sector	2	1	2	2
University	1				1
Other	2	1	4	5	1
Unknown
Total	8	17	20	21	6
Percent	11	24	28	29	8

Question 38

Would you be willing to participate in future meetings on the subject of integrating safety into the planning process?

Organization	Yes	No	Probably
City Government
County Government	5	1	2
Metropolitan Planning Organization	12		1
State Government	21	2	6
Private Sector	5		2
University	1		1
Other	12	1
Unknown
Total	56	4	12
Percent	78	5	17

Question 39

Did the interactive voting add value to the conference proceedings?

Organization	Yes	No
City Government
County Government	8
Metropolitan Planning Organization	11	2
State Government	27	2
Private Sector	5	1
University		2
Other	10	3
Unknown
Total	61	10
Percent	86

---

^[1] The initial list included the Departments of Transportation, Education and Community Health, State Police; the Office of Highway Safety Planning and the Safety Commission, a statutory group in MI.

^[2] See Appendix A for a list of the Forum participants.

^[3] See Appendix B for a copy of the formal agenda.

^[4] A more detailed explanation of this structural innovation is addressed later in the document.

^[5] MDOT acquired the technology to summarize input from their public outreach efforts.

^[6] Complete data from the interactive session are presented in Appendix D.

^[7] The MPOs or urban areas cover only 25 percent of the State's geography.

^[8] The Departments of Transportation, State, Community Health and Education, State Police and OHSP

^[9] www.ohsp.state.mi.us/MSP-OHSP Home/MTSMS

^[10] The 2002 Traffic Safety Summit will take place in Lansing, April 30-May 1. More information will be available on the OHSP web site.

^[11] This set of questions was asked later in the day when there were fewer participants.

^[12] The participants were also asked about the "extent" of their coordination with safety partners. The answers were somewhat random with few reporting consistently at any level.

^[13] The 12 issues that were not addressed were omitted because 1) programs are already in place and working to address them; 2) the issue is not at a high level of important in Michigan yet; 3) data are not available to demonstrate the size of the problem in MI; and/or 4) the issue was not appropriate given the nature and purpose of the forum.

^[14] Additional information on the data and strategies is located in Appendix C.