Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning (2006)

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.

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning CHAPTER 6. INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING Incorporating safety into the transportation-planning process can occur at many different steps of the planning process. Doing so will result in greater decision- making emphasis placed on safety-related strategies and projects. Seriously considering safety will entail the incorporation of safety considerations throughout the planning process. However, it is likely that even incorporating safety considerations into one or two elements of the planning process (for example, in the evaluation and priority-setting components) could influence final decisions. This chapter discusses how safety can be included in each step of the planning process. Questions that serve as tools for assessing the safety-related status of an individual step in the planning process are provided at the beginning of each section. If it is found that safety is not considered in a rigorous way in a particular planning step, suggested actions for so doing are recommended at the end of each section. Step 1: Incorporating Safety into the Vision Statement Questions for assessing the vision statement of the region, DOT, or MPO are provided in Exhibit 15. A inclu gene or ta state Thus proc supp trans visio “ e m i S Exhibit 15: Questions for assessing the vision statement 27Questions to be asked… • Is safety incorporated into the current vision statement of your jurisdiction’s transportation plan? If not, why not? • Is safety an important part of the mandates and enabling legislation of key agency participants in the planning process? • Is safety an important concern to the general public and planning stakeholders? If not, should it be? • How is safety defined by community stakeholders? • What type of information is necessary and desired to educate the community on the importance of a safe transportation system? vision statement describes what a community would like to be in the future, ding desired characteristics of its transportation system. These might include ral descriptions of community character and transportation system performance rgeted statements concerning desired transportation performance. The vision ment is usually developed through extensive outreach efforts to the community. , the process of developing a vision statement is very much a “bottom-up” ess, although, in most cases, vision statements should be consistent with and ort stated policies. The following vision statement for the California statewide portation-planning process illustrates a typical vision statement for a state. The n for California is to have: a safe sustainable transportation system that is environmentally sound, socially quitable, economically viable, and developed through collaboration; it provides for the obility and accessibility of people, goods, services, and information through an ntegrated, multimodal network.”[Caltrans, California Transportation Plan, 2025, acramento, CA, March 2004]. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning The following two vision statements from the San Francisco Bay area and Orlando, FL illustrate similar types of vision statements for metropolitan transportation-planning processes: “The highest aim of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is to plan for, deliver and manage a safe, efficient, integrated, multimodal transportation system for the San Francisco Bay Area”. [Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter 3: RTP Goals, Oakland, CA: 2001]. “By the year 2020, have a regional, integrated, multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently moves people and goods to, through and within our urban area, and which enables the Central Florida community to flourish in the global marketplace. “[Orlando MetroPlan, Year 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update, Orlando, FL, Dec. 2000] Note that in each of the vision statements “safety” is a desired characteristic of the future travel experience. Although many vision statements turn out to be generalized statements on community desires and wishes, they often are the result of extensive community outreach and reflect community input. Developing vision statements (referred to as the “visioning process”) to guide a planning process is one of the first efforts to engage a community in a discussion of desired community characteristics and importantly of what role the transportation system can play in achieving these desired states. Thus, the visioning process is important to this guidebook not only because it represents one of the first comprehensive efforts to seek input from and educate a community on what constitutes important transportation system performance, but also because it represents an important “point of departure” for the many planning activities that follow. Furthermore, it sets the tone for the overall focus of the planning process and what needs to be considered when analyzing and evaluating different transportation options. Transportation safety should be part of the transportation system performance element of vision statements. Exhibit 16 presents steps that can be taken to insert safety considerations in the vision statement. Exhibit 16: Suggested steps for including safety in the vision statement Suggested steps….. • Prepare and present background information on transportation safety in the state or jurisdiction. This information can perhaps be best presented via video or DVD. Illustrate how significant the safety problem is not only on the personal level, but also to society as a whole. Describe safety for all modes: motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. • Prepare and present information on what benefits are likely to occur to this safety situation with the implementation of a comprehensive safety strategy in the state or community. • Prepare prototypical vision statements that include safety as part of the vision (or identify such statements used by others in the U.S.). Present these statements at public meetings, board meetings, or in other forums where the visioning process is taking place to raise awareness toward the safety challenge. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 28

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 2: Incorporating Safety into the Set of Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives for a region are derived from the vision statement. Questions to help assess how and/or whether safety is effectively and appropriately included in goals and objectives are provided in Exhibit 17. Goal Not only transport provide i later to developm undertak Simil general t in a visio for the Sa Exhibit 17: Questions for assessing goals and objectives 29Questions to be asked….. • Is safety incorporated into the current goals and objectives set of your jurisdiction’s transportation plan? If not, why not? If so, what, if anything, needs to be changed in the way safety is represented? • How does the safety goal relate to the community understanding of safety as discovered through the vision development process? • Does the safety goal lead only to recommended project construction and facility operating strategies, or does it also relate to strategies for enforcement, education, and emergency service provision? • Does the safety goal reflect the safety challenge of all modes of transportation that is, is it defined in a multi-modal way? • Are there goal-related objectives that provide more specific directions of how the goal is going to be achieved? Are these objectives measurable? • Do the objectives reflect the most important safety-related issues facing your jurisdiction? • Can the desired safety-related characteristic of the transportation system be forecasted or predicted? If not, is there a surrogate measure or characteristic that will permit one to determine future safety performance? • What type of information is necessary and desired to educate the community on the importance of a safe transportation system as it relates to planning goals and objectives? • If target values are defined in objective statements (for example, fatal accidents will be reduced by 20%), have these targets been vetted through a technical process that shows that the target value can be reached? s and objectives provide more specific guidance for the planning process. do goals and objectives convey to the community a sense of what the ation-planning process and planning products are striving to achieve, they mportant “directions” to the development of the criteria that will be used analyze and evaluate different projects and strategies. As with the ent of a vision statement, the creation of a goals and objectives statement is en with many opportunities provided for public input. ar to a vision statement, goals and objectives are sometimes stated in erms; however, they do provide more specific guidance than what is found n statement. For example, the following goals and objectives were defined n Francisco Bay area transportation-planning process: Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Mobility: Improve mobility of persons and freight Safety: Improve safety for system users Equity: Promote equity for system users Environment: Enhance sensitivity to the environment Economic Vitality: Sustain the economic vitality of the region Community Vitality: Promote vital and livable communities For the safety goal, the following, more specific, objectives were identified: 1) Ensure key transportation facilities are capable of withstanding a major earthquake 2) Ensure MTC, Caltrans, and the Bay Area transit operators can effectively coordinate their services following a major earthquake or other significant emergency that disrupts Bay Area transportation 3) Help ensure the safety of motorists using Bay Area freeways 4) Help ensure the safety and security of transit system users 5) Assist local jurisdictions in their efforts to implement effective strategies to reduce serious injuries and loss of life for pedestrians and bicyclists Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 19 show different goals statements from several metropolitan areas. Safety goals and objectives can also be more specific and include targets, such as: 1) Reduce fatal accidents in the region by 10% over the next three years 2) Reduce accidents that occur in the traffic build-up after an initial accident by 20% over the next two years 3) Reduce fatal and serious injury accidents by drivers aged 16 to 23 by 30% 4) Reduce drug and alcohol-related accidents by 25% 5) Reduce pedestrian- and bicycle-related injuries and fatalities by 50% 6) Reduce red-light running violations by 30% 7) Reduce emergency response times to motor vehicle accidents so that 90% of all accidents are attended to within 6 minutes of the accident 8) Reduce school-zone-related accidents by 75% Specific safety targets such as these may serve to provide guidance and motivation to engineers and planners to achieve regional safety goals. If from the assessment of a plan’s goals and objectives it is determined that safety is not incorporated in a complete way, Exhibit 20 describes some steps that can be taken to include safety explicitly in the goals and objectives of a region. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 30

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 18: Goals and objectives for the Houston- Galveston area council Exhibit 19: Safety goals for Columbus, Ohio, and Southeast Michigan Exhibit 20: Suggested steps for including safety in regional or statewide goals and objectives Suggested steps….. • Prepare prototypical safety-related goals and objectives for the safety problems identified through the public involvement process. Present and refine these goals and objectives given public and decision maker feedback. • If objectives are to be defined with recommended achievement targets (e.g., reduce fatalities by 20 percent over 10 years), conduct an analysis to determine if such a target can reasonably be achieved with 1) existing strategies, 2) by enhancing existing strategies, or 3) only be implementing significantly more draconian strategies. • Use the information material prepared in the visioning process to educate stakeholders and decision makers about safety as it relates to goals and objectives. UGoals and Objectives for the Houston-Galveston Area Council Goal 1 - Reduce congestion and improve access to jobs, markets and services. Goal 2 - Preserve and maintain the existing transportation infrastructure. Goal 3 - Improve transportation safety and security. Goal 4 - Be environmentally responsible. Achieve the safety and security goal by…. • Increasing funding to reduce high accident levels in the region. • Undertaking safety studies throughout the region. • Mitigating 344 major accident hot spots at a cost of $172 million but with an annual benefit of $392 million. • Supporting traffic safety education and traffic enforcement efforts. • Building an information system that will identify crime incidents on transportation facilities to support strategic safety and security investments. USafety Goal in Columbus, OH Goal: Enhance the safety of the regional transportation system. • Remedy dangerous highway, transit, and pedestrian facilities. • Enhance pedestrian safety through the minimization or elimination of conflicts among pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles especially between transit stops, residential and schools, shopping, and recreational areas. USafety Goal and Objectives in Southeastern Michigan Goal: Promote a safe and secure transportation system • Reduce traffic accidents, especially between modes • Increase transit safety and security for riders and employees • Improve identification and clearance of roadway incidents • Develop pedestrian-friendly communities and roadways. • Local communities should define safety needs and strategies Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 31

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 3: Incorporating Safety into System Performance Measures Evaluation of system performance has traditionally relied on measures of congestion, travel delay, traffic volumes, and measurements of the condition of such things as pavements and bridges. Safety performance can be monitored as well. Exhibit 21 lists questions for assessing the role of safety in defining system performance measures for a region. Performance measures are used to monitor the characteristics of transportation system performance and to determine the extent to which desired goals and objectives are being achieved. The use of performance measures is a relatively new phenomenon in transportation-planning, and thus there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to another of how safety is monitored. For example, the following measures from a Texas comprehensive safety plan show how performance measures can relate to specific goals, GOAL ─ Decrease traffic deaths and injuries UPerformance Measures • Mileage death rate (deaths per 100 million VMT) • Vehicular traffic accident rate/100 million VMT • Traffic accident injury rate/100 million VMT Exhibit 21: Questions for assessing role of safety in system performance measures Questions to be asked… • What are the most important safety-related characteristics of the transportation system that resulted from community outreach efforts to date? If performance measures are used, are these characteristics reflected in the articulated set of performance measures? • Will the safety performance of the transportation system (as defined in the performance measures) likely respond to the types of strategies and projects that will result from the planning process? That is, are the performance measures sensitive enough to discern changes in performance that will occur after program implementation? • Is the number of safety performance measures sufficient to address the safety concerns identified in the planning process? Alternatively, are there too many safety measures that could possibly “confuse” one’s interpretation of whether safety is improving? • Does the capability exist to collect the data that are related to the safety performance measures? Is there a high degree of confidence that the data and the data collection techniques will produce valid indicators of safety performance? Who will be responsible for data collection and interpretation? • Can the safety performance measures be linked to the evaluation criteria that will later be used in the planning process to assess the relative benefits of one project or strategy over others? If so, can the safety performance measures be forecasted or predicted for future years? Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 32

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning GOAL ─ Stabilize the increase in the frequency and percentage of all speed- related accidents UPerformance Measures • Frequency of speed-related accidents Another example of the role of safety performance measures in transportation- planning is found in the Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan. This plan is divided into ten policies aimed at improving the performance of the state’s transportation system. One of these policies is, “Increase the safety and security of transportation systems and users.” Five specific measures define what is meant by increased safety: • Reducing the number of accidents per vehicle-mile traveled • Reducing the number of general aviation accidents • Reducing the number of accidents between cars and trains at railroad crossings • Reducing the total number of roadway fatalities • Reducing the number of general aviation fatalities. The Minnesota DOT analyzed the impacts of different safety policies in achieving safety goals. Exhibit 22 shows the results of this analysis. Using a trend- based projection, that is, with little intervention from transportation and enforcement agencies, the number of motor vehicle fatalities would increase from approximately 640 fatalities per year to 735 fatalities per year. With moderate enforcement and transportation interventions, fatalities are projected to decrease to 600, while an aggressive policy results in a projected decrease in fatalities to 550. To be useful, performance measures need to be understood by transportation and enforcement professionals as well as decision makers and the general public. In most cases, multiple metrics are needed to assess the full range of safety problems and of the programs designed to address them. However, the number of safety- related performance measures should be limited to a critical few so that the consequences of implementing safety programs can be identified and monitored in a meaningful way. The measures should rely on existing data and methods to the extent possible and preferably be monitored continuously over time. Exhibit 22: Minnesota DOT analysis of fatality performance goals Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 33

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning A range of possible safety performance measures for use in transportation- planning includes crash count-related performance measures (e.g., fatal crashes), normalized accident rate performance measures (e.g., fatal crashes per million vehicle miles of travel), unit costs and cost-effectiveness measures (e.g., dollars invested in countermeasure), alcohol and drug involved crashes (e.g., number of intoxicated young drivers) and some other measures (e.g., restraint usage rates). Transportation officials often do not agree as to whether performance measures that incorporate driver exposure through rates (e.g., crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) or those that simply reflect the overall magnitude of the problem (e.g., total fatalities) are more appropriate. The lack of consensus stems from the fact that crash rates on some facilities will decrease with increasing traffic volumes without safety interventions, thus making comparison across sites problematic—a lower crash rate could merely reflect a site with greater traffic volumes. Conversely, crash frequencies by themselves lack an accounting of exposure at a site to the level of risk associated with the amount of traffic present. The most widely acceptable approach is to determine the expected crash count for a site using a comparison group of sites with similar traffic volumes and other features, or to account for the non-linear relationship with exposure by calibrating a count-based regression model (i.e., Poisson or Negative Binomial); however, this approach requires analysis capability and understanding. It is highly recommended that this approach be adopted for conducting detailed safety analyses. For some planning purposes, however, it may be prudent to examine both crash rates and frequencies. In fact, this approach is widely practiced, and rests upon the logic that examining a problem from multiple ‘angles’ will lead to greater problem insight. Exhibit 23 provides a short list of suggested steps for including safety in system performance measures. These steps provide important information regarding a range of strategies and specific measures for monitoring safety performance. Exhibit 23: Suggested steps for including safety in system performance measures Suggested steps….. • Review safety-related performance measures used by similar agencies in the U.S. (see Appendix E). • Prepare a set of prototypical safety-related performance measures that reflect the goals and objectives in your planning effort. This set should be limited in number to only those measures that provide critical information on the safety performance of the transportation system and that could presumably be affected by the types of strategies that will result from the planning process. • Discuss the proposed set of performance measures with those in the agency responsible for collecting the data to ensure feasibility of collection and data accuracy. In addition, discuss the measures with transportation modelers in the region or state to determine if the measures can be predicted in future years. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 34

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 4: Incorporate Safety into Technical Analysis Technical analysis is one of the most important steps in the overall planning framework. Through a systematic and comprehensive process, this step identifies problems and opportunities for improvement in the transportation system, and analyzes the relative effectiveness of different projects or strategies in terms of the goals and objectives established earlier in the planning effort. In one sense, this step of planning is really a “breaking down” of transportation problems into components that are used to pinpoint where critical leverage is applied to solve these problems. Two aspects of this technical analysis process merit special attention when considering a closer integration of safety into systems planning—safety-related data and their use, and analysis models/tools. Exhibit 24 lists some questions for assessing the availability, quality, and need for safety data in the planning process. Safety-Related Data Exhibit 24: Questions for incorporating safety-related data in the planning process 35 Questions to be asked….. • Given the definition of safety that resulted from the visioning and goals/objectives phases of the planning process, what types of data are needed to support the safety desires of the community? • Are these data available currently? If not, who should collect these data? Are there ways of collecting the data, or are there surrogate data items that can be used to reduce the costs and burdens of data collection? • Does the state (or region) have a systematic process or program for collecting safety-related data? If not, who should be responsible for developing one? • Is there a quality assurance/quality control strategy in place to ensure the validity of the data collected? If not, who should develop one? • Are there opportunities to incorporate data collection technologies into new infrastructure projects or vehicle purchases (e.g., surveillance cameras or speed sensors)? • Does the safety database include safety data for all modes of transportation that are relevant to the planning process (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, intermodal collisions, etc.)? If not, what is the strategy for collecting such data? Who should be responsible? • What types of database management or data analysis tools are available to best use the data (e.g., a geographic information system)? Are such tools available to produce the type of information desired by transportation decision makers? • Are there other sources of data in your state or region that might be relevant for safety-related planning (e.g., insurance records, hospital admissions, non-profit organizations, etc.)? If yes, who should approach these groups to negotiate the sharing of data? • Are there any liability risks associated with the collection and/or reporting of accident data? If so, how can your agency be protected against such risk? Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Effective technical analysis relies on the availability and use of valid and high quality data. Data are used in a variety of ways. In the context of safety-related planning, they are used to better understand the nature and complexity of safety problems. For example, an analysis might be used to determine whether road fatalities are related more to high driving speeds or to driving while intoxicated. Analysis will also inform to what extent pedestrian injuries and fatalities are related to school activities. These insights are important for gaining a better appreciation of the safety challenges facing a jurisdiction. Analyzing data collected by numerous transportation, enforcement, and health agencies could result in important knowledge for answering these questions. Data are also important for identifying where different types of safety problems exist in a state or metropolitan area. Exhibit 25 through Exhibit 33 illustrate how the combination of quality data and the use of a geographic information system (GIS) in the Houston metropolitan area can pinpoint potential safety problem areas or “hotspots” for a variety of different problem types, which can then be further examined with critical analysis. Notice that with useful visualization and analytical tools, transportation officials can identify potential sites for safety-related infrastructure improvements (and further detailed analysis and site investigations), where to target enforcement activities (e.g., location of illegal running of red lights), and where to emphasize safety education (e.g., at schools with high pedestrian/bicycle/motor vehicle crashes). Capitalizing on GIS tools and portraying crash-related data in such a manner provides useful information to those deciding where to allocate limited safety resources and where additional detailed analyses and investigations are warranted. As shown in Exhibit 25, both MPOs and DOTs rate vehicle crash data as the most important type of data for safety-related planning. Every state has a formal approach for collecting crash data, as do many local jurisdictions. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also collect and disseminate crash data by state via the internet. Crash data are most often collected for each incident and thus include identifiers relating to the location, date/time, roadway characteristics (e.g., alignment, work zone, weather, light conditions, number of lanes, and road surface), crash characteristics (e.g., “manner of collision” and “first harmful event” such as hit object or vehicle rollover), contributing factors, emergency management service (EMS) arrival times, and vehicles and persons involved, and hospital information (e.g., medical injuries and procedures, costs, treatments). At the vehicle/driver level, data can include vehicle type and identification (e.g., make/model, axles, body type, use of a trailer, vehicle identification number (VIN) and state of registration), vehicle crash involvement (e.g., contributing factors and pre-crash travel speed), hazardous material cargo, vehicle crash results (e.g., fire/explosion/spill, rollover, deformation, jackknife) and driver characteristics (e.g., license state, license restrictions and license history). Although crash data are critical for conducting safety-related transportation- planning, planners and engineers often face difficulties in obtaining such data in a comprehensive manner and in a timely fashion. Although crash databases do exist, there is likely to be significant undercounting of the total number of crashes that occur in a state or metropolitan area, especially for non-serious injury and property damage-only crashes. Many agencies that have some responsibility for reporting crash data often use different referencing systems, thus creating a challenge when all of the safety-relevant data for crashes across an entire state or region need to be combined. In many cases, although police agencies have standardized police accident report (PAR) forms that request data on a wide range of crash-related factors, filling out such forms often receives very little priority from police agencies, especially at the crash scene. Finally, crash data that are routed to central databases Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 36

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning are often not available to transportation planners for two (and sometimes more) years after they are reported. Data source MPO State DOT Vehicle crashes 1 1 DUIs 14 12 Injury/fatality 4 3 Property damage 7 8 Vehicle miles traveled 2 4 Air quality/emissions 8 9 Water navigation crashes 10 (tie) 15 Air transport crashes 9 10 (tie) Transit/paratransit incidents 10 (tie) 10 (tie) Roadway inventories 3 2 Emergency medical response 13 16 Accident investigation 16 12 Safety belt/restraint use data 12 14 Bicycle crashes/injuries 6 7 Pedestrian crashes/injuries 5 6 Rail crashes 15 5 Exhibit 25: Importance of data for safety-related transportation-planning source as determined through project survey With increasing attention paid to the importance of safety in the transportation- planning-process, and given new network and vehicle technologies that make data collection less onerous, several of the problems with data collection may be solved in future years. Transportation officials should seek opportunities to incorporate more efficient and effective data collection capabilities when new projects or changes to services are implemented. Exhibit 26: GIS map of accident frequencies on a transportation network Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 37

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 27: GIS map of crashes on a small road network Exhibit 28: GIS map of crashes along a corridor Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 38

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 29: GIS map of bicycle and pedestrian crashes at the neighborhood scale Exhibit 30: GIS map of red- light-running-related crashes on a transportation network Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 39

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 31: GIS map of bicycle and pedestrian crashes in a transportation network Exhibit 32: GIS map of commercial motor vehicle crashes in a transportation network Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 40

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 34 describes steps than can be taken to establish a regional safety database that can be used to support detailed safety analysis in a region. While a GIS system is not necessary, it can be helpful to manage data, to store data, and to combine data from numerous sources that are increasingly becoming available in GIS format. [14] Exhibit 33: GIS map of railroad-highway crossing crashes Exhibit 34: Suggested steps for developing a regional safety database 41Suggested steps… ƒ For each of the goals, objectives and performance measures identified in the planning process, define the types of data that will be necessary to produce the desired information. Develop a data collection strategy…what are the sources of relevant data? Who is responsible for collecting this data? Who is responsible for putting this data into useable form? ƒ Investigate sources of data that currently exist (e.g., collected by federal agencies) that could be used to illustrate the safety challenges facing the state, metropolitan area or community. ƒ Develop a memorandum of understanding or some other form of agreement with relevant agencies for developing a safety database. ƒ Develop a plan for how safety-related data will be poresented, both for internal agency purposes and public presentations. Test this template with public groups to assess its effectiveness. ƒ Involve staff members who are responsible for data collection and data management in decisions relating to the overall strategy for safety-related database management. If a geographic information system is to be used, have these staff members identify what steps must be taken to develop a fully operational system Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning A host of safety analysis tools are available for planners and engineers [see, for example, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Exhibit 35 provides a list of questions that can be asked to help foster the identification of appropriate tools. Analysis Tools Appendix C provides descriptions of many tools to aid the analyst in answering the questions posed in Exhibit 35. The tools are designed to address a range of specific safety-related issues, and the reader is encouraged to become familiar with the tools available. An excellent summary of the available tools is provided in Exhibit 53 in Appendix C. The table provides the name of the tool, the primary purpose of the tool, the level of detail required to run the tool (data requirements), and the required level of expertise. The remainder of Appendix C provides detailed descriptions of the tools, how to contact the vendors, what specific data and expertise are required, etc. The safety analysis tools available include roadway design, planning-level safety forecasting, hot spot identification, pedestrian, bicycle, multi- Exhibit 35: Questions to guide the selection of appropriate safety analysis tools Questions to be asked….. • What is the scale of the safety problem being faced? Regional? Corridor? Site-specific? What tools are available to analyze safety problems at the appropriate scale of analysis? • What information is needed and desired by decision makers? Can existing analysis tools produce this information with reasonable levels of validity? • What are the possible types of strategies that could be implemented to deal with this safety problem? Are there analysis tools currently available in the agency or in partner agencies that can be used to determine the effectiveness of these types of strategies? If not, are there analysis tools available elsewhere? • Is the safety-planning challenge one that requires predicting or forecasting the future safety characteristics of a transportation system or facility? If so, what approach will be taken to predict such future performance? What are the underlying assumptions in this approach (e.g., future accident rates are the same in the future as they are today)? Or, in other terms, what are the sources of uncertainty associated with safety predictions? • Can existing analysis tools, or if necessary, the process of developing new ones, be undertaken in the timeframe associated with when decisions have to be made? If not, is there a more timely analysis procedure that can be used to produce information that is relevant to decision makers? • If the safety challenge includes problems associated with multiple modes of transportation, and if so, what tools can address multimodal or mode specific safety issues? For example, most available analysis tools focus on road safety. If the state or region is facing safety problems with pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or freight trip-making, what analysis tools will be used to analyze these types of problems? If available analysis tools are not used, how are these problems addressed in the safety- related planning effort? Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 42

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning modal, intersection analysis, road segment analysis, database management, safety level of service, and data linkage tools. The level of analytical rigor applied in safety-related planning efforts will depend upon many factors; the demand for safety analysis in the region, the cooperation and coordination with other stakeholder agencies in the region, the allocation of safety responsibility in the region, the level of personnel resources available to conduct such analyses (which typically depends on agency size), and the level of technical expertise available within the agency. Because of the nature of safety problems, analysis tools will be needed that assess problems and the consequences of alternative strategies for different time spans—short-, medium- and long-range perspectives—as well as at different scales—individual project, corridor, sub-area and regional levels. Project and corridor-level safety tools have been available for some time and are used in many safety studies. Regional level planning tools, however, are not as readily available. One tool has been developed as part of this research and is described in Appendix C of this document. At this point, it is worthwhile to discuss some fundamental concepts in safety that will serve as useful concepts for individuals not typically involved in safety analysis. These concepts are important because some difficult lessens have been learned over the years in the study of transportation system safety, and some of these lessons have yielded counter-intuitive results. 1. System safety is not accurately measured by one-time crash counts. When looking at intersections, road segments, ramps, crosswalks, etc., crash counts across multiple observation periods (e.g., each day, month, or year) will fluctuate above and below the underlying mean crash rate—or true underlying safety. In other words, a crash count in any given observation period may be significantly above or below the expected crash count for the site due simply to random fluctuations in crashes (crashes are by their very nature due in part to random events). Thus, a high crash count for one particular observation period is not sufficient by itself to define an underlying safety problem; it merely indicates the potential for one. By analyzing the data and crash circumstances more carefully—such as the crash history of a location, greater confidence can be attained in understanding whether a safety problem exists, and if so, what remedial measures might be necessary. 2. Countermeasures typically affect specific types of crashes—called target crashes. Safety countermeasures rarely show beneficial effects on all crash types and more often affect only certain crash outcomes. For example, red-light-running cameras will have an effect mostly on angle and rear-end crashes at intersections. It thus follows that certain crash types have greater safety improvement potential with specific types of countermeasure treatments. 3. Crash trends increase and decrease without interventions or countermeasures. Many factors beyond control of the planner or engineer will affect crashes, such as weather, catastrophic events (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes), changes in road users, aging of the driving population, changes in crash reporting over time, changes in surrounding land uses, etc. Thus, a robust analysis will try to account for changes that are due to factors other than the countermeasure of interest. 4. Safety performance relative to underlying safety is critical. The expected long run (or underlying) safety of an entity (e.g., young driver, vehicle type, road segment, intersection, etc.) needs to be estimated in order to determine the safety performance of an individual or group of entities. For example, a rural intersection should not be compared to the average urban intersection, because these intersection types perform differently (e.g., different drivers, traffic volumes, speeds, driving environment, etc.). What matters more is how the rural Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 43

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning intersection performs relative to an appropriate comparison group of rural intersections and how the intersection performs over time. The same holds true when comparing crosswalks, road segments, younger drivers, etc. 5. Safety performance functions are not typically straight lines. For a fairly homogenous group of transportation system components (signalized intersections, segments of interstate, etc.), increases in traffic volumes will result in increases in associated crashes until an inflection point is reached, whereby crashes then may begin to level off or decline. This means that crash or crash rates may also decline with increasing traffic volumes after a certain inflection point is reached, making crash rate comparisons across sites with different traffic volumes problematic. For example, fatal crashes tend to decrease as congestion increases, since higher traffic volumes tend to reduce travel speeds, a primary factor in crash severity. Multi-vehicle crashes also tend to increase as volumes increase, until a ‘saturation’ point is reached, at which these crashes level off or even decline as speeds are reduced. 6. Accident modification factors are used to quantify countermeasure effectiveness. An accident modification factor (AMF) is usually estimated for a countermeasure so that its effectiveness is known.[20, 21] The accident modification factor is multiplied by the count of target crashes (see point #2) before the countermeasure is applied to obtain an estimate of the count of target crashes expected after the countermeasure is applied. Exhibit 36 presents an example of accident modification factors from the Denver metropolitan area. Note that these factors are developed for different types of improvement categories. Exhibit 36: Accident modification factors for highways in the Denver metropolitan area [Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2002] Improvement Characteristics Percentage Reduction in Relevant Accidents (Accident Modification Factor) Target Accident Types Curve Reconstruction 0.50 Run off road, head-on Vertical Re-Alignment 0.45 Head-on, limited sight Median Barriers 0.60 fatal, 0.10 injury Head-on Climbing/Passing Lane 0.15 Passing, rear-end Lane Widening 0.20 Sideswipe (multi-lane) Widen from 2-lane to 4-lane Road 0.30 Rear-end, head-on Continuous Center-Left Turn Lane 0.30 Rear-end Exhibit 36 presents one set of AMFs for highway countermeasures. Countermeasures, of course, exist for many applications, including both behavioral- and engineering-related programs and/or investments. Exhibit 37 presents a list of sources for obtaining information regarding countermeasure effectiveness for both behavioral- and engineering-related improvements. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 44

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Source Behavioral Countermeasures AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan Guides (NCHRP Report 500) Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Guide to Community Preventive Services (sections on highway safety) Jones and Lacey Systematic Reviews of Strategies to Prevent Motor Vehicle Injuries U.S. DOT State of Knowledge of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Research on DWI Offenders, DOT HS 809 027 U.S.DOT Alcohol and Highway Safety 2001: A Review of the State of Knowledge DOT HS 809 383 American Journal of Preventative Medicine Reviews of behavioral safety countermeasures/interventions U.S. DOT Highway Safety Grant Management Manual, Highway Safety Program Guidelines U.S.DOT/NHTSA Traffic Tech-Technology Transfer Series: 1995 – 2004; Traffic Safety Digest: 1996 – 2004 U.S.DOT/NHTSA Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) IACP Nifty 50: Fifty ways to promote traffic safety 2003 IACP Law Enforcement Challenge Submissions Source Engineering Countermeasures Transportation Research Record Numerous journal articles relating to safety, e.g., TRR 1865, 1818, etc. Accident Analysis & Prevention Numerous journal articles relating to behavioral aspects of safety NCHRP/TRB Reports on highway safety, committee activities such as Highway Safety Manual Federal Highway Administration Various activities on safety, including IHSDM, SafetyAnalyst, PedSafe, etc. Elvik, E. and Truls Vaa. The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, (2004) Evans, L. Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society, (2004) Exhibit 37: Sources of information on countermeasure effectiveness: behavioral and engineering countermeasures Different types of safety analysis tools and methods are available to address different kinds of safety problems.[see, for example, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27] Those interested in solving specific types of safety problems are encouraged to conduct a web search on that topic. The breadth of safety issues and the different types of tools available to address them is so large that this report cannot hope to recommend a set of tools for all safety problems. Exhibit 38 presents steps that can be taken to improve the safety-related analysis capabilities in a state or metropolitan region. The steps include conducting peer reviews, developing lists of current capabilities, research needs, and developing data analysis plans. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 45

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 38: Suggested steps for improving safety related analysis capabilities Suggested steps… ƒ Inventory the types of safety analysis tools that exist in the state or metropolitan area’s safety-related agencies. Relate those that exist to the types of safety problems that are being faced. If analysis tools do not exist for the identified types of problems, develop a strategy for developing or acquiring this type of analysis capability. ƒ Starting with the tools listed in Appendix C, conduct a peer review of the existing safety analysis capabilities. Invite representatives from peer agencies who have experience with safety-related planning to assess the capabilities that currently exist in the state or metropolitan region. Have this peer review produce specific steps that need to be taken to improve the analysis capability for safety-related planning. ƒ Develop a long term and coordinated data-collection and safety analysis strategy for the state and/or metropolitan area. This strategy would include a description of current capabilities, likely future safety problems, and the steps needed to put in place an analysis capability for dealing with such problems. This strategy should be developed cooperatively with all of the safety partners in the state or metropolitan area. ƒ If not already available, the state, in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations, should develop a table of accident reduction factors and their associated likely reductions in accidents and fatalities for different types of safety improvements (numerous sources are available for this). Some analysis may be necessary to complete this table; whereas some information may be obtained from prior research and experience. These factors need to be carefully reviewed for accuracy and relevance to the specific safety needs and conditions a planner is attempting to address. Many reduction factors were developed for locations with conditions that may or may not be transferable to the conditions in another metropolitan area or state. Such information on countermeasure effectiveness is critical for determining the benefits associated with safety-related improvements and for prioritizing investments. ƒ For non-infrastructure or non-traffic operations strategies, such as safety education, marketing campaigns, and emergency management services, regions should work closely with safety partner organizations to determine a methodology for assessing the effectiveness of such strategies. This might include targeted before and after studies on selected programs, or simply anecdotal evidence of what impacts such programs have had on public attitudes and behavior. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 46

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 5: Evaluating Alternative Projects and Strategies Exhibit 39 provides a set of questions that can be used to assess the safety-related evaluation capabilities within a region. These questions focus on issues of evaluation capabilities, roles of organizations in the evaluation process, and the validity and completeness of evaluation inputs. Once safety-related strategies and projects have been evaluated for their safety effects (using tools discussed in the previous section), the next step in the planning process is to determine which actions result in greater benefits to society. The process of determining the desirability of different courses of action and presenting this information to decision makers in a comprehensive and useful form is called evaluation. Assessing the desirability of a course of action (i.e., investment in a countermeasure) includes determining how costs and benefits are to be measured, estimating the source and timing of the benefits and costs of the proposed actions, and comparing these benefits and costs to determine which action is preferred. Most safety-related evaluation efforts use one of three methods, 1) simply listing the evaluation criteria and show how the alternatives compare, 2) assigning weights or scores to the evaluation factors, or 3) conducting cost--benefit analysis. Exhibit 39: Questions regarding evaluation methodologies Questions to be asked….. • For the types of evaluation decisions that need to be made, is an evaluation methodology in place that produces useful information for decision making? Will this methodology deal effectively with assessing tradeoffs among many different types of projects and strategies? • Is a simple rating sufficient to provide the type of information desired, or are multiple measures needed? • How will non-infrastructure-related strategies and actions be evaluated? For example, if dollars are expended on safety education programs, how will the relative effectiveness of these programs be evaluated, if at all? • Does the state or metropolitan area have reliable estimates of the costs to society of different accident types and/or severities? If not, where can these estimates be obtained? • Who will be conducting evaluations, that is, who will be assigning the points in a scoring scheme or estimating discounted benefits in a cost-- benefit methodology? Does the capability exist to undertake such efforts in a fair and unbiased way? • Are there computer-based tools that can help the evaluation process in an efficient manner? (see Appendix C) • How are the underlying assumptions in the evaluation process (such as value of life, discount factors, etc.) best explained to decision makers and to the general public? • Will the evaluation results be sufficiently sensitive to the collection of various inputs? Should sensitivity analyses be conducted? • What is the best way of presenting evaluation results to decision makers? Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 47

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning URanking by Evaluation Criteria U: A common approach for evaluating numerous factors when comparing transportation projects is simply developing a list of the impacts associated with different evaluation criteria. For example, the following evaluation criteria are used in the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) process for determining the relative benefits of projects that go into the region’s transportation plan. As shown in the list, many different factors are important to decision makers in this region when considering which projects are most beneficial. In this case, the safety criterion, defined as accident locations per mile, is one of the important considerations when project comparisons are made. • Bridge deficiencies per mile • High accident locations per mile • Percent congestion along corridor • Pavement needs • Freight characteristics • Transit ridership • Non-motorized characteristics • Traffic volumes • Population and household density • Proximity to activity centers • Proximity to special population groups Decision makers presented with this information choose projects based on their consideration of what is important to their agency or jurisdiction. Tradeoffs among the many different evaluation factors are explicitly made. Often, however, the information presented to decision makers does not indicate the ”best” alternative. As shown in the above list, it is very likely that among the hundreds of projects that are typically considered by state DOT and MPO officials, the relative impacts of one project versus another would vary among the different criteria. In one case, a project would show good improvement in bridge condition, but not show as much improvement in safety as other projects. In such an evaluation scheme, the judgement of which projects are better than others rests with the decision makers. In some situations, where funding programs are set aside for specific categories and thus effectiveness can be measured with one evaluation criterion, such as safety, air quality, economic development, etc., the selection of the “best” alternative becomes much easier…it is simply the one that shows the greatest benefit. Thus, for example, if funds have been set aside for improving road safety, and benefits are measured as the reduction in the number of crashes, the most desired projects will be those that show the greatest reduction in crashes. In comprehensive transportation- planning, however, reducing project selection decisions to a single criterion seldom happens. UAssigning Scores to Projects: U One approach for providing more information to decision makers assigns points to individual projects in relation to how they perform against a given set of criteria and then sums these points to assign a score for each project. Exhibit 40 illustrates this concept as applied in Denver. In the Denver region, roadway operational improvement projects can receive up to 35 priority points, a maximum of 16 points is given for the most severely congested roads, up to 4 points if a project is in a corridor receiving emphasis in the regional transportation plan, and up to 9 points is assigned to the most heavily used roads. The number of safety Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 48

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning points relates to the relative benefit (that is, reduction in crashes) expected if the project were implemented, and the severity of the problem (that is, the crash record compared to multiples of the statewide average for that type of road). This example illustrates a points-based system that includes safety as well as other considerations (mobility, congestion, etc.) Evaluation Criteria Points Scoring* Congestion 0-16 Up to 16 points based on the current degree of congestion (V/C ratio) on the existing roadway RTP Emphasis Corridors 0-4 4 points to projects on emphasized freeways or major regional arterials. 2 points to projects on emphasized principal arterial segments Safety 0-7 Up to 7 points based on weighted accident rate compared to statewide average and estimated accident reduction. Usage 0-9 Current AWDT/lane > 11,000 = 9 points; < 2,500 = 0 points Estimated Number of Accidents per Mile Eliminated per Three Years Low 0-14 fewer Medium 15-35 High 36-59 Very High 60+ Accident Range Safety Points To Be Awarded State Average 0 1 3 4 1-2 x State Average 1 2 4 5 2-3 x State Average 2 4 5 6 Exhibit 40: Assigning points as an evaluation methodology in Denver [Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2003] Exhibit 41 illustrates the same concept for pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Denver region. In this case, projects can receive up to 39 points, a maximum of 4 points if a project is in a regional transportation plan designated corridor, 12 points for having the best safety benefits, and up to 23 points for a project’s effectiveness in addressing the non-motorized transportation needs of the region. Safety points are awarded based on crash history, level of conflict (in this case indicated by differential speed between pedestrians and bicyclists and adjacent motor traffic), and on the existence of lighting. Evaluation Criteria Points Scoring* RTP Priority Corridors 0-4 4 points for bike projects on RTP Regional Bicycle Corridors 2 points for bike projects on Community Bicycle Corridors 4 points for pedestrian projects along RTP major regional arterials 2 points for pedestrian projects along RTP principal arterials Safety 0-12 Projects evaluated on the anticipated improvement of existing safety problems Potential Need 0-23 Up to 23 points for specific project attributes which address existing local or regional needs of non-motorized travel Exhibit 41: Scoring for pedestrian and bicycle projects in the Denver region The points awarded for safety for each evaluated project are broken down as follows: Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 49

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning The challenge associated with this approach with respect to project evaluation is first determining the relative maximum points to be awarded in the different categories (which explicitly assigns priority across objectives), and then actually conducting a project-by-project assignment of points. The relative number of points among the different evaluation categories is usually determined by the decision- making body through an iterative process of determining the relative importance of different evaluation factors (e.g., “if you had a total of 100 points, how many would you give to safety? congestion relief? environmental quality? etc.) . The actual assigning of points in each category is usually done by technical staff, although in some cases, advisory committees of stakeholders and public representatives participate in this process. U sing Benefit-Cost AnalysisU: The incremental benefit-cost analysis is one of the most common methods of comparing the relative worth of projects. This evaluation method assesses the relative incremental benefit of a project compared to all other projects on the basis of additional dollars spent to build the next most expensive project. For example, if one is facing a choice between two projects and the budget only allows one project to be built, the best decision will be the one that maximizes the benefit received per dollar expended. To illustrate, assume that the benefits of project A and B are $100 and $150 respectively, while the costs are $80 and $125 respectively. One can see that the benefit to cost ratio for each project is calculated as: Project A: $100/$80 = 1.25 Project B: $150/$125 = 1.20 However, a higher B/C ratio for project A as compared to project B does not mean that project A is the better choice, since $45 is available for investing in other opportunities. The initial B/C calculation simply determines whether the benefits for an individual project are greater than the respective costs for that project. In order to determine the “best” choice, one must determine the incremental benefit associated with additional costs. In this case, for the additional costs of $125 - $80 = $45 that will be spent to implement project B, the additional benefit will be $150 - $100 = $50. Therefore, the incremental B/C ratio is $50/$45 = 1.11, which is greater than 1. Stated simply, this reveals that for each dollar spent to construct project B over the cheaper project A, $1.11 in benefits will accrue. All else being equal, it is clearly beneficial to select project B (Note: that the “correct” decision in this case was not the one that had the highest initial individual project B/C ratio). Using the benefit-cost methodology creates several challenges that must be addressed if the method is to be used correctly. These challenges are briefly • Crash History 1 point award for each applicable injury accident, up to a maximum of 5 • Conflict Factor 1 point if < 25 mph 2 points if 26-34 mph 3 points if 35-44 mph 4 points if 45-54 mph 5 points if > 55 mph • Facility Lighting 2 points to projects that facilitate non-motorized travel, if lighting is not available now Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 50

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning presented below. Readers are encouraged to seek additional information regarding benefit-cost analysis methods [see 28, 29, 30, 31]. How are benefits defined? Benefit-cost analysis assumes that all benefits and costs can be assigned dollar values.[28] This is not a significant obstacle for project costs, which are estimated in dollars. However, estimating the monetary value of benefits is a challenge. The typical application of the benefit-cost method for road projects assumes that three major components of benefits are possible—a reduction in travel time, a reduction in vehicle operating costs, and a reduction in crash costs (fatalities, injuries, and property damage). Through the analysis process, estimates should be available on the number of minutes saved, the reduction in vehicle miles traveled and the reduction in crashes. In order to assign dollar values to these benefits, the evaluation methodology must include the value of time, a value of vehicle operating costs (per mile), and values for various crash severities. With respect to a value of crashes, the federal government and many states have conducted economic studies to determine the cost to society of different types of crashes. Exhibit 42 shows the estimated costs to society of different types of crashes. Exhibit 43 illustrates the same concept for North Carolina, and Exhibit 44 shows similar estimates for transit accidents in Los Angeles. These estimates are based on expected medical, time lost, employer, and emergency services costs associated with a crash-related injury or fatality. Notice in Exhibit 43 that a quality of life cost is also included in the overall estimate. This cost reflects the stress and related disturbances to family and civic life associated with someone no longer able to participate in day- to-day life activities. Urban Functional System Death Cost/Nonfatal Injury Property Damage Cost/Accident Interstate $27,047 $5,148 Other freeway/expressway $35,002 $6,435 Other principal arterial $28,638 $6,435 Minor arterial $39,775 $6,435 Collector $3 million $31,820 $5,148 Exhibit 42: Federal Highway Administration estimates of cost to society of accidents Fatal Injury Incapacitating Injury Moderate Injury Minor Injury PDO Medical $18,676 $14,656 $3,209 $1,721 $137 Emergency Services $1,184 $292 $190 $123 $60 Lost Work $1,020,469 $22,535 $6,917 $3,345 $366 Employer Cost $8,055 $1,199 $493 $272 $88 Traffic Delay $488 $212 $205 $174 $251 Property Damage $11,064 $4,350 $3,697 $2,794 $2,505 Monetary Cost $1,059,936 $43,245 $14,710 $8,431 $3,406 Quality of Life $1,865,164 $101,551 $22,776 $8,431 $3,406 Comprehensive Cost $2,925,100 $144,796 $37,486 $17,916 $3,904 Exhibit 43: North Carolina estimates of cost to society of accidents Bus and Rail (per Million Vehicle Miles) Type of Accident Bus Rate Rail Rate Cost per Event Fatal 0.162 1.161 $2,710,000 Injury 25.800 11.600 $65,590 Exhibit 44: Los Angeles estimates of cost to society of transit accidents The safety benefits associated with a particular project are thus the expected reduction in the number of crash types (resulting from the analysis process) multiplied by related crash benefit values similar to those shown in the previous Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 51

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning exhibits. National cost estimates can be used when local, regional, or state costs estimates are lacking; however, ‘local’ and ‘recent’ cost estimates should be used when available. Are costs and benefits defined consistently? Some outcomes are not easy to tally in the cost or benefit column. For example, is an increase in travel time resulting from a project a negative benefit or a positive cost? This at first may seem trivial, but it is not. An impact identified as a negative cost will result in a different B/C ratio than if the impact is identified as a benefit (and vice versa). For example, assume a B/C ratio of 1.5 is estimated for a project costing $1 million, but yielding $1.5 million in estimated benefits. In addition, suppose travel time is increased as a result of the project, with the net negative benefit of travel time savings estimated to be -$250,000. If this additional impact is treated as a negative benefit then the B/C ratio becomes 1.25, whereas treating the travel time increase as an additional cost results in a B/C of 1.2. Thus, an inconsistent treatment of costs and benefits across projects being compared can result in unfair comparisons. The solution to this problem is careful and consistent tallying of costs and benefits across projects. What does one do about benefits and costs that accrue at different times over the life of the project? Most projects have benefits and costs that will occur at different times in the future. For example, a new road will likely incur its major costs in the initial construction period and then experience an increasing level of benefits over time. Another type of project, one that requires enforcement or operations costs continually over the life of the project, would show a very different stream of costs. In comparing benefits and costs of different projects, it is important that this comparison be done in a way that fairly reflects the differing circumstances of each project. This is done in one of two ways. Either all benefits and costs are discounted to the present time (using a governmentally defined discount factor and assuming that all projects have equal project lives) or all benefits and costs are annualized into benefits and costs (i.e., benefits and costs each year). Again, the specifics of how one does this are beyond the scope of this guidebook; readers are encouraged to consult a variety of widely available references on the use of discount factors. With benefits and costs defined and discounted, the decision criterion for determining the best project is simply to conduct an incremental benefit-cost analysis that satisfies the following equation: ≥ 1.0 where: • pwf = present worth factor (the discount factor for the different years that benefits and costs occur) • (benefits)BbB = benefits for project b, which is the higher cost project • (benefits)BaB= benefits for project a, which is the lower cost project This equation says that if the incremental B/C ratio between two projects yields a ratio greater than or equal to one, then the higher cost project is preferred. If the ratio is less than one then the lower cost project is preferred. Exhibit 45 provides suggested steps for incorporating an evaluation methodology into a safety conscious planning process. Σ(pwf)(benefits) Bb B - Σ(pwf)(benefits) Ba B Σ(pwf)(costs) Bb B - Σ(pwf)(costs) Ba Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 52

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Exhibit 45: Suggested steps for incorporating an evaluation methodology into the safety conscious planning process Suggested steps… ƒ Define early in the planning process what evaluation criteria will likely be used so that the data collection and analysis tool development and selection will be directly related to the information desired and needed. This effort would most likely be subject to community and decision maker involvement. It is best to define a limited number of critically important criteria that will be of overarching concern to decision makers. ƒ Inventory the different safety-related evaluation methods currently in use in the state or metropolitan area. Determine gaps in evaluation capability that might affect the production of desired evaluation information. Select an appropriate/acceptable methodology for the region. ƒ Periodically update (or develop, if not available) accident cost to society data. This is important in that the other benefit values used in a benefit cost analysis, those relating to reduced operating costs and reduced travel time, are usually updated on a periodic basis. Safety benefit values need to keep pace. ƒ While the transportation-planning process is underway, develop methods and approaches that will be used when the evaluation process is undertaken. Do not wait until late in the planning process to do so! ƒ Think carefully about how the definition of evaluation criteria will lead to the selection of the best projects or strategies. Is there any bias introduced into this selection process by the way evaluation criteria are defined? ƒ Prepare prototypical presentation templates for safety information and obtain feedback from decision makers and from the general public on the level to which they effectively convey information. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 53

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 6: Develop Plan and Program Exhibit 46 lists questions regarding the inclusion of safety-related projects in the transportation plan. The questions aim to raise awareness as to the role of safety in the Transportation Plan and Improvement Programs, as well as other planning activities undertaken by both state DOTs and MPOs. A differ progr the c indic oppo stron impo C critic trans proce Targe activ cond is of trans Exhib this r show inclu gener safety bicyc cross Exhibit 46: Suggested steps for including safety in the transportation plan and program Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFEQuestions to be asked….. • Does the transportation plan and program include safety-related projects and strategies? Are they appropriately identified in the documents? • If other comprehensive safety plans exist for the state or region, are the transportation plan and program consistent with the goals, performance measures, actions and strategies as indicated in these comprehensive plans? • If some form of prioritization scheme is used to rank projects in the programming process, is safety included in this scheme? If so, what is the relevant weight of safety compared to other factors? • Are key safety stakeholders involved in the final development of the transportation plan and program? • Are safety-related tasks or analysis included in the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) or the state DOT’s State Planning and Research (SPR) work program? s noted previously, the transportation-planning process can result in many ent products. The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the MPO’s annual am of planning tasks and the State Planning and Research (SPR) work program, omparable work program for the state DOT’s planning bureau, are important ators of the priorities found in the planning process. Each provides an excellent rtunity to advance safety planning activities and strategies. If one wants to see a ger emphasis given to safety, these task programming documents are an rtant means of doing so. ertainly, how safety is incorporated into a transportation plan and program is a al characteristic of the degree to which safety is fully integrated into the portation-planning process. However, especially for safety issues, the planning ss needs to do more than just have safety mentioned in the transportation plan. ting specific groups for education efforts, enhancing traffic enforcement ities, providing improved data collection and data management efforts, ucting further studies on specific urban corridors or parts of a state where safety particular concern, and considering additional regulations to promote portation safety are all valuable results of the transportation-planning process. it 47 presents the results of the survey of MPOs and state DOTs conducted for esearch. The question asked was, to what extent are the safety-related issues n included in the long-range transportation plan? The MPOs predominantly de pedestrian and bicyclist safety in their transportation plans and more ally traffic management strategies, as well as presenting the results of traffic studies. For DOTs, not surprisingly, traffic management, pedestrian and le safety strategies, and safety at intermodal crossings (e.g., railroad grade ings) received considerable attention. Although many of the other topics were TY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 54

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning not considered as important by the majority of respondents with respect to transportation plans and programs, it is interesting to note that some MPOs and state DOTs did consider these issues to be important enough to be included in the transportation plan. Ye s (% ) N o (% ) N ot in cl ud ed , b ut di sc us se d in pl an ni ng (% ) Ye s (% ) N o (% ) N ot in cl ud ed , b ut di sc us se d in pl an ni ng (% ) Safety Education Programs Motor-Vehicle Safety Education 13.4 60.8 25.8 20.6 58.8 20.6 Safety Publicity 26.8 48.5 24.7 26.5 50.0 23.5 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Safety Education 59.8 15.5 24.7 47.1 23.5 29.4 Transit Safety Education 19.6 50.5 29.9 2.9 82.4 14.7 Work Zone Safety Education 8.2 77.3 14.4 35.3 38.2 26.5 Education Policy 14.4 71.1 14.4 11.8 73.5 14.7 Elderly Driver Evaluation Programs 7.2 81.4 11.3 11.8 76.5 11.8 Mature Driver Education 5.2 80.4 14.4 8.8 76.5 14.7 Engineering and Operations Traffic Management 88.5 2.1 9.4 73.5 17.6 8.8 Safety Audits of Existing/Rehabilitated/New Roadways 25.0 42.7 32.3 23.5 55.9 20.6 Traffic Safety Studies 55.2 14.6 30.2 41.2 32.4 26.5 Traffic Safety Measures in Construction Zones/"Work Zones" 7.3 59.4 33.3 29.4 47.1 23.5 Personal Vehicle Safety Seat Belt / Restraint Use 4.2 80.0 15.8 25.0 53.1 21.9 Child Safety Seat Use 1.1 86.3 12.6 18.8 68.8 12.5 Aggressive Driving 6.3 70.5 23.2 15.6 71.9 12.5 Distracted Driving (i.e. Cell Phones While Driving) 5.3 75.8 18.9 12.5 75.0 12.5 Older Driver Safety and Mobility 13.7 63.2 23.2 25.0 46.9 28.1 Winter (Snow and Ice) Driving 1.1 80.0 19.0 15.6 65.6 18.8 Drinking and Driving / DWI Prevention / Impaired Driving 5.3 75.8 19.0 21.9 56.3 21.9 Graduated Driver Licensing / Restricted Driving 3.2 87.4 9.5 15.6 78.1 6.3 Multi-modal Safety Programs School Bus Safety 8.4 72.6 19.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 Motorcycle Safety 3.2 90.5 6.3 12.5 75.0 12.5 Commercial Truck Safety 24.2 44.2 31.6 34.4 31.3 34.4 Bicyclist Safety 70.5 9.5 20.0 62.5 21.9 15.6 Pedestrian Safety 69.5 8.4 22.1 59.4 25.0 15.6 Intermodal Junction Safety (i.e. Roadway/Railway Crossings) 46.3 26.3 27.4 59.4 18.8 21.9 Alternative Transportation Education Programs Information Kits on How to Use Public Transportation 20.0 46.3 33.7 12.5 75.0 12.5 Information/Call Centers with Comprehensive Information on Safety/Incidents 28.4 50.5 21.1 15.6 68.8 15.6 Enforcement and Other Programs Speeding 16.8 60.0 23.2 16.1 64.5 19.4 Legislation 27.4 48.4 24.2 41.9 25.8 32.3 Safe Communities 17.9 63.2 18.9 9.7 74.2 16.1 Emergency Medical Services 18.9 61.1 20.0 16.1 61.3 22.6 The Minnesota DOT provides a good example of how a state DOT identifies safety-related projects and strategies in the statewide transportation plan. According to the plan, the following strategies and actions will be undertaken by the DOT: U“Safety Strategies • Monitor the safety characteristics of the current systems (highways, intersections, rail crossings, airports) to determine overall accident and fatality trends and causes so that improvements can be targeted to eliminate the root causes and to address the highest risk locations and/or segments. • To achieve the aggressive targets for fatality reduction, MnDOT will work with the Department of Public Safety and the public and private sector agencies (e.g., medical sector, emergency response services, insurance sector) to consider legislative initiatives to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents and to achieve the aggressive targets sought (e.g., primary seatbelt law, 0.08 percent blood alcohol content, graduated drivers licenses for teens, sobriety check points, automated red light enforcement). Exhibit 47: Inclusion of concepts in long-range transportation plans Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 55

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning • Support the Department of Public Safety and sheriff’s offices in identifying high- accident locations that may benefit from additional enforcement (e.g., speeding, DWI, seatbelt usage). • Work with local units of government to raise awareness of fatalities on local transportation systems and establish task force groups to identify potential programs and to target problem areas. • Work with the Department of Public Safety and private sector interests to identify educational initiatives that will help improve driver skills and promote better driving behavior (e.g., incentives for web-based driver education). Focus is given to high risk driving populations (e.g., young and elderly drivers). In addition, explore knowledge of current traffic rules and laws to determine potential benefits of requiring periodic updates of the written driver’s test. Explore use of refresher courses offered on the Web, with automatic submission to insurance companies for possible credit. • Develop and implement communication strategies to increase awareness of safety issues and practices for vehicle operators (e.g., excessive speed, seat belt use, defensive driving, driver inattention, driving under the influence, lack of sleep). • Ensure that all planning and corridor studies include system safety analysis to identify potential safety problem areas as well as potential access and safety improvements that will reduce the number and severity of accidents. • Conduct railroad corridor analyses to address issues such as unsafe at-grade crossings and to identify potential crossing consolidation or closures, selected replacement with over/underpasses, improved warning/safety systems to reduce accidents and fatalities. • Improve information available to freight carriers and pilots (e.g., weather, road and water conditions, training, regulations). • Consider implementing innovative safety systems (e.g., centerline rumble strips, wider pavement markings, wider shoulders, cable barriers separating two-lane traffic) to reduce the number of run-off road accidents and/or vehicles crossing centerlines into oncoming traffic. These accidents tend to be on higher speed roadways and result in more severe injuries and fatalities. USecurity Strategies • Work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, carriers and shippers of hazardous materials and other associations representing trucking companies/truckers that transport high-risk commodities that may pose a threat to the safety and security of the transportation infrastructure and the users of the transportation system. • In response to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, MnDOT has created two teams to pursue transportation security issues. One team will focus on internal issues such as the security of MnDOT buildings and staff. Another, external security team will focus on the security of external assets such as bridges, roadways, and transit facilities. The objectives for these teams are as follows: o Identify critical highway assets and their potential vulnerabilities. o Develop action plans/countermeasures to enhance existing capability to detect, deter and/or minimize the consequences of disasters. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 56

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning o Revise existing emergency response plans so MnDOT can effectively carry out coordinated response duties and sustain core businesses during and after a crisis. o Prioritize and estimate the costs of putting MnDOT plans into action. o Liaison and coordination with national, state and local security agencies/task forces/transportation industry representatives (public and private).” Note in this list of strategies and actions the emphasis placed on collaborative undertakings with other agencies and organizations relevant to the safety challenge in Minnesota. Another example of the types of strategies and actions that can be considered by a state is shown in Exhibit 48. This table lists the “tools” that are available in the safety management system used by Iowa officials to enhance safety on its transportation system. • Increasing Driver Safety Awareness • Increasing Safety Belt and Child Restraint Usage • Preventing Drowsy and Distracted Driving • Curbing High-Risk Driving Behaviors • Ensuring Drivers Are Fully Licensed, Competent, and Insured • Reducing Impaired Driving • Education and Licensing for Young Drivers • Sustaining Safe Mobility in Older Drivers • Making Walking and Street Crossing Safer • Ensuring Safer Bicycle Travel • Making School Bus Travel Safer • Making Public Transit Travel Safer • Improving Motorcycle Safety and Increasing Motorcycle Awareness • Making Large Truck Travel Safer • Reducing Farm Vehicle Accidents • Improving the Design and Operation of Roadway Intersections • Keeping Vehicles on the Roadway and Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road • Reducing Head-On and Across-Median Accidents • Improving Work Zone Safety • Accommodating Older Drivers • Reducing Train-Vehicle Accidents • Reducing Vehicle-Animal Accidents • Implementing Road Safety Audits • Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities to Increase Survivability • Improving Information and Decision Support Systems • Using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to Improve Highway Safety • Creating More Effective Processes and Safety Management Systems • Developing and Encouraging Multidisciplinary Safety Teams One aspect of transportation-planning and the resulting safety characteristics of the transportation system that is often overlooked by transportation planners and engineers is the relationship between land use/urban design and safety. This is a particularly critical issue because the manner in which communities develop Exhibit 48: Contents of Iowa’s safety management system toolbox Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 57

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning establishes the long-term urban form of a metropolitan area. The land use-safety relationship is most noticeable in the types of development that occur adjacent to roads. Development decisions, almost always under the governmental review of local governments, can result in poor roadway design, additional intersections or driveways (that is, additional conflict points), and/or land use patterns that do not provide easy and safe transit access to adjacent sites. When state agencies and MPOs conduct corridor studies leading to roadway reconstruction, having to deal with access rights and right of way demands of abutting private property can have a significant impact on final roadway design.[32] One of the most successful strategies of providing access to abutting land in the safest possible manner is the adoption of an access management policy. Several studies have shown that the crash rates rise with more signalized intersections, more driveways and more pedestrian motor vehicle conflict points.[33] The range of safety benefits of an access management policy falls between 30% to 60% reduction in crashes, depending on the type of access controls used. A long range transportation plan that addresses the land use/transportation linkage or a state policy on access management can be an important effort at improving the safety of a road network. In many cases, MPOs have developed guidance to local communities that focuses on the consequences of development on already congested roads and on the important transit benefit of providing safe access to transit stops or stations. In many ways, the development of a transportation plan that is sensitive to safety concerns can represent an opportunity to change the way agencies design and operate the transportation system. For example, a planning process could lead to a decision to use a design manual with standards that positively affect crash rates. Or the process could result in a recommendation to conduct a safety evaluation for each proposed project alternative prior to final design selection. In other words, although transportation-planning often focuses on infrastructure-related solutions, a much broader perspective on how the planning process can affect transportation system safety would include recommended policies, processes, studies, and budget priorities. With respect to the transportation program, many of the projects placed in the transportation improvement program (TIP) or statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) are the result of negotiations that invariably characterize such deliberations. However, in many cases, project prioritization schemes similar in approach to those used in evaluation are part of setting priorities for project inclusion in the programming document as well as the timing of project implementation. Steps for including safety in transportation plans and programs are shown in Exhibit 49. Exhibit 49: Suggested steps for including safety in transportation plans and programs. Suggested steps… ƒ Include safety stakeholders in the culminating planning steps leading to the approval of a transportation plan and program. ƒ Develop safety priority factors that can be used to give safety-beneficial projects more priority in programming decisions. ƒ Highlight the safety-related strategies and projects that are identified in the transportation plan and program. This might include a separate safety chapter or appendix in the transportation plan and an indication in the program of which projects are primarily safety-related. ƒ Develop public marketing materials that highlight the safety benefits of the plan and program. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 58

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Step 7: Monitoring System Performance System performance should be monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of various strategies, programs, and policies. Exhibit 50 lists questions that can be asked to assess how this monitoring process occurs with respect to safety. O the s into This defic as pa mana perfo E Syste collec These enfor M often data risk appro E perfo Exhibit 50: Questions for assessing the role of safety in monitoring system performance. 59Questions to be asked….. • Is there a systematic program or strategy for monitoring the safety performance of the transportation system? If so, is it effective? If such a program does not exist, how can it be developed? • Is the feedback provided by the monitoring system used for refining goals, objectives, performance measures, problem identification, project analysis and evaluation? Is this feedback provided in a timely manner? • Are there new vehicle or system management technologies that can be used to provide the desired data more cost effectively? Can such data collection be integrated into other efforts by the state or region to collect system performance data? For example, if the state has an intelligent transportation system (ITS) architecture, is safety an important feature of this strategy? • Who are the major players in a safety management system? What are their responsibilities? Is there a need to define in more formal terms these responsibilities and inter-relationships? nce projects and strategies have been implemented, it is important to monitor afety performance of the transportation system, and feed this information back the original vision, goals and objectives, and selected performance measures. feedback is then used in the subsequent planning cycle to highlight failures (or iencies) and successes with respect to system safety. This monitoring can occur rt of the normal data collection program of an agency, or a special data gement system can be developed specifically targeted at monitoring the safety rmance of the transportation system. xhibit 51 shows such a targeted management system. The Safety Management m for Phoenix uses a safety goal and safety performance measures to drive the tion of safety-related data and the identification of projects and strategies. projects and strategies reflect the planning, engineering, education and cement aspect of the safety challenge in that metropolitan area. any states have similar types of safety management systems, although they are not closely tied to the transportation plan. To all intents and purposes, safety management systems are crash databases that enable the identification of high locations, and depending upon system capabilities, aid in the selection of priate countermeasures xhibit 52 lists some suggested steps for including safety explicitly in the rmance monitoring activities of a transportation-planning process. Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS

Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation-Planning Phoenix Safety Management System Geometric Features (HPMS) Crash Records (ALISS) Traffic Counts Others (CODES, etc.) Safety Planning System Safety Monitoring System System Performance Measures GOALS (Safety Action Plan) Planning Scenario Methods and Analysis Models Long-Term Safety Recommendations Engineering Education Enforcement Planning Evaluation and Recommendations Crash Analysis Network Screening Others TIP Safety Reports Implementation Exhibit 51: Phoenix safety management system Exhibit 52: Suggested steps for including safety in the monitoring of transportation system performance Chapter 6. — INCORPORATING SAFESuggested steps… ƒ Analyze the current flow of safety information from the monitoring of transportation system performance to its use in analyzing and evaluating safety-related projects and strategies. Identify components of this information flow that can be improved. ƒ Identify the major sources of safety data in the state and/or region. Conduct a forum that illustrates the importance of this data, and that identifies steps that can be taken to improve the process and substance of agency efforts. ƒ Develop a state or regional strategy for monitoring the safety of the multimodal transportation system. This monitoring should not only include the identification of current hazardous locations, but it should also proactively identify areas of potential hazard that can be addressed now rather than wait for the safety problem to occur. TY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION-PLANNING PROCESS 60