National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R10
Page xi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R11
Page xii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R12
Page xiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R13
Page xiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R14
Page xv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R15
Page xvi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R16
Page xvii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R17
Page xviii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R18
Page xix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R19
Page xx
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R20
Page xxi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R21
Page xxii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R22
Page xxiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R23
Page xxiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R24
Page xxv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R25
Page xxvi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R26
Page xxvii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R27
Page xxviii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R28
Page xxix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R29
Page xxx
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R30
Page xxxi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R31
Page xxxii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R32
Page xxxiii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R33
Page xxxiv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R34
Page xxxv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R35
Page xxxvi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R36
Page xxxvii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R37
Page xxxviii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R38
Page xxxix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13891.
×
Page R39

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2005 (Membership as of November 2005) OFFICERS Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA JEAN JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX—Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio) GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio) JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio) JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) DAVID B. HORNER, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT (ex officio) JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio) ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio) SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio) ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio) CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT (Chair) JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 546 Project 8-44 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0-309-08846-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2005936945 © 2006 Transportation Research Board Price $29.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 546 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program RONALD D. McCREADY, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications NCHRP PROJECT 8-44 PANEL Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Forecasting TOM BRIGHAM, HDR Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK (Chair) PHILIP B. DEMOSTHENES, Parametrix, Denver, CO PRESTON J. ELLIOTT, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Nashville, TN CYNTHIA A. GALLO, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority DENISE JACKSON, Michigan DOT KATHLEEN F. KRAUSE, FHWA DANIEL MAGRI, Louisiana DOTD EDWARD A. MIERZEJEWSKI, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa, FL CARMINE PALOMBO, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments JILL L. HOCHMAN, FHWA Liaison LORRIE LAU, FHWA Liaison KEN LORD, FTA Liaison MARLENE MARKISON, NHTSA Liaison KIMBERLY FISHER, TRB Liaison RICHARD PAIN, TRB Liaison

This report describes the transportation planning process and discusses where and how safety can be effectively addressed and integrated into long-range planning at the state and metropolitan levels. This guidance manual should be especially useful to fed- eral, state DOT, MPO, and local transportation planners, as well as other practitioners and stakeholders concerned with addressing safety within transportation systems plan- ning, priority programming, and project development planning. National transportation policies and programs emerging out of the Intermodal Sur- face Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) require transportation plans and decisions at the state and met- ropolitan levels to take safety into account more directly. While safety is often men- tioned in plan policies and goals, the short- and long-range planning and programming processes rarely include safety initiatives and commitments in a comprehensive man- ner. Further, the data collection, analytical support methods, performance monitoring, and decision collaboration normally carried out as part of the planning process for facil- ities and services do not adequately include safety. Presently, within long-range transportation planning at the state and metropolitan levels, current conditions, performance, and impacts can be assessed as the basis for predicting future implications of plan alternatives in terms of system capacity, travel demand, system condition, economic conditions, population, and land use. We can pre- dict the impacts of pavement preservation and the future condition of highway conges- tion and capacity deficiencies. Regarding safety, we can describe the current accident and fatality rates and project them into the future; however, we cannot accurately pre- dict future safety implications associated with transportation system improvements. Similarly, while we can estimate, if not accurately predict, future effectiveness of var- ious safety countermeasures, we are not able to assess their collective implications or performance expectations on a systemwide basis. Thus, long-range transportation plan- ning processes at the state and metropolitan levels need better analytical tools to iden- tify current and likely future safety deficiencies and methods to address those deficien- cies. Further, processes to create and promote communication and collaboration between safety and transportation planning practitioners are essential in order to inte- grate safety into long-range transportation planning and decision making. This need is particularly acute because current national policy requires these long-range planning processes to improve the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users. The objective of this research was to develop a guidance manual for practitioners that identifies and evaluates alternative ways to more effectively incorporate and inte- grate safety considerations in long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and decision-making processes. The research encompasses the full range of FOREWORD By Ronald D. McCready Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board

safety implications of facility and geometric improvements, capacity improvements, operational improvements, population growth and other demographic issues, land use decisions, and human behavior-related issues associated with all surface transportation modes. It also includes recommendations for improvements to the tools, methods, and procedures that support systems, corridor, and project planning. Under NCHRP Project 8-44, “Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transporta- tion Planning,” researchers at the University of Arizona and the Georgia Institute of Technology focused on safety issues within the long-range transportation planning processes of state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and included the following: (1) a comprehensive review of recent literature on safety and how it is addressed in long-range transportation planning; (2) a review of federal regulations and guidance on safety issues in the planning process; and (3) case studies to synthesize notable current practice in safety planning. A planning process was developed that describes how and when various methods can best be applied in developing systems- level transportation plans. The process addresses decision-making relationships; tech- nical requirements (e.g., data and analytical methods); necessary staffing capabilities; public involvement; interagency coordination; financial commitments; and methods for tying the systems-planning considerations to more detailed processes such as corridor planning, subarea planning, modal development planning, priority programming, and project development. The guidance manual presents descriptions of a variety of ana- lytical tools and software applications for conducting various safety analyses. It also describes PLANSAF, a tool developed as part of the research to forecast safety effects at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level or higher. Appropriate applications of the tool are discussed in this appendix. Finally, guidance is provided for MPOs or DOTs to develop their own set of safety forecasting models at the TAZ level. The guidance manual, contained on the accompanying CRP-CD-62, is presented in an interactive electronic format for easy use as a tool for planning practitioners.

CRP-CD-62 SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 What Is Meant by Safety as It Relates to Transportation Planning? CHAPTER 3 Why Is Safety an Important Issue for the Transportation Planning Process? CHAPTER 4 Institutional Context for Incorporating Safety into Transportation Planning CHAPTER 5 The Transportation Planning Process CHAPTER 6 Incorporating Safety Considerations into Transportation Planning CHAPTER 7 Putting It All Together REFERENCES APPENDIX A Example State Safety Initiatives APPENDIX B Federal Highway Safety Program Guidance APPENDIX C Safety Tools APPENDIX D Developing a Planning-Level Forecasting Model (PLANSAFE) CONTENTS

National Cooperative Highway Research Program: NCHRP 8-44 Guidance: Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning By: Simon Washington1 Michael Meyer2 Ida van Schalkwyk1 Eric Dumbaugh2 Sudeshna Mitra1 and Mathew Zoll3 1 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 2 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 3 Consultant, Tucson, AZ Prepared For the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning CONTENTS SUMMARY........................................................................................................................VIII CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2. WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? ..................................................................................3 CHAPTER 3. WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS?...............................................................9 CHAPTER 4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING ......................................................................15 Legislative and Program Requirements .................................................................... 15 Stakeholders in Transportation-planning and Safety.............................................. 17 CHAPTER 5. THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS.............................21 CHAPTER 6. INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING ..................................................................................27 Step 1: Incorporating Safety into the Vision Statement .......................................... 27 Step 2: Incorporating Safety into the Set of Goals and Objectives ........................ 29 Step 3: Incorporating Safety into System Performance Measures.......................... 32 Step 4: Incorporate Safety into Technical Analysis ................................................. 35 Step 5: Evaluating Alternative Projects and Strategies............................................ 47 Step 6: Develop Plan and Program ........................................................................... 54 Step 7: Monitoring System Performance .................................................................. 59 CHAPTER 7. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER ................................................................61 ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATION OF SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION- PLANNING ............................................................................................................62 Vision ............................................................................................................................. 62 Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 62 Performance Measures................................................................................................. 63 Analysis--Data............................................................................................................... 63 Analysis—Tools ............................................................................................................ 64 Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 64 Plan and Program Development ................................................................................ 65 SUGGESTED STEPS TO INTEGRATE SAFETY MORE EFFECTIVELY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING......................................................................66 Vision ............................................................................................................................. 66 Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 66 Performance Measures................................................................................................. 66 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Analysis—Data ............................................................................................................. 66 Analysis--Tools ............................................................................................................. 67 Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 68 Plan and Program Development ................................................................................ 68 System Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 68 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................71 APPENDIX A EXAMPLE STATE SAFETY INITIATIVES........................................ A-1 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities..................................... A-1 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Departments..................................... A-1 Florida Department of Transportation ........................................................................ A-1 Iowa Department of Transportation ............................................................................ A-2 Kansas Department of Transportation ........................................................................ A-2 Kansas Bureau of Traffic Safety.................................................................................... A-2 Louisiana Highway Safety Commission ..................................................................... A-4 Nebraska Department of Roads.................................................................................... A-5 New Mexico Traffic Safety Bureau............................................................................... A-5 North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program .............................................. A-6 Oregon Department of Transportation........................................................................ A-7 Washington State............................................................................................................ A-8 Texas Traffic Safety Section........................................................................................... A-8 Utah Department of Transportation ............................................................................ A-9 Wisconsin Department of Transportation................................................................. A-10 APPENDIX B FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDANCE ..............B-1 Alcohol-Related Guidelines ...........................................................................................B-1 23 U.S.C 158: Minimum Drinking Age .....................................................................B-1 23 U.S.C 161: Operation of Motor Vehicles By Intoxicated Minors (Zero- Tolerance Laws)...........................................................................................................B-1 23 U.S.C 164: Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws ........................................................B-1 U.S.C. 154: Open Container Laws .............................................................................B-1 Alcohol-Related Incentive Grants .................................................................................B-2 23 U.S.C 163: Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons .....................B-2 23 U.S.C 408: Alcohol Traffic Safety Programs........................................................B-2 23 U.S.C. 410: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures .................................B-2 Passenger Restraint-Related Guidelines and Grants ..................................................B-3 23 U.S.C. 153: Use of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets...................................B-3 23 U.S.C 157: Safety Incentive Grants for the Use of Seat Belts.............................B-4 23 U.S.C. 405: Occupant Protection Incentive Grants .............................................B-4 23 U.S.C 406: School Bus Driver Training Grants ...................................................B-5 23 U.S.C 407: Innovative Project Grants ...................................................................B-5 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning APPENDIX C SAFETY TOOLS ...................................................................................... C-1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... C-1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... C-1 Summary of Tools........................................................................................................... C-2 Arizona Local Government Safety Project Analysis Model (LGSP) ........................ C-5 Before-After Studies as described in “Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety”, Hauer (1997) .......................................................................................... C-7 CRASH Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES)................................................ C-9 Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) .................................................. C-10 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) .............................................. C-11 Intersection Magic ........................................................................................................ C-12 Level of Service of Safety (LOSS)................................................................................ C-17 Multimodal Transportation-planning Tool (MTPT) GDOT ................................... C-24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Analysis Tool (PBCAT)....................................... C-26 pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure (PEDSAFE) ................................... C-28 Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP) .............................................................. C-29 SafeNET ......................................................................................................................... C-31 SafetyAnalyst ................................................................................................................ C-33 Transportation Analysis and Simulation System (TRANSIMS)............................. C-37 PLANSAFE: Planning Level Safety Prediction Model ............................................ C-39 Introduction to PLANSAFE .................................................................................... C-39 The PLANSAFE set of Forecasting Models........................................................... C-45 Discussion 1: Frequency of Incapacitating and Fatal Accidents............. C-47 Discussion 2: Frequency of Accidents Involving Pedestrians................. C-47 Example: Application of PLANSAFE: Incapacitating and Fatal Injury Crashes................................................................................................................... C-52 APPENDIX D DEVELOPING A PLANNING LEVEL FORECASTING MODEL (PLANSAFE).......................................................................................................................D-1 LIMITATIONS OF PLANNING LEVEL SAFETY FORECASTING MODEL ........ D-1 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNING LEVEL SAFETY FORECASTING MODEL................................................................................................................. D-2 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... D-2 REQUIRED EXPERTISE ................................................................................................ D-2 DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF A SAFETY PREDICTION MODEL AT THE TAZ LEVEL................................................................................................................... D-3 DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION............................................................ D-5 Data Preparation.........................................................................................................D-6 Road Network Data........................................................................................D-6 Census Data .....................................................................................................D-7 Institutions .......................................................................................................D-7 Accident History .............................................................................................D-7 Development of a dataset containing modelling variables...................................D-8 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Contents Development of Crash Prediction Model................................................................D-8 U.S.ING GIS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNING LEVEL SAFETY FORECASTING MODEL...........................................................................................D-9 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................D-9 Methods .......................................................................................................................D-9 Distribution of demographic data in block groups to TAZ areas ............D-9 Assignment of total road mileage to each TAZ ........................................D-10 Association of accident events (points) with the TAZ .............................D-11 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Aspects of safety from an international perspective ........................................ 6 Exhibit 2: Total number and rate of U.S. motor vehicle traffic-related fatalities ......... 10 Exhibit 3: Total number and percentage of U.S. pedestrian fatalities ........................... 10 Exhibit 4: Total number and rate of U.S. alcohol-related fatalities ................................ 11 Exhibit 5: Total number and percent of U.S. roadway departure fatalities .................. 11 Exhibit 6: Total number and percent of U.S. intersection-related fatalities .................. 12 Exhibit 7: Total number and rate of U.S. motorcycle-related fatalities ......................... 12 Exhibit 8: Total number and percentage of U.S. speeding- related fatalities ............... 13 Exhibit 9: Total number and percentage of U.S. large truck-related fatalities ............. 13 Exhibit 10: Annual state section 402 safety planning process ........................................ 17 Exhibit 11: Agency Influence in transportation-planning process issues as ranked by MPOs and state DOTs.................................................................................................. 18 Exhibit 12: List of potential participants in safety conscious transportation-planning process ........................................................................................................................... 18 Exhibit 13: The transportation-planning process (Adapted from Meyer and Miller, 2001) ............................................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 14: Questions for assessing the planning process............................................... 25 Exhibit 15: Questions for assessing the vision statement................................................ 27 Exhibit 16: Suggested steps for including safety in the vision statement ..................... 28 Exhibit 17: Questions for assessing goals and objectives ................................................ 29 Exhibit 18: Goals and objectives for the Houston-Galveston area council ................... 31 Exhibit 19: Safety goals for Columbus, Ohio, and Southeast Michigan........................ 31 Exhibit 20: Suggested steps for including safety in regional or statewide goals and objectives ....................................................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 21: Questions for assessing role of safety in system performance measures .. 32 Exhibit 22: Minnesota DOT analysis of fatality performance goals............................... 33 Exhibit 23: Suggested steps for including safety in system performance measures ... 34 Exhibit 24: Questions for incorporating safety-related data in the planning process . 35 Exhibit 25: Importance of data for safety-related transportation-planning source as determined through project survey ........................................................................... 37 Exhibit 26: GIS map of accident frequencies on a transportation network .................. 37

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 27: GIS map of crashes on a small road network................................................ 38 Exhibit 28: GIS map of crashes along a corridor .............................................................. 38 Exhibit 29: GIS map of bicycle and pedestrian crashes at the neighborhood scale ..... 39 Exhibit 30: GIS map of red- light-running-related crashes on a transportation network ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Exhibit 31: GIS map of bicycle and pedestrian crashes in a transportation network.. 40 Exhibit 32: GIS map of commercial motor vehicle crashes in a transportation network ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Exhibit 33: GIS map of railroad-highway crossing crashes ............................................ 41 Exhibit 34: Suggested steps for developing a regional safety database ........................ 41 Exhibit 35: Questions to guide the selection of appropriate safety analysis tools ....... 42 Exhibit 36: Accident modification factors for highways in the Denver metropolitan area [Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2002] ............................ 44 Exhibit 37: Sources of information on countermeasure effectiveness: behavioral and engineering countermeasures..................................................................................... 45 Exhibit 38: Suggested steps for improving safety related analysis capabilities ........... 46 Exhibit 39: Questions regarding evaluation methodologies........................................... 47 Exhibit 40: Assigning points as an evaluation methodology in Denver [Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2003] .................................................... 49 Exhibit 41: Scoring for pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Denver region.............. 49 Exhibit 42: Federal Highway Administration estimates of cost to society of accidents ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Exhibit 43: North Carolina estimates of cost to society of accidents ............................. 51 Exhibit 44: Los Angeles estimates of cost to society of transit accidents ...................... 51 Exhibit 45: Suggested steps for incorporating an evaluation methodology into the safety conscious planning process ............................................................................. 53 Exhibit 46: Suggested steps for including safety in the transportation plan and program ......................................................................................................................... 54 Exhibit 47: Inclusion of concepts in long-range transportation plans ........................... 55 Exhibit 48: Contents of Iowa’s safety management system toolbox.............................. 57 Exhibit 49: Suggested steps for including safety in transportation plans and programs........................................................................................................................ 58 Exhibit 50: Questions for assessing the role of safety in monitoring system performance. ................................................................................................................. 59 Exhibit 51: Phoenix safety management system .............................................................. 60 Exhibit 52: Suggested steps for including safety in the monitoring of transportation system performance ..................................................................................................... 60 Exhibit 53: Purpose, level of detail, and required expertise for tools available to incorporate safety into long-range transportation-planning................................ C-2 Exhibit 54: Summary of the LGSP tool ............................................................................ C-5 Exhibit 55: Arizona LGSP analysis set-up window ....................................................... C-6 Exhibit 56: Arizona LGSP analysis parameters window .............................................. C-6 Exhibit 57: Summary of before-after studies tool as described in Hauer (1997) ........ C-7 Exhibit 58: Depiction of before-after study using control sites .................................... C-8 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 59: Summary of the CODES tool......................................................................... C-9 Exhibit 60: Summary of the CARE tool ......................................................................... C-10 Exhibit 61: Example output from CARE ....................................................................... C-10 Exhibit 62: Summary of the IHSDM tool....................................................................... C-11 Exhibit 63: Summary of the INTERSECTION MAGIC tool........................................ C-12 Exhibit 64: Screen grab for top 100 Intersections with at least one accident ............ C-14 Exhibit 65: Screen grab for Alma School & Warner Road intersection accident diagram...................................................................................................................... C-14 Exhibit 66: Screen grab for Evergreen St & Warner Road intersection accident diagram with labels.................................................................................................. C-15 Exhibit 67: Screen grab for top 92 Intersections with at least one severe accident .. C-16 Exhibit 68: Summary of the LOSS tool .......................................................................... C-17 Exhibit 69: Project area map, Denver Colorado metropolitan area corridor study. C-19 Exhibit 70: LOSS-injury and fatal accident frequency in the study area................... C-20 Exhibit 71: LOSS-total accident frequency in the study area...................................... C-20 Exhibit 72: Breakdown by accident type in the study area......................................... C-21 Exhibit 73: Wave type C-LOSS analysis for total accidents ........................................ C-22 Exhibit 74: Wave type C-LOSS analysis for injury and fatal accidents ..................... C-22 Exhibit 75: Summary of the MTPT tool ......................................................................... C-24 Exhibit 76: Summary of the PBCAT tool ....................................................................... C-26 Exhibit 77: PBCAT style and navigation window........................................................ C-27 Exhibit 78: PBCAT style and navigation window........................................................ C-27 Exhibit 79: Summary of the PEDSAFE tool ................................................................. C-28 Exhibit 80: Summary of the RSAP tool ......................................................................... C-29 Exhibit 81: Summary of the SAFENET tool .................................................................. C-31 Exhibit 82: Road network in SafeNET ........................................................................... C-32 Exhibit 83: Summary of the SAFETYANALYST tool .................................................. C-33 Exhibit 84: Comparison of rankings by accident frequency and PSI for signalized intersections in a particular city ............................................................................. C-34 Exhibit 85: Comparison of rankings by accident rate and PSI for signalized intersections in a particular city ............................................................................. C-35 Exhibit 86: Summary of the TRANSIMS tool ............................................................... C-37 Exhibit 87: Summary of the PLANNING LEVEL SAFETY PREDICTION MODEL tool ..................................................................................................................................... C-40 Exhibit 88: Appropriate and inappropriate uses of PLANSAFE models.................. C-42 Exhibit 89: Variables and descriptions for the PLANSAFE models .......................... C-44 Exhibit 90: PLANSAFE Models with variable coefficients and t-statistics ............... C-45 Exhibit 91: PLANSAFE model forms............................................................................. C-46 Exhibit 92: Predicted number of incapacitating and fatal injury crashes by population count ages 0 to 15 by TAZ:- PLANSAFE incapacitating and fatal model......... C-48 Exhibit 93: Predicted number of incapacitating and fatal injury crashes by intersection count per mile by TAZ:- PLANSAFE incapacitating and fatal model .............. C-48 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 94: Predicted number of crashes involving pedestrians by TAZ by population count per acre by TAZ:- PLANSAFE pedestrian model ..................................... C-49 Exhibit 95: Predicted number of Crashes involving pedestrians by TAZ by portion of workers age 16 and older traveling to work by car, truck, or van, by TAZ:- PLANSAFE pedestrian model ................................................................................ C-49 Exhibit 96: Base Year data for PLANSAFE example application............................... C-52 Exhibit 97: BCF calculations for PLANSAFE example application ........................... C-53 Exhibit 98: Predicted future incapacitating and fatal crashes for PLANSAFE example application................................................................................................................. C-54 Exhibit 99: Process followed to develop PLANSAFE by TAZ for planning level safety prediction.....................................................................................................................D-4 Exhibit 100: Major contributing factors in crashes at the TAZ level and potential variables.......................................................................................................................D-5 Exhibit 101: Data required to distribute demographic data in block groups to TAZ areas ...........................................................................................................................D-10 Exhibit 102: Data required to assign road mileage to TAZ areas...............................D-10 Exhibit 103: Data required to assign accidents to TAZ areas .....................................D-11 Contents

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning Contents Page intentionally left blank.

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning SUMMARY SUMMARY This guidance manual is targeted to personnel in DOTs, MPOs, and other agencies and stakeholder groups involved in statewide and regional transportation planning. The manual provides an overview as well as details on how to integrate safety as an explicit consideration in the transportation-planning process. The term ’safety’ is cast rather broadly and is meant to include all externalities of the transportation system that result in personal harm—including both physical and emotional—such as minor and severe injuries and fatalities, and for all system users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and commercial vehicle operators. Although the transportation-planning process can be long and arduous, as this manual illustrates, there are ample opportunities in the process to consider safety. After providing the motivation for this guidance (Chapter 1), the manual begins with a discussion of safety as it relates to the transportation-planning process (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 illustrates why safety should receive greater visibility and explicit treatment in the transportation-planning process, while Chapter 4 provides the institutional context in which transportation-planning activities are conducted. Chapter 5 describes the transportation-planning process and provides a flowchart of the process whose elements are the fundamental building blocks of any planning process—local, regional, or state. The elements, or steps, that constitute the planning process provide unique opportunities for incorporating safety into the planning process (Chapter 6). Starting from the visioning step of the process, which can be a top-down or bottom-up approach (or some combination thereof), through the development of the transportation plan, strategies for including safety into the process are provided. Chapter 6 serves as the primary contribution of the manual in terms of planning guidance as it relates to safety considerations and provides numerous examples from various DOTs and MPOs throughout the U.S. on how to accomplish successful integration of safety. Each of the elements or steps in the transportation process (7 are described) makes use of a set of questions to help assess how ‘well’ safety is incorporated into that step. While each step of the transportation-planning process is discussed, suggested strategies for making safety integral into each step are provided. Chapter 7 is a condensed version of chapter 6, and provides a succinct ‘road map’ for integrating safety into the 7 transportation-planning steps or elements. This chapter serves well individuals wanting to get a sense of how safety is considered in the transportation-planning process in overview fashion, and serves well also as a roadmap of the integrated process. The appendix of this manual is extensive. It is meant to provide supporting documentation for many of the activities described in the body of the manual. Because the appendix materials are time sensitive, some of the materials will become outdated as time progresses. For example, new legislation may be enacted that replaces existing legislation. Also, some of the software and analytical tools described will undoubtedly be replaced with improved versions with greater capabilities. Thus, the user should be careful to seek the most current information provided through links and references provided in the appendix. With that said, the appendix provides a wealth of information with the aim to support activities associated with the integration of safety into planning. Appendix A provides a host of example safety initiatives in various state agencies within the U.S.. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all safety initiatives, but instead provides a flavor of the breadth of agencies and programs that have been successfully implemented throughout the U.S. VIII

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning SUMMARY Appendix B provides details of the Federal Highway Safety Program. It describes alcohol-related guidelines, alcohol-related incentive grants, and passenger restraint related guidelines and grants. Appendix C describes a variety of analytical tools and software for conducting various kinds of safety analyses. The appendix begins with a convenient summary table describing the range of capabilities, expertise, and data requirements for each of the tools. Then, each of the tools are described in fair detail, so that a person wishing to conduct a certain type of safety analysis can determine first if an appropriate tool is available, what is required to use and apply the tool, and what information requirements and in-house expertise are required. The final tool described in this appendix—PLANSAFE—has been developed as part of this NCHRP research effort. The intent of this tool is to enable the forecasting of safety at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level or higher (e.g., a group of TAZs affected by a proposed project). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of the tool are described, and example applications of the tool are provided. Numerous predictive models are discussed for crashes at the TAZ level. Finally, Appendix D provides the details necessary for an MPO or DOT to develop their own set of safety forecasting models at the TAZ level. This appendix is useful for a DOT or MPO with sufficient GIS resources and capabilities and motivation to develop models specific to their region or state (instead of using coefficients based on Arizona and Michigan data). IX

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Travel safety is repeatedly identified in surveys as being one of the most important characteristics of transportation system performance. It is thus not surprising that transportation and enforcement agencies at all levels of government emphasize the importance of safety with respect to their responsibilities in providing and managing transportation infrastructure. Given this emphasis on a safe transportation system, one would expect safety to be well integrated into all aspects of an agency’s planning and decision-making processes. In many instances, such is not the case. Project NCHRP 8-44, “Incorporating Safety Into Transportation-planning” found through surveys and case studies that safety is often considered by transportation officials to be a concept that is best handled during the project design process or left to enforcement agencies. Relatively little thought was given to how safety could be considered early in the planning process so that resulting plans, operations strategies, policies, and institutional partnerships would incorporate safety not as an afterthought, but rather as an integral part of an agency’s capital investment, operations, and daily management programs. However, several state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have begun to develop an approach for integrating safety considerations into plan and program development that hold great promise[1,2]. The results of this research indicate that a more comprehensive and effective consideration of safety in transportation-planning can indeed occur and result in outcomes that are beneficial for safety. The purpose of this guidebook is to provide overall direction on how safety is integrated into the transportation-planning process. The audience for the guidebook is primarily transportation practitioners and decision makers who want to know what approaches and tools can be used to increase the consideration of safety in transportation-planning. The guidebook first discusses the concept of safety, what safety means, and who should be involved in safety planning. The guidebook next recognizes that incorporating safety into transportation-planning presupposes that one knows what is transportation-planning. This section of the guidebook presents a generic framework for a transportation-planning process that highlights major elements and tasks associated with developing and delivering the many different products that result from a typical planning effort. The next section of the guidebook presents information on the different types of analysis tools and methods that can be used in the transportation-planning process and to understand better the role that safety considerations have in affecting transportation system performance. The final section presents a checklist of questions that transportation officials can ask themselves to gauge the level to which their planning process is considering safety in a serious and significant way. Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Page intentionally left blank. Chapter 1. —INTRODUCTION 2

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 2. WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRAN CHAPTER 2. WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? At first glance, the answer to the question above seems self-evident. Safety, as traditionally defined, means achieving a trip purpose without incurring personal harm or damage to property. In order to achieve this, transportation planners and engineers have focused on fatalities, injuries, crashes resulting in property damage, assaults on transit facilities, truck crashes, crashes at railroad crossings, pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes, etc. Historically, this concern has led to improvements in the geometric design or operations of transportation facilities, a traditional responsibility of transportation agencies. Over the past 40 years, however, government policies with respect to safety have been defined much more broadly than simply calling for improved project designs. Efforts have also focused on enforcement, education, and emergency services (which along with “engineering” constitute the four E’s of the safety challenge). Incorporating safety into transportation-planning often means integrating safety into all aspects of an agency’s operations. For example, the Federal Highway Administration conducted a program review in 2001 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in the states of Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. The main objective of this review was to identify best practices in implementing the safety program. The practices listed below were determined to constitute best practices by the FHWA, and for the purposes of this guidebook, provide some guidance on the characteristics of effectively incorporating safety into transportation-planning. • Identify safety as a major goal of the agency, with commitment to it at the highest levels. In several of the states visited, the governor played an active role in promoting safety; support by the state transportation secretary was also critical. • Develop a good multi-disciplinary safety management process, with a strong emphasis on roadway safety. A safety management system is a systematic process that has the goal of reducing the number and severity of traffic crashes by ensuring that all opportunities to improve highway safety are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and evaluated in all phases of highway planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation. It does so by providing information for selecting and implementing effective highway safety strategies and projects. Having a good system provides a focus on safety and enables the various disciplines to work together to comprehensively address highway safety problems. • Emphasize safety on all projects. Although much of the emphasis has been on remedial efforts, highway safety enhancements are implemented in conjunction with new or with other roadway improvement projects. Under the TEA-21, safety must be incorporated as part of the state and metropolitan transportation- planning processes. • Designate a Safety Engineer/Coordinator and/or a designated safety division within the State DOT as the focal point for the HSIP. For the larger states with regional structures, each region’s office must have Safety Engineers/Coordinators and/or designated safety sections. • Assist local governments. Many localities do not have staff solely dedicated to highway safety and as a result may not have the expertise to address their highway safety problems and needs. 3Incorporating safety into transportation- planning often means integrating safety into all aspects of an agency’s operations. SPORTATION-PLANNING?

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 2. —WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? • Use current technologies (e.g., GIS and web-based systems). These technologies help to provide more timely and accurate information, especially in the areas of data collection and analysis. • Develop community-based traffic safety programs. Community-based programs help to elevate the importance of safety at the community and higher levels. • Create a traffic records coordinating committee. These committees help to ensure the timeliness, accuracy, and linkage of data and help to avoid duplication of efforts. • Develop systematic and well-documented processes. Employee turnover and/or lateral transfers can devastate existing momentum towards safety programs; thus, detailed documentation can help to preserve the momentum and institutional memory of such programs. • Collect and use timely and accurate crash data. This need is critical for determining where efforts should be focused. Considerable efforts are being made to reduce the period of time between when crashes occur and when the data are made available for use in automated systems. • Select hazardous locations for corrective action based on several factors. While there were a number of variations for selecting ‘sites with promise’, the most common factors were combinations of crash frequency, rate, and severity. Given the focus of this review, it is not surprising that emphasis was given to fatal and major injury road crashes and the corresponding types of infrastructure strategies that could reduce fatalities and crash-related injuries. However, as noted previously, safety includes more than just infrastructure-related strategies. An impressive number of innovative safety programs have been implemented throughout the U.S. that include a wide range of enforcement, education, and engineering initiatives including (see appendix A for more detail on these and other initiatives): • Booze It & Lose It: Law enforcement officers conduct sobriety tests at roadside checkpoints in a state or region. • Please Be Seated: Through public education and increased awareness, this initiative is designed to reduce child injuries and deaths caused by motor vehicle crashes. Those observing an unrestrained child in a moving vehicle can inform the Please Be Seated program by completing and mailing a card. Once a card is received, the vehicle owner is mailed a friendly letter from the Please Be Seated program stressing the importance of using a child safety seat or seat belt to protect children. • Bus Safety Program: Law enforcement officers monitor school bus routes to enforce a state's “no stopped bus passing” law and to ensure safety for children. • Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL): The GDL law is designed to help teenagers learn how to drive safely by giving them more experience behind the wheel in a step-by-step process until they "graduate" to a full license. Various versions of GDL are available. • Community Traffic Safety Teams (CTSTs): These teams are locally based groups of highway safety advocates who are committed to solving traffic safety problems through a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary approach. • Get the Picture, Listen to the Signs: Educational and marketing efforts are made to promote the importance of highway signs and the need for motorists to understand a sign’s meaning. An impressive number of innovative safety programs have been implemented throughout the U.S. that include a wide range of enforcement, education, and engineering initiatives 4

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 2. WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? • Traffic Safety Almanac Program: Detailed roadway-based problem analyses and reports are prepared that link problem identification and countermeasure data, conveyed on a routine, systematic basis to traffic safety activists. • Highway Work Zone Safety: A series of training videos were developed that document the dangers of the work zone and the safety considerations critical for all workers. • Campus BLAST (Building Local Alternatives for Safe Transportation): A total of 75 local bars in two towns agreed to distribute campaign materials, including more than 20,000 identification tags and brochures with a "don't drink and drive" message to college students during campus enrollment. • Governor's Center for Teen Leadership (GCTL): This program provided students from 4PthP to 12PthP grades with team-based traffic safety/leadership retreat training. • Operation Lifesaver: Safety is enhanced at highway/railway crossings through the purchase and distribution of public information materials. • Safe Routes to School: Programs throughout the U.S. promote walking and bicycling to school through education and incentives. In particular, the program focuses on safety by encouraging greater enforcement of traffic laws, educating the public, and exploring ways to create safer streets. This list presents a small sample of the many different safety-related programs and initiatives implemented throughout the U.S. and in many other countries (see Exhibit 1 for an international perspective on safety). Many of these initiatives have been led by groups and organizations that are independent of transportation agencies, although transportation planners and engineers have often played key roles in their development and implementation. Because many of these efforts do not originate from transportation agencies or from the transportation-planning process, some believe (as evidenced in the survey results and case studies for this project) that these programs do not constitute major concerns within the transportation-planning process. Such programs in some cases are believed to be better suited for safety organizations, schools, and enforcement agencies. The rationale for this position is neither surprising nor unexpected. Statutory limits on the use of funds, an historical focus on the programming of projects (as in facilities), and a methodological framework that lends itself more to transportation capacity-related analysis than driving behavioral analysis all lead to a position that safety behavioral strategies should be someone else’s responsibility. However, this research identified several instances where state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have played lead roles in many of the types of programs listed above. In others, although such agencies have not held lead roles, they have played critically important collaborative roles in implementing the programs. Which organization takes the lead role for a particular program will depend on local institutional history, legal mandates, and organizational capabilities. It is important to note, however, that the guidance developed in subsequent sections of this guidebook assumes that: Incorporating safety considerations and strategies into the transportation-planning process includes not only a consideration of safety-related capital projects and system operations strategies, but also a concern for public education, enforcement, and emergency response to incidents. Many safety initiatives are led by groups and organizations that are independent of transportation agencies, although transportation planners and engineers have often played key roles in their development 5

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 2. —WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? Exhibit 1: Aspects of safety from an international perspective Aspects of Safety from an International Perspective [World Bank, 2004, HTUhttp://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/safety.htm#developing UTH] 1. Designing Roads to Improve Road Safety (Safety Engineering) Introduction of self-enforcement techniques in roadway design is likely to have more favorable short-term results than improving vehicle standards and driver testing requirements. Road accidents can be prevented by better planning and greater emphasis on safety-conscious designs of the road network. Systematic identification and treatment of hazardous locations can improve road safety substantially. 2. Data Systems and Analysis Data are the cornerstone of all road safety activities and are essential for the diagnosis of the road accident problem and for monitoring road safety efforts. It is important to identify which categories of road users are involved in accidents, which maneuvers and behavior patterns lead to accidents, and under what conditions accidents occur, in order to focus on safety activities. 3. Road Safety Research Research and development are important elements of transportation safety and should be incorporated into road safety programs. Road safety research aims to improve knowledge about factors contributing to road accidents, to understand the effects of different countermeasures, and to develop innovative and more effective safety measures. It forms the framework of knowledge against which better policy and resource allocation decisions are made to ensure the most effective use of available resources. 4. Road Safety Audits Road safety audits are the systematic checking of the safety aspects of highway and traffic management schemes and facilities, including modifications to existing infrastructure. The main aim for new projects is to counteract safety problems through proactive design from the beginning and to reduce the potential for future problems. Safety audits should be included during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of transportation projects. As part of resurfacing projects, such audits can be used to incorporate safety more comprehensively into standard agency operations. 5. Publicity Programs Road user education and the raising of safety awareness is an important part of any road safety strategy. To be effective, these activities must be based on analysis of data and should be designed, targeted, and monitored in a systematic and appropriate way to ensure success. 6. Children's Traffic Education Teaching safety skills to children can provide lifelong benefits to society but is a long-term intervention strategy. Children may remember the messages in the short term, but effective and sustainable development of positive attitudes towards road safety are best achieved by inclusion in the core education curriculum, either as a compulsory subject or as a cross-curricular theme. 6

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Aspects of Safety from an International Perspective 7. Driver Training and Testing With road user error contributing to the vast majority of road accidents, the development of safe drivers who are skilled in defensive driving techniques is an important objective in any road safety program. Driving examiners should receive specialized training. 8. Traffic Law and Enforcement Effective, consistent, and continuous traffic law enforcement plays an important role in reducing traffic accidents. 6. Vehicle Safety Standards Improvements in vehicle design, occupant protection, and vehicle maintenance have made significant contributions to accident reductions. Occupants are protected by safety features such as seat belts, headrests, air bags, and special seats for children. Safety related components need regular maintenance, which is achieved by periodic vehicle inspections combined with frequent random inspections of vehicles on the road. Overloading of heavy duty vehicles is a serious safety hazard for all road users and should be regulated and enforced. 7. Emergency Medical Services Timely and proper treatment of road casualties is essential for reducing the severity of motor vehicle related injuries. Driver education on first aid procedures and correct transportation of accident victims is also vital. A single emergency telephone number (for example, "911") can facilitate the simultaneous alerting of police, ambulance, and other rescue services and help to reduce emergency medical service response times. 8. Monitoring and Evaluation A simple but effective monitoring and evaluation system is required to track progress of road safety activities and to estimate the safety impacts. Monitoring and evaluation systems established as part of implementing action plans and safety initiatives must therefore , where appropriate, be able to indicate progress towards achievement of institutional impact and developmental objectives. 9. The Role of NGOs Road safety cannot be the responsibility of government alone. The commercial sector, service organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play important roles in increasing road safety awareness. Chapter 2. WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? 7

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Page intentionally left blank. Chapter 2. —WHAT IS MEANT BY SAFETY AS IT RELATES TO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING? 8

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 3. WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? A comprehensive safety program includes a range of strategies and actions and involves many different agencies and groups CHAPTER 3. WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? The basic point of departure for this guidebook is that safety, broadly defined, should be engrained in the planning processes undertaken by state DOTs, MPOs and regional planning agencies. The reasons for this are many: • Similar to other issues that are linked to the construction and operation of transportation facilities (e.g., air quality, economic development, etc.), travel safety is clearly an issue that can be affected by how the transportation system is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained. Accordingly, given that transportation-planning leads to changes in this transportation system, safety should be thoroughly integrated into an agency’s planning process. • The costs associated with motor vehicle-related fatalities and vehicle accidents are staggering. The National Safety Council estimates the cost to society of a fatality to be just over $3 million. In the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area between 1998 and 2000, motor vehicle crash costs to society were estimated to be $11.9 billion….just in this one metropolitan area! • Motor vehicle fatalities and crashes are a leading public health problem in the U.S., and indeed, in the world. Over 40,000 people are killed each year on the U.S. road system; over two million are injured. In 1998 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared that motor vehicle fatalities were the leading cause of death in the U.S. for those under the age of 34 and was a top 10 cause for all other age groups (for the most recent national and state statistics for safety, see http://nhtsa.gov/people/Accident/crashstatistics/index.htm). • For states and metropolitan areas struggling with congestion on freeways and other major roads, crashes represent a major source of congestion (referred to as “non-recurring” congestion). In busy rush hours, the time it takes police and/or emergency services to reach a site, clear the vehicles from the travel lanes, collect any relevant crash-related data, and remove disabled vehicles from the roadway can lead to monumental traffic delays on critically important roads. Indeed, some estimates blame between 50 and 70 percent of urban congestion on crash-related incidents. • Evidence from around the world and throughout the U.S. suggests that many crashes are preventable. In the U.S., approximately 30 percent of motor vehicle fatalities and 72 percent of the motor-vehicle-related injuries involve speeding. Collisions with fixed objects were a characteristic of 27 percent of fatalities and 15 percent of injuries. Just over 39 percent of fatalities involved drugs or alcohol. A comprehensive program or strategy dealing with the causes of motor vehicle crashes could have a significant benefit to society. • A comprehensive safety program includes a range of strategies and actions and involves many different agencies and groups. Comprehensive safety strategies require the combined efforts of many of these participants to be effective (e.g., a speed limit that is not enforced is unlikely to influence driver behavior). Thus, there is a need for the many different agencies and groups responsible for safety- related programs and efforts to coordinate their activities and to exchange information to make safety program activities more successful. An important forum for fostering safety program collaboration at the state and metropolitan levels could be through the transportation-planning process. Evidence from around the world and throughout the U.S. suggests that many accidents are preventable 9

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 3. —WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? • Finally, statewide and metropolitan transportation-planning in the U.S. reflects federal mandates on what such planning should consist of. In both cases, safety has been identified by Congress as a national issue that needs to be considered. The importance of safety in the U.S. is highlighted by inspection of several figures. There are approximately 42,000 motor vehicle traffic related fatalities each year in the United States (see Exhibit 2), or about 1.5 crashes per 150 million vehicles miles of travel. Pedestrians are particularly vulnerable transportation system users who account for about 12 percent of total fatalities (see Exhibit 3). Pedestrian crashes tend to be severe, involve high costs, and require comprehensive efforts to address. Alcohol-involved crashes claim the lives of about 17,000 Americans each year, and represent a behavioral problem that involves numerous agencies (e.g., health and human services, judicial and courts, law enforcement, department of transportation, governor’s office of highway safety, etc.) and represent a significant federal issue (see Exhibit 4). These two trends alone illustrate the multidisciplinary nature of the transportation safety problem, the magnitude of the transportation system-related deaths, and the justification for a coordinated and comprehensive remediation approach. Exhibit 2: Total number and rate of U.S. motor vehicle traffic-related fatalities Exhibit 3: Total number and percentage of U.S. pedestrian fatalities 10

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 4: Total number and rate of U.S. alcohol- related fatalities Roadway departure fatalities (defined as run-off-the-road, head-on, opposite direction sideswipes and opposite direction front-to-side-related fatalities) accounted fo 59% of total fatalities, or about 25,400 deaths in 2002. Designing safe roadside environments, increasing driving control through signing, striping, and high design standards, and reducing impaired driving all serve as potential remedies for such types of crashes. Exhibit 5: Total number and percent of U.S. roadway departure fatalities Intersection-related fatal crashes (see Exhibit 6) account for about 22% of total fatalities or about 8,500 nationally. Engineering and/or operational characteristics that are important include signal timing and phasing, channelization, and intersection geometry. Behavioral problems such as running through red lights and speeding may play vital roles in these types of crashes as well. Chapter 3. WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? 11

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 6: Total number and percent of U.S. intersection-related fatalities Motorcycle-related fatal crashes (see Exhibit 7) account for about 3,000 fatalities nationally, and the number is steadily climbing. The rate of fatal crashes for motorcycles (per 100 million vehicles miles of travel) is about 15 times higher than the rate of fatal crashes for motor vehicles, reflecting the inherently greater risk associated with high speeds and lack of body protection and safety features on motor cycles compared to motor vehicles. In addition, motor cycles have become more popular and have become significantly higher performing over recent years. Exhibit 7: Total number and rate of U.S. motorcycle-related fatalities Chapter 3. —WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? 12

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 8: Total number and percentage of U.S. speeding- related fatalities Speeding-related fatalities (see Exhibit 8) account for about 13,800 fatalities nationally (or about 32% of fatalities). Speeding is both a behavioral and engineering issue: enforcement and adjudication affect speeding as well as engineering design considerations such as design speeds, posted speed limits, lane widths, pavement surface, striping, and other factors. Exhibit 9: Total number and percentage of U.S. large truck- related fatalities Fatalities associated with heavy duty or large trucks (see Exhibit 9) account for about 4,900 nationally or about 2.5 fatalities per 100 million commercial vehicle miles of travel. Because of the significant mass, lack of maneuverability (compared to an average passenger vehicle), and reduced visibility of adjacent motor vehicle drivers, crashes associated with large trucks tend to be severe. Pedestrians and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to large vehicles due to poor driver visibility in large trucks and the large roadway space large trucks consume. Chapter 3. WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? 13

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Page intentionally left blank. Chapter 3. —WHY IS SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS? 14

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning CHAPTER 4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION- PLANNING Two aspects of the institutional context for incorporating safety into transportation-planning merit special attention. The first relates to legislative and government programmatic requirements to consider safety in a systematic way. The second reflects the large number of stakeholders and participants that could be part of a comprehensive safety program for a state or metropolitan area. Legislative and Program Requirements TEA-21 emphasizes safety consciousness in a more comprehensive, system-wide, and multi-modal context Transportation agencies focus on the many different aspects of providing and operating a transportation system. One of the most important reasons for doing so is that enabling legislation or other related legislative acts direct such action. In many states, for example, state legislation directs the state DOT to provide a safe transportation system or provide special funds or enforcement powers to foster increased safety. State legislation, however, often does not directly link a concern for safety with the transportation-planning process. This linkage has most recently occurred through federal legislation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 is, in many ways, a benchmark of federal transportation legislation. Along with the subsequent Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, it defined the post-Interstate transportation program, and broadened the types of issues considered as part of the transportation-planning process. By mandating the consideration of a broader range of issues in planning, it was assumed that the projects and strategies resulting from the planning and programming processes would relate to these issues. ISTEA reinforced this broadening of focus with the requirement for state DOTs and MPOs to develop management systems relating to six different performance characteristics of the transportation system, one of which targeted safety. The intent of these management systems was to provide a systematic process of identifying system deficiencies, analyzing and evaluating prospective improvement strategies, and monitoring implemented projects/strategies to determine whether projected effects actually occurred. The requirement for these management systems, except in the case of congestion management systems for transportation management areas, was made optional by Congress in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. TEA-21 was the first federal law that required state DOTs and MPOs to incorporate safety and security as one of several priority factors into their respective transportation-planning processes and activities. It emphasized that safety should be considered in a more comprehensive, system-wide, and multi-modal context. Given such a requirement, the consideration of safety issues by the planning process became one criterion used by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration when statewide- and metropolitan-planning processes are reviewed and certified for compliance with federal law. Although both ISTEA and TEA-21 are important legislative foundations for considering safety in the transportation-planning process, in fact, the federal government had been emphasizing the importance of safety for many years. For example, the Federal Highway Administration issued a series of regulations in the late 1970s and early 1980s (again modified in 1991 and 1998) commonly known as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). As part of the HSIP, the FHWA Chapter 4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING 15

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 4. —INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING requires each state to develop and implement on a continual basis a HSIP that has the overall objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes and decreasing the potential for crashes on all highways. The requirements for a HSIP include: • Planning: a process of collecting and maintaining a record of crash, traffic and highway data; analyzing available data to identify hazardous highway locations; conducting engineering study of those locations; prioritizing implementation; conducting benefit-cost analysis; and paying special attention to railway/highway grade crossings. • Implementation: a process for scheduling and implementing safety improvement projects and allocating funds according to the priorities developed in the planning phase. • Evaluation: a process for evaluating the effects of transportation improvements on safety including the cost of the safety benefits derived from the improvements, the crash experience before and after implementation, and a comparison of the pre- and post-project crash numbers, rates, and severity. Projects resulting from this process are to be developed by the states and approved by the FHWA (see Appendix B for other federal programs relating to safety). Additional federal requirements for safety are incorporated into 23 U.S.C. Section 402, which required the creation of a state highway safety program. This program, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that “the Governor of the State be responsible for the administration of the [State Highway Safety Program] through a Governor’s Highway Safety office, which shall have adequate powers and be suitably equipped to carry out… such program” [23 U.S.C. § 402 (b1A)]. The governor is responsible for administering Section 402 funds under this law. To encourage jurisdictions within a state to adopt highway safety programs, the governor may also approve safety programs administered by political subdivisions of the state, provided that these programs are in accordance with the minimum guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation. This law specifies that at least 40 percent of all federal allocations under Section 402 shall be allocated to the political subdivisions of the state. NHTSA may not approve a state’s annual work program if at least 40 percent of a state’s political subdivisions do not receive such allocations. This law also requires states seeking funding under Section 402 to develop an annual performance plan containing measurable transportation goals and objectives aimed at addressing safety problems. An annual highway safety plan, approved by the Governor’s Representative for Highway Safety, is required to describe Section 402 program activities and costs. The law further requires that each state submit an annual report that describes the state’s progress towards its highway safety goals, as well as how the funding allocated under Section 402 contributed towards meeting these goals. This process is illustrated in Exhibit 10. 16

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING Highway Safety Plan • Program Activities • Planning and Administration Costs • Cost Allocations Performance Plan • Goals • Objectives • Measures Annual Report • Effectiveness (Goals) The majority of activities undertaken by the Governors’ Highway Safety Offices are oriented towards encouraging the use of passenger restraint systems, minimizing dangers associated with individual’s driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and encouraging safe behavior in school and construction zones. While these activities are associated with behavioral aspects of transportation system usage, it is clear that the substantive safety issues these programs are seeking to address are of great interest to transportation-planning efforts aimed at increasing transportation system safety. The relationship between highway safety offices and their safety programs and the planning efforts of transportation agencies is one that needs to be strengthened and strategies found to better integrate these processes.[3] Stakeholders in Transportation-planning and Safety The effective integration of safety considerations into transportation-planning requires the collaborative interaction of numerous groups. In most cases, who is involved will depend on what issue is being addressed. For example, a bicycle safety program focused on child safety might involve enforcement agencies, governor highway safety representatives, local public works agencies, school administrators, parent organizations, churches, local store owners and business associations, emergency response providers, and civic associations. It is therefore difficult to identify in a generic sense who should be involved in safety conscious planning. The key, however, is collaboration; and the key to successful collaboration is identifying for each participant what benefit each receives through participation. Exhibit 11 presents the results of a survey that sought to identify the agencies that MPO and state DOT officials consider to have the most influence in transportation-planning. The MPO respondents indicated that the state DOT was the most influential of the 12 organizations listed; local police agencies were ranked as fifth most influential. The state DOT respondents said that other members of their own DOT have the most influence on the issues addressed in the statewide Exhibit 10: Annual state section 402 safety planning process 17

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Chapter 4. —INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING transportation-planning process, and the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety ranks third. MPO DOT Agency Rank Rank Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 10 3 Metropolitan Planning Organization 2 4 State Department of Transportation 1 1 Local departments of transportation 4 6 Departments of Public Health 8 11 Departments of Public Safety 6 8 Local police agencies 5 5 Department of Education/School Boards 9 9 Federal Highway Administration 3 2 Federal Transit Administration 7 7 Area Agency on Aging 11 12 American Automobile Association (AAA) 12 10 All of the agencies listed in Exhibit 12are potentially important participants in a transportation-planning process with greater emphasis on safety. A list of additional participants is provided in Exhibit 12. • Citizen’s transportation advisory committees • Private transit providers • Special transportation authorities • Traffic engineers • Transit agencies • Engineering design consultants • Insurance companies • Hospitals • School districts and universities • Emergency service responders • Business community • Homeowners’ Associations • Civic groups • Parents’ groups • Local media • Elderly groups • Contractors • Special advocacy groups, such as motorcycle, pedestrian and bicycle organizations • Local lobby groups To be effective, a core group must be involved if the transportation-planning process is to incorporate safety considerations in a serious way. This core group will likely include the planning organization, transportation agencies, enforcement organizations, emergency responders, and the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative. One of the key characteristics of effective comprehensive safety programs at the state and metropolitan levels has been the successful collaboration of many different participants. Such success partly rests on understanding what role each participant plays in the broader perspective of transportation safety. The Governors’ Highway Safety Offices (GHSOs) are typically involved in the behavioral and human aspects of transportation safety. Typical programs initiated or administered by GHSOs include driver licensing and education programs, drunken driving and driver impairment-related programs, educational campaigns and programs, helmet use and driver restraint programs, and special population programs such as youth and senior driver programs. Transportation infrastructure agencies are typically involved in the project design or engineering aspects of transportation safety, as well as in the operations of the transportation system. Although state DOTs have primary responsibility for roads carrying the most traffic, county and local jurisdictions almost always have their own staff or organizations with responsibility for a community’s transportation program. Programs often initiated or administered by DOTs include roadway safety management systems, identifying ‘sites with promise’, maintaining and improving Exhibit 11: Agency Influence in transportation-planning process issues as ranked by MPOs and state DOTs Exhibit 12: List of potential participants in safety conscious transportation-planning process One of the key characteristics of effective comprehensive safety programs at the state and metropolitan levels is the successful collaboration of many different participants 18

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning roadway design standards, implementing traffic engineering projects and strategies, and evaluating system safety. In some cases, state DOTs house motor vehicle divisions and are responsible for motor vehicle safety inspection programs. In addition, DOTs are often the repository for databases relating to the physical characteristics of the road network. The extent and quality of roadway and roadside data (e.g., pavement condition, pavement width, lighting conditions, signal phasing, etc.) are critical for subsequent safety analysis of transportation system performance. Transportation service providers are concerned about passenger safety in that feeling safe and secure is an important characteristic of a service that is necessary to attract and maintain ridership. A transit agency or operating authority is a good example of this type of agency. Most large transit agencies have their own police force and provide surveillance of key locations on their transit system. Most recently, the threat of terrorist attacks have heightened the concern for personal safety on transit systems (the largest number of terrorist attacks in the world over the past 10 years has been on public transit services). The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is the agency responsible for developing a regional transportation plan and a transportation improvement program (TIP). As part of this responsibility, the MPO engages in planning studies, program development, and policy formulation leading to improved transportation system performance. Similar to state DOTs, MPOs collect a large amount of data on the condition and operational performance of the transportation system. They are also most often the developers and users of regional models that are used to analyze transportation system performance. For both activities, that is, data collection and analysis, the MPO will have an important role in efforts to consider safety more comprehensively in the transportation-planning process. Emergency medical services (EMS) agencies play an important role in transportation safety. Both the quality and expediency of care that are provided at a crash scene followed by the quality of care provided at the hospital are critical factors that influence the survivability of a motor vehicle-related crash. In addition, the quality and extent of EMS data are critical for assessing the safety characteristics of the transportation system. Departments of public safety (DPS) or police agencies play a critical role in enforcing traffic laws. These agencies typically carry out routine enforcement activities, and in addition, apply for assistance from GOHSs for special programs such as driving impairment enforcement. In addition, police agencies play a vital role in the collection and accuracy of motor vehicle crash data. Elected and appointed officials such as state and local legislators, mayors, judges, and city and county attorney’s offices are very important to the overall success of a jurisdiction’s safety efforts. Legislatures pass laws that greatly influence transportation safety, such as primary safety restraint laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and child bicycle helmet laws. Judges also play vital roles when and how they determine sentences and fines for various traffic violations, whereas city and county attorneys (prosecutors) decide which ‘cases’ to bring to court. Importantly, some of the more effective strategies for reducing fatalities are those that most directly affect individual behavior, something that is often difficult to legislate. Thus, elected and appointed officials are critically important to initiatives that have potential to achieve safety goals through behavior modification. Federal government agencies such as the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) play important roles in national, state, metropolitan, and local transportation safety through the provision of special programs targeted at safety improvement, as well as through their Chapter 4. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING 19

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning monitoring of the statewide and metropolitan transportation-planning process. Numerous opportunities exist for federal matching funds to support safety-related projects and strategies. Non government organizations (NGOs) and lobby groups play vital roles in getting safety legislation passed and laws enforced. For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has provided a major impetus at both the national level and in many states for initiatives aimed at reducing the incidence of drunk driving. In some metropolitan areas and states, the American Automobile Association (AAA) has been aggressively working with state and local governments to improve the safety record. At the local level, citizen advocacy groups for pedestrian, bicycle, and road safety often attempt to influence the priorities and direction of governmental transportation programs. Incorporating safety into the transportation-planning process in a substantive and comprehensive way depends upon the participation of many if not all of these groups and organizations. As noted previously, the collaborative nature of this participation is an important precursor to success. Chapter 4. —INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR INCORPORATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING 20

Next: Chapter 5: The Transportation-Planning Process »
Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 546/CD ROM CRP-CD-62, examines where and how safety can be effectively addressed and integrated into long-range transportation planning at the state and metropolitan levels. The report includes guidance for practitioners in identifying and evaluating alternative ways to incorporate and integrate safety considerations in long-range statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and decision-making processes.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!