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

Texas Forum

July 11-12, 2001

PREFACE

In 1998 Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century 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, as well as some areas of agreement, associated with safety integration:

• There is a lack of dialogue, coordination and communication between safety and transportation planners.
• Safety integration is a non-traditional role for planning agencies.
• It is unwise to merge the safety and planning processes because of the many different timeframes and funding criteria; however, it is highly advisable for all segments of the road safety community to work collaboratively by establishing common safety goals, sharing information and designing 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. Texas 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. The Texas Planning Committee met on March 3, 2001 to discuss the forum's purpose, agenda, logistics and participants. Attendees included representatives of the Texas Department of Transportation (Planning and Operations), the Federal Highway Administration (Federal and Texas Division) and TRB.

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.

Texas Perspective

The objectives articulated by TxDOT were as follows:

1. Raise awareness among the MPOs about the safety integration planning factor.
2. Identify MPO safety integration activities and prepare a manual for the forum.[1]
3. Increase integration at the local level by inviting the key players to attend as teams.[2]
4. Explore methods for connecting land use planning and safety at all levels, look for areas not being addressed and explore new opportunities for increasing integration at the state level.
5. Increase access to information.[3]

THE TEXAS FORUM

Participants

The Texas Forum was held on July 11-12, 2001. Nearly 50 people attended.[4]

Agenda[5]

Welcome and Introductions

Jim Randall, Deputy Director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division, TxDOT, opened the forum and welcomed the participants. Following his opening remarks, Roger Petzold, FHWA, reviewed the history of the state forum process and suggested potential roles for planning agencies:

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

He also challenged the audience to think about answers to questions that would help transportation and safety planners across the nation.

• 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/benefit 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?

The introductory remarks were followed by presentations providing insight into the planning processes of TxDOT, the North Central Texas Council of Governments[6] (NCTCOG) and TxDOT's Highway Safety Division.[7]

Safety in Planning Overview

Both the TxDOT[8] and NCTCOG[9] representatives focused primarily on the MPO planning process with attention to how the activity fits within the overall TxDOT planning operations. They reviewed the legislative history that involved the MPOs in the transportation planning process, MPO functions related to safety in planning, the TEA-21 planning factors and the various plans the MPOs are required to create. The plans and their interrelationships are shown in Table 1.

The planning tools include existing plans, databases, stakeholder involvement, research studies, and technical expertise from FHWA, FTA and TxDOT. Partners in safety planning are road authorities, alternative mode representatives, transportation users and the general public, schools, emergency services and enforcement providers and elected officials.

Table 1: TxDOT and MPO Transportation Planning Cycles

Michael Morris also suggested a set of action-oriented indicators of success that could be used to

measure progress and performance.

• Develop and apply safety management and audit teams.
• Improve safety data systems and report to the legislature on findings and products.

Bill Strawn of TxDOT's Highway Safety Division pointed out that their efforts focus primarily on driver behavior, but approximately 4.5 percent of the highway safety funds are devoted to work zone and walkability programs. However, according to Strawn, the number one cause of accidents is driver inattention and this is primarily due to a lack of driver training.

The Highway Safety Division is involved in data system improvements, including the conversion of milepost systems to GPS and training law enforcement on accurate accident reporting techniques. Associated efforts include the public health initiative to develop a trauma registry that will track motor vehicle accident victims through hospital care.

Breakout Group Reports

Much of the time during the Texas Forum was devoted to working in small groups to identify action steps for improving safety conscious planning. The Texas Planning Committee identified a set of issues to focus the breakout groups and a set of questions to guide the discussions.

Issues

1. Planning and Funding Process: sources of funding, decision-makers on safety projects, establishing proactive processes for safety integration
2. A process for establishing safety goals
3. Data: sources, sharing, analysis and liability issues
4. Public Outreach: involve the general public in decisions and promote information sharing

Questions

1. What action steps can we take to more fully integrate safety into the planning process?
2. Who stands to benefit if we take these steps?
3. What are the resource requirements associated with implementation of the action steps?
4. What might prevent us from accomplishing the objective?

Results

The forum participants divided into three groups to discuss the four issues raised by the planning committee. They were asked to prioritize the issues according to their individual interests and perspectives and answer the questions posed with respect to each of their priority issues. The following section outlines the action steps proposed by the breakout groups.

Planning and Funding Process

Action Steps

• Determine if safety should be an element in all projects or a project in itself.
• Integrate safety into the long-range and short-term planning processes and programs. Evaluate the results.
• Establish methods of safety integration in project evaluation processes.
• Determine how to evaluate safety on future projects.
• Identify and build on best practices for safety integration, e.g., Pennsylvania and SEMCOG.
• Compile a list of the formulas used by Texas MPOs for project selection and determine the role of safety within those formulas. Based on that analysis, develop a "model" formula, including weighting factors, as guidance for MPOs.
• Establish a higher weight for the safety factor in the project selection process.
• Create a strategic plan for safety integration including performance measures and an evaluation component.
• Develop tools for MPO planners that help them identify safety issues and influence the MPO-level decision-makers on safety issues.
• Create a dedicated funding source for safety projects.

Benefits

• Accident reduction and prevention
• Improved livability and mobility
• Enhanced agency coordination

Resource Requirements

• Access to quality data and data sharing
• Adequate staff with appropriate education, knowledge and expertise
• Public and political support
• Dedicated funding

Challenges

• Support from TxDOT, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Legislature, the Texas Transportation Commission and Congress
• Different priorities and levels of funding
• Data and other resources for justification, development and implementation
• Coordination of various planning horizons and milestones as well as the different sources and regulations for funding
• Politics
• Resistance to change
• Public involvement

Safety Goals[11]

Action Steps

• Form a committee to draft a process for establishing safety goals. Include MPO political leaders, planners and technical staff, TxDOT planners and technical staff, counties, citizens, road builders and other appropriate representatives.
• Establish a statewide safety goal and educate the MPOs, local jurisdictions, state agencies and the public as to what it is and why it is important.

Benefits

• Focused safety efforts to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities.
• Maintain and improve quality of life.

Resource Requirements

• Patience
• Dedicated staff
• Leadership, expertise, information
• Political and community input and commitment

Challenges

• Scope
• Identifying areas of responsibility including geographic boundaries
• Uniform standards
• Establishing performance measures
• Coordination to get public involvement

Data

• Address data consistency among jurisdictions as a statewide issue.
• Determine what data MPOs need for safety integration planning.
• Learn what data are available to MPOs from local agencies, the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of Health.
• Train law enforcement officers to accurately capture data on police accident report forms and educate them on the importance of good data.
• Educate the public on the important uses of data systems.
• Insist on timely data collection, reporting and analysis as a grant requirement for state agencies and local jurisdictions.
• Provide access to data and analysis tools in user-friendly formats.[13]
• Link crash data to the roadway inventory system and improve location information using GPS.
• Improve pedestrian and bicyclist crash data collection by linking to the Texas Department of Health's trauma registry.
• Develop analysis tools that estimate the effect of safety alternatives and their effects on air quality and mobility.
• Integrate security (crime) with safety data for transit operators and other users.

Benefits

• Support for better quality safety data.
• Support for a safety management system
• Data sharing and collaboration opportunities
• Support for countermeasure initiatives
• Linkage with the Texas Department of Health's Trauma Registry, safe communities and local agencies
• More effective use of limited safety funds

Resource Requirements

• Staffing
• Funding

Challenges

• Inconsistent reporting thresholds
• Duplication of effort
• Inadequate staffing and funding
• Establishing the lowest common medium for reporting and collecting data in accessible and user-friendly formats

Public Outreach

Action Steps

• Incorporate information in the planning documents to explain the precursors (former projects) and reasons for current projects, e.g., safety, mobility and capacity.
• Survey the public to determine what safety issues are of most concern. Analyze the results to determine the relationship between the public's priorities and TxDOT's plans and programs.
• Adopt a public involvement process, including the institutionalization of a public information office, and provide incentives for participation.
• Create a public information program that provides information on making safe decisions.
• Incorporate safety information into school curriculums.
• Increase communication and coordination with the enforcement community.

Benefits and Opportunities

• More comprehensive understanding of public safety concerns.
• Improved communication and coordination on specific safety issues.
• More support for safety programs.
• Shopping malls, churches and other places can be utilized to distribute information.

Challenges

• Limited data and information
• Reaching a large share of the public

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Participants in the Texas Safety Forum were straightforward when asked to articulate their basic needs to achieve safety integration:

1. Improved safety data.
2. A safety management system.
3. Standard project selection criteria.
4. Dedicated funding.
5. A mandate.
6. Multi-year data reported in a uniform format.
7. Public support.
8. A process for networking and information sharing.

Next Steps

The Forum leadership committed to pursue a number of initiatives to ensure that action takes place on some level with regard to a number of priorities.

• Review the forum report and develop a more comprehensive action plan.
• Discuss methods for improving the crash data system and analysis efforts.
• Disseminate the report widely to MPOs (operations, engineers, transit), TxDOT, DPS, TX Dept. of Health, the TxDOT web site, etc.
• Conduct an MPO survey to determine planning factors, weights and ongoing safety activities.
• Create an "email blast" among the forum participants and other interested partners to continue the dialogue.
• Discuss safety conscious planning initiatives with safety and planning professionals in other venues, e.g. the TEMPO annual meeting, the TxDOT annual planning meeting and other opportunities.

Appendix A

Participants

Appendix B

TEXAS SAFETY FORUM

July 11 (1:00 PM-5:00 PM) July 12 (8:00 AM-12:00 PM)

Red Lion Hotel

AGENDA

1. Forum Purpose and Overview
   1. TxDOT
   2. FHWA
2. Overview of the Planning Processes
   1. TxDOT
   2. Dallas MPO
   3. Highway Safety
3. Breakout Groups
   1. Responsibilities
      • Identify and Build on Best Practices
      • Develop Action Steps for Forum Follow-Up
      • Identify Barriers and Challenges
      • Identify Resource Requirements
      • Data
      • Planning and Funding Process
      • Public Outreach
      • Integrating Pedestrian, Bicycle, Motor Carrier and Other Issue Areas
      • Establishing Safety Goals
4. Reports and Recommendations from the Breakout Groups
5. Determining Leadership, Follow-Up and Other Actions
6. Adjourn

[1]The TxDOT Planning group planned to distribute a survey to the MPOs to identify good practices and share the information during the state forum. The survey addressed the planning factors that are taken into account for making safety integration decisions. For example, TX uses formulas developed by TTI for distributing hazard elimination and rail grade crossing funds. The idea is to learn what "formulas" are used to integrate safety. TRB and FHWA prepared a draft survey for their use. The results had not been tabulated by the date for the forum.

[2]The teams were planned to include representatives of the District and MPO planning departments, the transit authority, motor carrier safety, enforcement and safe communities. However the MPO teams at the forum were not fully representative of the targeted groups.

[3]The Department of Public Safety and TxDOT had recently signed an agreement to hire a project director to distribute RFPs for software and hardware development to upgrade data systems at the local level.

[4]See Appendix A for a forum participants' list.

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

[6]This organization serves as the MPO for the Dallas area.

[7]Bill Strawn, Highway Safety Division, TxDOT

[8]Tim Juarez, Metropolitan Planning Supervisor, TxDOT

[9]Michael Morris, Director of Transportation, NCTCOG

[10]These are updates to the 20-year horizon plans.

[11]One group suggested a comprehensive safety goal: "All system users arrive at their destinations free from personal harm or property damage."

[12]This suggestion was brought up throughout the forum in various groups and discussions. The participants suggested that a scan be conducted on other states' experiences with safety management systems and a TX process be created based on successful results in other jurisdictions.

[13]A part of the discussion focused on desirable data elements to examine with respect to crash data: location, severity, road conditions, etc.; however, there was general agreement that the larger issues center on consistency of reporting standards and the ability to identify high accident locations.