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

Michigan Forum

September 10, 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 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:

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

Michigan's safety record is better than it was 20 years ago but it still is not as good as we'd like it to be. Federal/State/Local cooperation is absolutely critical to our future success.

Col. Robinson

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]

We have to respond to the public's desire. Our credibility depends on it.

Greg Rosine

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

  • How do we develop planning goals and performance measures for safety processes?
  • How can data, analyses and information be more effectively shared across program lines?
  • How do we develop common measures of cost/benefits or cost-effectiveness?
  • How should safety program managers be involved in the planning process?
  • How do we effectively communicate safety data and issues to public officials so they will provide the resources we need to improve safety?
  • Roger Petzol

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

Challenges

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:

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

Flowchart of Oregon Transportation Planning Process. Click image for text equivelant.

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:

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:

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

flowchart of Michigan Transportation Plans. Click image for text equivelant.

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.

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:

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:

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:
GTSAC
Forum Participants and Other Stakeholders
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:

Planning

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

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.

Partnerships

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

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.

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.

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 3rdLOWEST 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.

Updated: 03/27/2012
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000