Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis (2020)

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.

A-1 Appendix A. Implementation of the Research Findings This appendix (a) provides recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identifies possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identifies issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommends methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products.

A-2 Implementation of Research Findings and Products NCHRP Project 17-77 The research in NCHRP Project 17-77 will be considered successful if the primary product of the research, a guide entitled Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis, is actively used by state DOTs, MPOs, local agencies, and other safety practitioners to better understand, use, and implement quantitative approaches to systemic safety analysis. The document provides guidance to transportation agencies planning to incorporate a proactive, data- driven, systemic safety program into their overarching safety program and evaluate the impact of the countermeasures and projects implemented through the systemic safety process. Specifically, the Guide:  Summarizes existing methods and tools for conducting systemic safety analysis  Provides guidance on selecting an appropriate method and/or tool for a given agency’s needs, data, and resources  Describes examples of how transportation agencies have applied elements of systemic safety analysis to identify target crash types and facility types, identify countermeasures, and determine appropriate implementation locations  Provides information about existing resources for designing and implementing a systemic safety program This implementation plan (a) provides recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identifies possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identifies issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommends possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommends methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Putting the Research into Practice The products developed in the research include:  A final research report that describes what was done in the research and how the other products were developed and refined  A comprehensive guidance document on the implementation of quantitative approaches to systemic safety analysis.  Recommendations for a discussion of systemic safety analysis for inclusion in the next edition of the Highway Safety Manual.  A 2-page marketing brochure to promote the implementation of quantitative approaches to systemic safety analysis.  A 2-page document highlighting the benefits of systemic safety analysis geared to decision makers.

A-3  An annotated slide presentation that summarizes the results of the research and the products developed.  An implementation plan (this document) that describes how the products developed in the research could be marketed for implementation. The Guide for transportation agencies is the primary product of the research that could be implemented. The information in the Guide will help users identify the similarities among and differences between the three primary types of safety analysis (hot-spot, systemwide, and systemic), and describe how the systemic safety analysis approach fits in with the six-step safety approach presented in the Highway Safety Manual. The Guide presents several tools that can be used to help conduct a systemic analysis, including software tools such as ViDA, which is associated with the usRAP program, and Safety Analyst, which aligns with the HSM methodology. It also explains the use of FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, which is more of a descriptive guide than an analytical tool. Guide users are walked through the data elements required for the various systemic safety implementation approaches and how to tailor a systemic safety management approach to their safety program needs. The Guide also presents case studies illustrating how agencies already implementing systemic safety principals have put those to use on various types of projects. Finally, additional resources are cited for the user to learn more about the application of a systemic safety approach in specific contexts. The slide presentation will be of assistance in making transportation agencies aware of the Guide and how the Guide can assist agencies. By contrast, the final research report will primarily be of interest to researchers and others who want to know how the research in NCHRP Project 17-77 was conducted. The two brochures would be appropriate for distribution by FHWA or TRB at marketing booths at safety-related transportation conferences and by safety engineers and program managers when promoting systemic safety management approaches to decision makers. Leadership in Application of the Research Results While direct implementation of the Guide developed in the research is the responsibility of state DOTs, MPOs, local agencies, and other safety practitioners, there are several national organizations that can take leadership in disseminating and encouraging use of the Guide. Many organizations can contribute to this effort, but the logical leaders are FHWA, TRB, NCHRP, and AASHTO.  FHWA—FHWA can take a leadership role by disseminating information about the Guide through the FHWA Resource Center and the FHWA division offices. FHWA can also refer to the Guide in its relevant publications. One of the featured systemic safety management tools described in the Guide is FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, a document linked on FHWA’s Systemic Safety webpage. A link to the Guide developed in this research, as well as other products of the research such as the marketing brochure and document highlighting the benefits of systemic safety analysis geared to decision makers, could be provided on that webpage along with the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool.

A-4 FHWA also provides financial and technical assistance to state and local agencies covering a wide range of safety programs such as the HSIP, intersection safety, roadway departure safety, roadway safety data program, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and the local and rural road safety program and other initiatives such as Every Day Counts (EDC). Systemic safety management is very relevant to each of these programs. Within each of these program and initiatives, FHWA could incorporate material and guidance from the 17-77 project deliverables. In addition, FHWA has a systemic safety analysis workshop that it delivers on a regular basis. FHWA could update the materials of the workshop with some of the findings and recommendations from Project 17-77. FHWA may also wish to update their National Highway Institute (NHI) courses with guidance from 17-77, in particular the “Safety Data and Analysis Fundamentals Training” course (course number: FHWA-NHI-380122). FHWA could potentially disseminate information from 17-77 at meetings and conferences where they have a marketing booth with other vendors. For example, FHWA could distribute the 2-page marketing brochure and/or 2-page document highlighting the benefits of systemic safety analysis geared to decision makers at their booth.  TRB—TRB can disseminate information about the Guide to practitioners in several ways. TRB has many channels to inform potential users about the Guide including through its newsletter and through the activities of relevant standing committees; including the Committee on Transportation Safety Management, the Committee on Highway Safety Performance, the Committee on Roadside Safety Design, the Committee on Safety Data, Analysis and Evaluation, the Committee on Pedestrians, and the Committee on Bicycle Transportation. Similar to FHWA, TRB could also disseminate information from Project 17-77 at meetings and conferences where they have a marketing/vendor booth. In particular, the 2-page marketing brochure and/or 2-page document highlighting the benefits of systemic safety analysis geared to decision makers were intended for distribution at such venues.  NCHRP—Managed as part of TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs, NCHRP can publish the Guide as a hard copy report and post the Guide online. NCHRP could host a webinar during which the research team could present the project results and findings. NCHRP can also consider funding an implementation project to help inform potential users about the Guide and provide training on its use. NCHRP Research Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis is related to this more general review of systemic safety analysis, and the products of both projects could be marketed by NCHRP together.  AASHTO—As the national organization for state transportation agencies, AASHTO is well positioned to provide information to its members about the availability and application of the Guide for incorporating a systemic safety analysis approach into transportation safety programs. Leadership roles with AASHTO can be taken by the Committee on Safety. Highway Safety Manual—A chapter on systemic safety analysis is planned for inclusion in the second edition of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM2). There is opportunity for the research team, the TRB Committee on Highway Safety Performance, which is overseeing the development and technical review of new content for the HSM2, and AASHTO, who will be publishing the HSM2, to work together to ensure the systemic

A-5 safety guidance references the Guide and provides information for practitioners that supports and is supported by the content of the Guide. Highlighting the role of systemic safety analysis in proactively addressing safety needs in the HSM2 will be crucial in reinforcing the importance of a systemic safety component in a transportation agency’s overall safety program. When HSM2 users see this methodology highlighted in a trusted resource, they will seek out additional implementation guidance for a systemic safety program. Addressing Potential Impediments to Successful Implementation Potential impediments to successful implementation of the Guide developed in the research are:  Lack of user awareness of the Guide’s existence  Lack of decision maker familiarity with a systemic safety management approach  Difficulty assessing the benefits of systemic safety projects and programs, especially in the short term  Constraints associated with data accessibility and reliability  Organizational resistance to change, especially in a resource-constrained environment  Lack of practitioner education and training on systemic safety management approaches  Lack of familiarity with systemic safety tools and resources The following actions may be used to mitigate the impacts of the potential impediments to implementation listed above: Lack of awareness about the Guide—The organizations listed above as leaders in application of the research results will be key in helping spread awareness of the guidance document. This will be done through notices in newsletters, emails to committee distribution lists, links on related website pages, and mentions at meetings of safety professionals. Lack of familiarity with systemic safety management—If decision makers at highway agencies are not familiar with the concept of systemic safety management, they are not likely to seek out the guidance document or other products of our research. The research team has developed a two-page informational hand-out for decision makers emphasizing the benefits of a systemic safety approach and listing some tools and resources available to help implement a systemic safety management program. Again, we will rely on the key organizations listed above to help distribute that hand-out at meetings and online, and to continue to talk about the systemic safety management approach in a broader set of safety trainings, workshops and materials to increase general familiarity with the topic. Difficulty assessing the benefits of systemic safety projects—In some cases, it can be difficult to show a benefit to specific implementation of a countermeasure or treatment identified using a systemic safety analysis. This is because such an analysis might indicate a need for a treatment based on the potential for crashes at a site where a previous crash history has not been documented. In such cases, it can be difficult to justify the allocation of resources using a traditional benefit-cost approach. The guidance document provides helpful information to practitioners regarding assessing the benefits of systemic safety projects.

A-6 Data accessibility and reliability—All safety analysis requires quality data, often including historical crash data with good location information, AADT data, roadway design data, and more. One benefit of a systemic safety approach is that identification of target crash types, countermeasures, and potential implementation sites does not necessarily require detailed data. Practitioners can tailor their approach to the data they have available. The guidance document provides more information on the types of data desired or needed for various aspects of systemic safety implementation. Organizational resistance to change—Especially in organizations where resources are constrained, it can be difficult to implement a major change to processes and procedures, such as incorporating a systemic safety analysis approach into a safety program based primarily on crash history analyses. However, as early-adopter agencies begin to share success stories of systemic safety projects and programs, more agencies will begin to consider adding in this approach to their safety programs. The guidance document provides case studies to show practitioners how systemic safety is already being used, highlighting the ways it has been tailored to meet agency needs. Lack of familiarity with tools and resources—Many systemic safety resources already exist, such as the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, the FHWA Systemic Safety page on their website, and the NCHRP Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis report. In addition, tools such as Safety Analyst and iRAP/usRAP can be useful in systemic safety analysis. A major element of the guidance document developed in this research is to list and describe the available tools and the steps of a systemic safety analysis in which they can be the most useful. Identifying and Measuring the Impacts of Research Implementation The target audience or primary market for the research results consists of transportation agencies that can directly implement the research results. State and local departments of transportation, as well as MPOs, are likely to be the primary users of the Guide developed in the research, since they generally monitor roadway safety, set safety goals, and implement safety projects. However, traffic engineers and highway designers at consulting agencies, as well as decision makers in other areas of state and local government may also benefit from understanding the basics of a systemic safety analysis approach. A direct, but somewhat subjective, measure of the impacts of research implementation is the extent to which the transportation safety community begins to incorporate systemic safety analysis approaches into their existing roadway safety programs. Project implementation means that more agencies are becoming aware of the benefits of systemic safety; using the available systemic safety analysis tools to identify crash types, countermeasures, and project locations; and taking more proactive steps to reduce crash potential rather than reacting to substantial crash histories at “black spot” locations. To track these direct measures of implementation, records would ideally be kept of the implementation activities by all parties, especially those taking a lead role in the implementation. FHWA and TRB would ideally track the number of sponsored webinars that discuss systemic safety in general as well as those that specifically present the findings of this research or introduce the guidance document. They could also track the number of agencies who attend such presentations. NCHRP could track requests for the products of this research and downloads of

A-7 the guidance document from the website. Key organizations should track the types of promotional and informational materials released, briefings given, training courses developed, and number of persons trained. Finally, the agencies implementing systemic safety can track the number and type of projects implemented using systemic safety analysis. In addition, feedback could be requested from AASHTO and TRB committees, State DOTs, and local transportation agencies on the success of the activities conducted. Input from these organizations can be sought on potential changes that might be considered in future updates to the Guide. A secondary, but more quantitative, measure of implementation is the reduction of overall fatal and injury crash frequencies and rates in jurisdictions where systemic safety has been implemented. The impact of broad implementation of the safety approach described in the research products will be reduced highway fatalities and injuries, especially those resulting from the crash types addressed by systemic safety countermeasures. Although it may be difficult to identify the specific role that the adoption of a systemic safety approach has in overall crash frequencies and rates, it will be helpful for individual agencies initiating a systemic safety program to track the crashes that they expect will be most impacted by the selected projects and to modify as necessary if crash rates do not begin to decline.