PIARC TC C.2.1: Comparison of National Road Safety Policies & Plans

1
PIARC TC C.2.1Comparison of National
RoadSafety Policies Plans
NCHRP 17-18 (016) Case Studies Project
Creating a Culture of Traffic Safety Four
Successful States
Larry E. Tibbits Michigan Department of
Transportation Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
Four State Case Studies
Minnesota
Iowa
Michigan
Washington State
3
Case Study Sponsors

• Transportation Research Board of the National
  Academies of Science (NAS)
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• American Association of State Highway and
  Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

4
Project Elements

• Four states selected by sponsors Iowa,
  Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington State
• Begun in October 2006
• Conduct in-state interviews
• Develop a case study report for each state
• Provide a PowerPoint presentation for each state
  and an executive-level summary

5
Purpose of Case Studies

• Examine technical and institutional factors
  implemented by states that have realized success
  in reducing fatalities and their fatality rate
• Identify success factors and key elements that
  could be shared with other states
• Identify the process of institutionalizing safety
  and the incorporation of the 4 Es in achieving
  improvements over time

6
Major Case Study Factors

• Organizational leadership
• Political leadership
• Processes used to institutionalize safety

7
Information Collection

• Background and reference documents
• State strategic highway safety plans
• Highway Safety Office - highway safety plans
• Historical data, data charts, informational
  tables, publications, Web sites

8
Information Collection(Continued)

• In-state interviews
• Highway Safety Office
• Governors representative and staff
• State Department of Transportation (DOT)
  engineering and safety staff
• FHWA division staff
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations
  (NHTSAs) regional administrator
• Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and
  local government representatives

9
Overview of States

• Wide range of population sizes
• Wide range of annual vehicle miles traveled
• Similar proportions of state and local road
  ownership
• High standards for safety results

2006 Preliminary 2006
Sources NHTSA Iowa Department of
Transportation Michigan Traffic Crash Facts
2005 Michigan Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of
Traffic Safety and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation Washington Office of Financial
Management 2005 Data Book and Washington Traffic
Safety Commission
10
Proportion of State vs. Local Road Miles
Represented in Studies
37,687
416,531
Combined Total State Local Road Miles Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota Washington State
11
Case Study State Fatalities Compared to National
Fatalities (1976-2005)
Sources NHTSA Iowa Office of Driver Services,
Iowa Department of Transportation Michigan
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning
Minnesota Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Office of Traffic Safety Washington
Washington Traffic Safety Commission and
Washington Department of Transportation
12
Case Study States Fatality Rates Compared to
National Fatality Rate 1976-2005
Sources NHTSA Iowa Office of Driver
Services, Iowa Department of Transportation
Michigan Michigan Office of Highway Safety
Planning Minnesota Minnesota Department of
Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety
Washington Washington Traffic Safety Commission
and Washington Department of Transportation
13
Summary of Major Findings

• All states have achieved goals that have
  surpassed the national record
• Iowa, Michigan, and Washington State achieved
  consistent gains over a longer period of time
• Minnesotas success is more recent, but
  impressive

14
Summary of Major Findings(Continued)

• Every state has developed a cooperative,
  coordinated, collaborative program with statewide
  reach
• Individual leaders have emerged in each state to
  champion the safety program

15
Organizational Leadership

• Key individuals with passion for improving
  traffic safety
• Strong partnership between the state DOT and
  Highway Safety Office
• Barriers between agencies removed
• Adequate technical and funding resources
  dedicated to local road improvements
• Accountability for achieving results

16
Political Leadership

• Strong interest and support from key state
  leaders and the governor in most cases
• Sponsorship of key legislation and champions with
  interest over time
• Enactment of most key traffic safety laws by the
  legislature
• Provision of necessary monetary resources to
  support safety
• Promotion and support of key safety programs with
  the public

17
Legislative Overview

• State emphasis on enacting proven safety laws
• Successful safety programs achieved even though a
  complete compliment of laws not yet accomplished

X Applies to this state ALR
Administrative License Revocation, BAC Breath
Alcohol Content, CPS Child Passenger Safety
Primary Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Law, MC
Motorcycle, GDL Graduated Drivers License
Required only for less than 18 years old Two
stage GDL process, rather than the three stage
process used by the other states Details of
the laws may vary by state
Source NHTSA
18
Processes toInstitutionalize Safety

• Highly developed data collection and analysis
  systems
• Statewide systematic approach to improve all
  roads (state and local)
• Use of AASHTO model for strategic highway safety
  plan (CHSP/SHSP) development

19
Processes toInstitutionalize Safety (Continued)

• Partnerships with federal, state, and local
  agencies for planning and implementation of
  behavioral and engineering programs
• Statewide application of national impaired
  driving and seat belt mobilization programs

20
Variations in State Approach

• DOT Organizational Structures
• Iowa and Washington State - Centralized
• Provide issue leadership, training and resources
  to locals from the state office
• Michigan and Minnesota Decentralized
• Local DOT districts or regions provide problem
  identification, training, and resources based on
  state and local priorities
• Safety planning and organizational leadership

21
Commonalities

• Many common factors for success are shared among
  the four states within their varied structures
  and support systems
• Aggressive goal setting
• Prioritized engineering strategies
• Comprehensive behavioral programs
• Advanced data collection and analysis systems
• Reliance on data-driven planning and programming
• Broad base of partnerships

22
Importance of Goal Setting

• Aggressive goals
• Iowa One death is one too many (Less than
  400 fatalities by 2015 at 450 in 2005)
• Michigan 1.0 fatalities per 100m VMT by 2008
  (1.09 in 2005)
• Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths (Less than 500
  fatalities by 2008 Exceeded goal in 2006)
• Washington State Zero Deaths by 2030

23
Importance of Goal Setting(Continued)

• Clearly communicated goal to multi-disciplinary
  traffic safety partners
• Targeted research-based strategies tied to
  data-driven priority areas

24
Successful Engineering Strategies

• Leadership from the state DOT (centralized or
  decentralized)
• Evaluation and prioritization of all roads (state
  and local)
• Wide implementation of research-based low cost
  safety improvements
• Local agency partnerships encouraged and supported

25
Successful Engineering Strategies(Continued)

• Provision of toolboxes for safety strategies
  and tactics
• Working relationships with state universities
  and/or engineering associations for data
  assistance, technical resources, and training

26
Successful Behavioral Strategies

• Stability within the leadership of the state
  highway safety office
• Focus on performance-based plans and data-driven
  project selection
• Sponsorship of statewide impaired driving and
  seat belt mobilizations
• Technical support to advocates for enactment of
  strong laws to influence behavior

27
Successful Behavioral Strategies(Continued)

• Community involvement (Safe Communities, Local
  Task Forces, Corridor Projects)
• Public education and targeted advertising
  programs to support enforcement campaigns

28
Priority on Data Systems Analysis

• Provision of a broad-based Traffic Records
  Coordinating Committee and strategic plan
• Use of technology to enhance the quality,
  accuracy, and timeliness of data collection and
  analysis
• Acquisition and distribution of advanced tools to
  locate and map data

29
Priority on Data Systems Analysis (Continued)

• Proactive use of data systems to identify problem
  areas and evaluate program effectiveness
• Insistence upon data-driven, research-based
  planning and programming

30
Promotion of Partnerships

• Worked with other state agencies to leverage
  resources and coordinate efforts
• Built statewide partnerships with local
  communities and local governmental agencies
• Established roles for state universities and
  local transportation assistance program centers
  in planning, programming, evaluation and training

31
Promotion of Partnerships(Continued)

• Developed strong statewide network of law
  enforcement agencies
• Reached out to non-profit organizations,
  associations and businesses
• Collaborated with Federal agencies (FHWA, NHTSA
  FMCSA)

32
Federal Support

• Behavioral and local engineering solutions
  encouraged through technical resources and
  available Federal funding
• Data and research provided to support key
  legislative initiatives
• NHTSA
• Regional support of state highway safety planning
  
• Coordination and communications support for seat
  belt and impaired driving national mobilizations

33
Federal Support (Continued)

• FHWA
• Divisions and safety engineers interact regularly
  with state DOTs
• Proactively support development and
  implementation of low cost state and local safety
  improvements
• Collaboration fostered through Safety Conscious
  Planning and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan
  requirement

34
Federal Support (Continued)

• Technical resources provided at many levels
• Training
• Research material
• Safety publications
• Peer to peer exchanges

35
Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors

• Success can be achieved using different
  approaches and organization structures
• A safety commission structure and/or dedicated
  state level leadership organization helps to
  achieve a comprehensive and coordinated program

36
Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors (Continued)

• A strong vision is stated to target planning,
  programming and resources
• An aggressive safety goal is developed and
  promoted
• Individual leaders (champions) within state
  agencies are present
• Focus is on the support of all public roadways
  (state and local)
• Technical assistance and resources are allocated
  for local agencies

37
Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors (Continued)

• Statewide law enforcement networks are developed
  to support strong traffic safety enforcement
  programs
• Enactment of effective traffic safety laws is a
  priority especially to address behavioral issues
• Legislative opposition is met by generating
  partnerships with non-governmental associations
  and organizations

38
Potential Threats toSustaining Success

• Funding Reductions
• Shift of future federal safety funding to less
  successful states or to new federal priorities
• Political influences that may dictate a change in
  investment strategy
• State and local government budget cuts
• Evolving Crash Characteristics
• Increase in motorcycle deaths, aggressive,
  distracted and speeding drivers - aging driver
  population
• Inability to discover new and effective programs
  - fewer easy solutions available

39
Potential Threats toSustaining Success
(Continued)

• Weakening of Legislative Culture
• Lack of a sufficient safety culture to make
  difficult or controversial policy choices -
  public attitudes that could weaken existing laws
• Politically-driven repeals of key traffic safety
  laws

40
Potential Threats toSustaining Success
(Continued)

• Loss of Champions
• Restructuring of state government and changes in
  leadership
• Retirement programs resulting in the loss of key
  safety champions
• Emerging Complacency
• Status-quo mentality - will the state continue to
  try to make more gains after initial goals have
  been met?
• Apathy among segments of the population not
  understanding the importance of trying to prevent
  fatalities

41
Potential Threats toSustaining Success
(Continued)

• Changes in message delivery and media interest
• Challenges in communication with the public due
  to predominance of the Internet versus
  traditional newspaper, TV and radio broadcast,
  and cable news
• Cultural shifts causing a loss of focus on the
  importance of safety

42
Future Direction for Case Study States

• Continue SHSP process and implement the plan as a
  method for engaging partners and achieving goals
• Targeted focus on data-driven, research-based
  strategies
• Advocate for safety support at highest government
  and political levels

43
Future Direction for Case Study States
(Continued)

• Enhance data collection and analysis systems to
  fully utilize new technology
• Maximize funding to support safety initiatives
• Renew efforts to enact and retain key traffic
  safety laws

44
Project Contact Information

• Full case study reports and state PowerPoint
  presentations are available for each state from
  FHWA and NCHRP
• http//www.michigan.gov/tands