National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits

« Previous: Section 3. Agency Survey of Practice
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Section 4. Summary of Agency Site Visits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26031.
×
Page 80

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.

45 Summary of Agency Site Visits The research team visited seven state departments of transportation and three local/county agencies to learn about their experiences implementing systemic safety management approaches. In addition, the research team conducted a teleconference with one State DOT. The information gathered from these eight DOTs and three local/county agencies was used to develop the case studies and other sections of the guidance document on quantitative approaches to systemic safety analysis as well as to help identify gaps in knowledge and needs for future research, discussed in Section 5 of this report. The highway agencies that participated in the site visits and teleconference included: The research team identified these agencies based on the results of the literature review and the survey and the research team’s prior knowledge of the agency’s experience with systemic safety management. In addition, participating agencies were selected in an effort to achieve geographical distribution across the country; address a range of crash types, facility types, and countermeasures; gain perspectives from both state and local/county agencies, and cover a range of tools and software used by agencies. Ahead of each site visit, the research team developed a draft agenda and list of discussion questions, which were shared with the meeting participants in advance. Meetings were scheduled to occur over several hours over one day. The research team encouraged participation from a range of staff members, including decision makers/leadership, traffic engineers, designers, data analysts, network administrators, and others. In many cases, agencies would suggest revisions to the agenda based on the availability of staff and the specifics of their systemic safety program, and the research team would align the questions to match the staff participating in the meeting throughout the day. The general list of questions intended to lead the discussions with the agencies were as follows: Background:  How does your agency define systemic safety analysis?  What is the structure of your highway safety program? What are the departments or divisions? What are the objectives of the functions that fall within highway safety?  How does your systemic safety program fit in with your traditional (e.g., high-crash location) safety program? (Budget split between the two, certain crash types handled by State Agencies: Local/County Agencies:  Kentucky  Maine  Minnesota  Oregon  Rhode Island  Texas  Utah  Washington  Thurston County (WA)  Marion County (OR)  City of Salem (OR)

46 one or the other, certain locations types handled by one or the other, two totally separate programs, systemic safety program is experimental, etc.)  Does your agency have a systemic safety champion?  Do you use consultants and/or universities to help with your systemic safety program? If so, in what way?  Does your agency have any formal or informal policies around systemic safety?  How does systemic safety analysis support your SHSP and your crash and fatality reduction targets?  Has your staff received any training on systemic safety analysis? If so, what did that training entail? Tools and Data:  What tools does your agency use to implement your systemic safety program?  What tools or guidance do you wish were available to assist with systemic safety analysis?  What data does your agency use to conduct the systemic safety analysis?  How are missing or poor data quality issues handled?  What data do you not have that would improve your systemic safety analysis process? Processes and Methods:  When and why did your office begin to explore using systemic safety analysis?  How many staff in your agency are dedicated to conducting/supporting/implementing the results of systemic safety analyses?  What is the purpose of your systemic safety program?  What are the biggest barriers to implementing a systemic safety program?  What process did your office go through to determine the crash types and facility types that would be addressed with your systemic safety program?  How many sites have been treated/improved as a result of a systemic safety analysis?  In what year(s) were these improvements conducted?  What network screening process did your office go through to prioritize sites for safety improvement?  What process did your office go through to select potential countermeasures for deployment?  What process did your office go through to prioritize projects for implementation?  During the project prioritization process, does your office treat all locations that meet a certain criteria, or as many as possible within a predetermined budget?  Has your office implemented countermeasures at sites with no or low crash history?

47  Are your systemic safety improvement projects done in isolation or in combination with other scheduled maintenance or planned safety improvements?  How has your systemic safety program and/or process evolved over time?  What is the approximate dollar amount spent on systemic safety improvement projects each year? What does this workout to in average cost/site? Evaluation:  What data are available for tracking systemic safety improvements?  How do you measure or evaluate the success of your systemic safety program?  What are the expected long-term outcomes of using systemic safety analysis in your agency?  Have you evaluated systemwide crash data for a given crash type before and after the systemic safety analysis? If so, what have you found?  Have you evaluated before and after crash data at the specific implementation sites? If so, what have you found?  How do the results of your systemic safety projects compare to the results of traditional safety projects?  What are the challenges to measuring the performance of systemic safety projects? Communication and Lessons Learned:  Has your agency made the public aware of your systemic safety approach? If so, how?  What communication lessons have been learned regarding systemic safety?  What are the major lessons learned from implementing a systemic safety program within your agency?  Looking back, would you do anything different to implement a systemic safety program within your agency?  What is the most important information an agency should know if they are looking to implement a systemic safety program?  What do you think distinguishes your initiative in systemic safety analysis from other agencies? The discussions with each agency are summarized below in the order in which the meetings were held. 4.1 Washington State Department of Transportation Background The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has launched a significant effort to incorporate systemic safety analysis into their program as a metric for safety funding. WSDOT wants to get the most value for the investment as well as achieve zero fatalities on Washington

48 roadways. Driving fatal and serious injuries down would yield a significant return on investment and would expand to other programs. Traffic operations management staff are working towards improving safety management and refer to successful programs to develop new approaches to achieving results. WSDOT was using a hot-spot approach to addressing safety needs until 2008. WSDOT started using systemic improvements on the state system in 2002, 2009 for the local county system, and 2012 for parts of the cities. The systemic safety management approach allows WSDOT to strive for the best-balanced program for state and local agencies to be more proactive and identify needs in advance of serious crashes. This approach is easier to communicate with constituents or elected officials. However, as the State gets closer to zero deaths, it becomes more challenging to bring down numbers, and there is a greater need for efficiency in the process. Innovative safety programs can produce project improvements that could continue to drive down fatal and serious injuries. Additional information:  Based on the frequency of fatal and serious injuries, HSIP directs most of the funding to local roadways. Specifically, 70 percent of HSIP funding is allocated to local roads, and state highways receive 30 percent of the funding.  County and city systems do not have concentrations of crashes in specific locations so systemic analysis made the most sense.  Local agencies review their local roadway system to identify needs.  County HSIP programs are using systemic improvements.  State level safety programming starts with proven countermeasures and focuses on crash types to prioritize sites. Methodology WSDOT is using the FHWA systemic safety prioritization approach which involves widely implementing improvements based on roadway features that correlate with a concentration of specific severe crash types. Local agencies are required to come up with their own systemic process using the County Road Administration Board (CRAB) geometry data and Datamart for traffic and crash data. Countermeasures are chosen based on the systemic analysis and local agencies provide documentation of the methodology used for site selection. The systemic safety management approach for the State roadway system is slightly different in that the process begins with proven treatments, then focuses on crash types that would be mitigated by specific treatments. WSDOT uses Safety Analyst modules and usRAP to develop rank lists along with SPFs to prioritize sites for safety improvements. Policy-based decisions are used if SPFs are not available. WSDOT utilizes all available data resources and makes assumptions when data are missing or of poor quality. During the interview, the research team noted the following regarding WSDOT’s systemic safety analysis approach:

49  At the local level, look at the system to identify needs. At the state level, start with a proven countermeasure, and then focus on crash types, and prioritize sites.  State executive committee develops White Papers for each systemic project (10 papers currently).  Systemic focus is on lane departure, intersections, and pedestrians (cities).  Ninety-two percent of statewide crash data (state and local) are submitted electronically and input into the Datamart. Thorough quality control is conducted on the crash data; 1 out of 100 reports are checked with over 500 checks for issues. If conflicts are identified, crash reports can be sent back to officer. Implementation and Funding Program management office overseas all funding. Typically, $100 million annually is geared toward safety. There are three main funding sources; HSIP, state safety program, and data improvements. A total of $35 million is spent on the state system per year, $15 million is spent on local systems for systemic programming per year, and $8 to $9 million is spent on local systems every other year. Local agency funding is split in half with 50 percent for the city and 50 percent for the county. Local safety projects can be funded with different budgets and can always resubmit for more money if there is not enough. This makes it easier for funding projects within the cycle. With limited knowledge and tools for implementation, central office provides technical assistance on treatment and process to local agencies. The State systemic program is on a 10-year budget to target severe crashes using a list of prioritized projects to be implemented. Currently, 15 active warning signs and 250 miles of rumble strips have been implemented. Scheduled maintenance is reviewed, and safety improvements can be added in combination with maintenance for time and cost efficiencies. WSDOT, along with the support from universities, have conducted research on systemic safety for pedestrian projects and the redesign of barriers. Additional information about WSDOT’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  Low-cost projects within limits are approved for implementation.  Higher-cost projects are reviewed by the highway safety technical working group with a more detailed approach.  Counties can only implement systemic safety projects.  33 out of 39 Counties have a county safety plan, with 4 in the process.  Cities are split: two-thirds of projects are based on hot-spot analyses, and one-third are chosen using a systemic safety management approach.  Systemic treatments types include cable median barrier, rumble strips, high friction surface, active warning signs, and compact roundabouts.

50 Evaluation WSDOT measures the systemic safety program on an annual basis with many parameters including review of trends by roadway ownership, growth of the program overall, and crash trends. For the State system, targeted crashes by region and facility type are reviewed. A lot of data are still in the process of collection and will be evaluated when ready. The evaluation list is a living document, and the program is always being balanced and rebalanced by continually tracking investment and adding subcategories for maximum return on investment. The next step would be to evaluate systemwide crash data for a crash type before and after the systemic safety analysis and treatment construction. WSDOT is also looking into developing new tools to aid in evaluation as well as new ways to support evolving technologies such as automated vehicles. Lidar is a tool that can potentially help data collection for the after analysis. Challenges/improvements to measure performance of systemic safety projects include:  Absence of before/after crashes.  Lack of other surrogate measures.  May require local safety plan for all investments. 4.2 Thurston County Public Works (Washington State) Background Thurston County Public Work’s systemic safety program began in 2012 after the State of Washington recommended a pilot program using the systemic safety management approach. Over the years, their safety program, which is committed to using data-driven methods, has grown and evolved and is now primarily systemic-based, though it will likely become a more balanced mix of systemic and hot-spot analyses in the future. Their systemic safety program focuses on curves, rural corridors, and urban corridors. As the county has established a goal of zero deaths by the year 2030, it is essential that they consider and address all crashes on all roadways across their network. Due to a lack of crash clustering along much of their network, a reactive approach to safety can only provide limited results. The systemic safety management approach helps the county to proactively address safety needs across their system, targeting challenging crash types based on identified contributing factors. The Thurston County transportation safety approach:  Is targeting zero deaths by the year 2030.  Has a focus on systemic countermeasure application on curves, rural corridors, and urban corridors.  Addresses roadway departure crashes.  Allocates a majority of its resources to a systemic safety management approach. Methodology Thurston County developed a data-driven methodology to implement the systemic safety management approach across their local network. This methodology stems largely from the

51 FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, which identifies target crash and facility types as well as prioritizes candidate projects. The county has identified roadway departure crashes as a key focus of their efforts, in line with the state SHSP. Their methods focus on identifying crash contributing features associated with severe crashes, looking for overrepresentation based on functional classification, with primary focus on their arterial and collector systems. To address the needs of their high-ranking facilities, Thurston County developed a list of systemic treatments, considering construction and maintenance costs and expected crash reductions to prioritize the most effective options. The agency uses decision trees to support project selection, which, the agency noted, are particularly challenging to develop due to the complexity of the data involved and the unique characteristics of each roadway network. The decision trees require refinement based on agency experiences and needs and cannot easily be generalized across agencies. The agency noted that a key benefit of the systemic safety management approach is the ease with which it can be incorporated into a safety program without needing extensive training. However, they also noted that it would be helpful to have more national resources for identifying crash contributing factors and standard approaches, as well as how to deal with missing data. As their program progresses, Thurston County hopes to utilize more GIS-based analysis and reporting. As they work to further develop their network and related data, they recognize that implementation may require various levels of data collection, particularly for elements which are often missing from common data sets, such as intersection skew angle, curve radius, roadway lighting, roadside features, and more. Additionally, as data progresses, it is important to make the best use of the available data in the meantime. In summary:  Methods are largely based on FHWA Systemic Tool.  Roadway departure crashes are a priority crash type.  Primary focus is on arterial and collector systems.  Decision trees are challenging to develop but essential.  Systemic safety management approach can be implemented without extensive training.  Sometimes extensive data collection is required. Implementation and Funding In their implementation of the approach, Thurston County has identified a systemic safety champion. The agency has found this to be highly valuable, as new methods are most effective when staff are willing to try something new and invest time and effort into it. Along the way, the county has utilized some consultants, particularly supporting the development of local road safety plans (LRSPs) and other time-constrained efforts and on-call duties, though they recognize the importance of expanding internal capacity and experience. Funding for Thurston County’s systemic safety projects comes primarily through grants and programs such as the HSIP. Since the program began, the agency has spent approximately $6 million on systemic projects, touching all 360 miles of county roads within their jurisdiction, including many locations with no or little crash history. Projects have included the installation of signing on about 270 curves, enhanced roadway markings, high friction surface treatments, and

52 rumble strips. A notable benefit of such programming comes in economies of scale which can help with the bidding process, where projects are bundled by treatment instead of location. This can be challenging to manage, especially when there is competition with ongoing maintenance, capital improvement, and other efforts on the road. However, with strong internal communication, there can be some opportunities for implementing projects in combination with such efforts in some cases. Thurston County notes the importance of getting the public on board with the systemic safety management approach. Good communication and outreach can ensure public support and interest, helping to support effective and sustainable results, and engaging local community groups to include them in the process can help provide insights to advance methods and the effectiveness of the program. Additionally, because the systemic safety management approach often focuses on locations which may not necessarily have a history of severe crashes, it is important to communicate the value of taking a proactive approach to improving roadway safety. Thurston County hopes to continue expanding their public outreach efforts around systemic safety in the future. Key facts about the implementation of Thurston County’s systemic safety approach include:  Most projects are funded through grants or the HSIP.  They have identified a systemic safety champion who has authority over the safety program.  Consultants are used to develop LRSPs and for time-constrained efforts.  $6 million has been spent on systemic treatments so far.  360 miles of roads have been treated, and signing has been added to 270 curves.  Public outreach and communication is valuable. Evaluation Since they began implementing the systemic safety method, Thurston County has found that fatalities and serious injuries have fallen consistently within the county despite increases across the state. In their first year, the county experienced a total of zero fatalities. Such results have been great news after improvements based on the hot-spot approach have provided limited results in the past. In particular, Thurston County has seen a 38 percent reduction in crashes reported on horizontal curves on unincorporated county roads, which would commonly be overlooked when using a hot-spot approach, where they have deployed new signage, pavement markings, rumble strips, and guardrails in recent years. Due to the proximity of some roads to adjacent residences, some sections of rumble strips have subsequently been filled in to reduce roadway noise. Due to generally low numbers of severe crashes across the county, the agency has resorted to aggregate-level evaluation to understand the outcomes of their program, using before/after analysis. They hope to utilize more comprehensive evaluation practices in the future and hope to develop results that can be communicated with the public to encourage support of systemic methods as a key element in achieving their long-term vision of zero fatalities. Results to date include:  Fatalities and serious injuries have fallen in the county despite statewide increases.

53  Major reductions in crashes on target facilities has been seen.  Few crashes make evaluation challenging, so the focus is on aggregate level before/after evaluations. 4.3 Oregon Department of Transportation Background Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) purpose for systemic analysis is to reduce the targeted fatal and serious-injury crashes with cost effective, proven measures. Oregon’s Transportation Safety Division and the Highway Division work closely together to have a relationship that bolsters the safety programs. The Highway Division includes FHWA programs such as the HSIP, while the Transportation Safety Division takes on all NHTSA programs. In 2007, FHWA funded the Roadway Departure Plan (RDP) to address the state’s road departure epidemic. ODOT developed an implementation plan that included a systemic safety management approach to reduce roadway departure fatalities, which accounted for 66 percent of all fatalities. The approach moved away from the traditional method, which was sometimes driven by politics, to a more data-driven method. This proactive plan addresses more widespread areas than a particular location and provides an implementable and defendable transportation safety management program for all public roads. Since then, the systemic program has expanded to other projects such as intersections and pedestrians/bicyclists. Additional information:  ODOT has four headquarter staff committed to supporting tools and analysis for a safety management system that includes planning and developing tools.  All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) was developed as a partnership between ODOT and Oregon cities and counties to allocate a portion of State safety funds to local roads.  2002 to 2008 roadway departure crashes accounted for 66 percent of all fatalities in Oregon.  Oregon pursued intersection and pedestrian/bicycle safety implementation plans focusing on systemic treatments after the success of their Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. Methodology ODOT worked closely with consultants to develop a systemic plan. Consultants facilitated the process of stakeholder input and performed the data analysis necessary to develop the systemic safety plan. Stakeholders gave input regarding the practical application of different countermeasures within Oregon. The countermeasures are matched to prevalent crash types and are then strategically applied to the portion of the roadways that show an overrepresentation for the particular type of targeted crash. Network screening based on crash thresholds used crash data and roadway geometric design data to identify high-crash locations and determine appropriate countermeasures. Data are input into a geographic information system (GIS) platform, which is used to clearly see where improvements are needed. This method was used for the roadway departure plan, which was not based on a systemic analysis, but was a data-driven

54 analysis. It prioritized locations based on total crash frequencies above a crash threshold. The location received a benefit-cost analysis based on fatal and serious-injury crashes. This helps narrow down project selection through a competitive process, so only projects with the highest benefit-cost ratio get funding. ODOT is developing a new screening method using ODOT’s in- house tool, the Oregon Adjustable Safety Index System (OASIS). ODOT would be able to search and screen for high occurrences of crashes occurring on public roads. During the interview, the research team noted the following regarding ODOT’s systemic safety analysis approach:  ODOT does not have roadway inventory data and relies on the roadway data available within crash reports. A separate inventory of roadway data would improve the safety analysis process.  In order to continue to build the roadway data available for systemic analysis, the systemic analysis methodology was adjusted to use geometric data from the crash reports.  Projects with the highest benefit-cost ratio or cost effectiveness are addressed first.  For pedestrian/bicycle projects, cost effectiveness and an estimate of crashes reduced (i.e., HSM methods) are used. Implementation and Funding ODOT’s Systemic Program is new. Projects have only been implemented on state highways and are slowly expanding to all roads at the time of the site visit. ODOT has an agreement with Oregon Cities and Counties called “All Roads Transportation Safety” (ARTS) that addresses how ODOT intends to allocate a portion of HSIP safety funds to local routes. It was decided to split the funds equally (50/50) between systemic and hot-spot approaches. The Roadway Departure Plan implemented low-cost countermeasures such as rumble strips, curve warning, delineators, and profiled durable pavement markings at a cost of $10 million per year. This investment in projects has reduced the average annual fatal crashes from roughly 300 per year (66 percent) from 2002 to 2008 to 200 per year (55 percent) from 2009 to 2015. Funding for other systemic projects continues to be a struggle, but ODOT is investigating new plans for a more sustainable method of producing implementation plans using in-house tools. In addition, as each new plan rolls out, ODOT will implement standards on all types of projects including SafetyEdgeSM, reflectorized backplates, illumination at signalized intersections, and countdown pedestrian signals. ODOT’s systemic safety projects are mostly standalone projects, but projects are often combined in areas to make the project more competitive so that overhead costs are minimized. An example would be combining all the rumble strip projects in one county together. The projects on state highways and local agency roadways all compete for the same funding, and projects with the best return on investment in terms of cost-benefit ratio are chosen. Additional information about ODOT’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:

55  Recently ARTS funded about $83 million (5 years) on 268 systemic safety improvement projects at an average of $310,000 per project; 50 percent going toward roadway departure, 35 percent toward intersections, and 15 percent toward pedestrian/bicycle.  Roadway departure, intersection, and pedestrian/bicycle projects are scheduled to be completed in 2021.  Treatment types include rumble strips, curve warning, delineators, SafetyEdgeSM, shoulder widening, reflectorized backplates, illumination at signalized intersections, rapid flashing beacons, buffered bike lanes, enhanced pedestrian crosswalks and countdown pedestrian signals, street lighting, and roadway diets.  ODOT developed videos titled The Sound of Safety to educate the public on the benefits of rumble strips. Evaluation ODOT measures/evaluates the systemic safety program through before/after analysis of the project data. Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan projects are still being implemented, and evaluations are still too early to find reliable results. Pedestrian/bicyclist projects implementation has just started. However, evaluating individual implemented projects does not give a good picture of effectiveness of the program. Instead, more meaningful results could be obtained by evaluating 20 to 30 projects of the same type together. ODOT has seen the historic reductions in fatalities with more projects yet to be implemented. ODOT has compared the expected crash reduction to actual crash reduction and found a greater percent reduction in fatalities for some treatments than the national averages (e.g., rumble strips). Other treatments evaluated by ODOT show their results to be in line with national crash reduction factors (CRFs). Conducting evaluations of projects will aid in procuring additional safety funding. Challenges/improvements to measure performance of systemic safety projects include:  Evaluation is limited by the data available for recent implementation.  Sometimes there is no low-cost safety countermeasure that can be applied to a specific crash problem. For example, on two-lane rural roads with narrow lanes and ditches on both sides, there is no room for safety devices or even delineators. 4.4 Texas Department of Transportation Background In 2013, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) developed a statewide systemic process that included a safety champion to spearhead the effort. TxDOT adhered to a legislative mandate for a systemic widening program targeting single-vehicle run-off-road (SVROR) and head-on crashes. With the support of local universities, TxDOT implements and analyzes systemic projects. Additional systemic programs have been developed for intersection safety projects, median barrier projects, pedestrian safety projects on rural and urban roadways, and horizontal curve projects. These programs help support TxDOT’s SHSP in reducing crashes and fatalities to meet Target Zero. Currently each district in Texas has its own safety plan, but cities like Austin and Dallas may focus efforts on pedestrian safety systemic projects. An HSIP

56 steering committee is currently being set up as a think tank for additional ideas and district participation. Additional information:  HSIP funds are for 100 percent safety use.  Safety improvements are limited by the available funding.  Systemic safety was used to prioritize legislatively-mandated widening projects for two- lane roadways statewide.  The intersection safety projects focus around the five largest MPOs: Alamo, Capital, El Paso, Houston-Galveston, and North Central Texas. Methodology TxDOT uses the FHWA Systemic safety Project Selection Tool to provide analysis for the statewide widening program. The FHWA tool has identified crash contributing factors for SVROR and head-on crashes on two-lane rural roads. TxDOT developed a unique approach to prioritize sites for improvement based on total crashes, over representation, and under representation. TxDOT used similar approaches for other systemic programs such as the intersection safety and median barrier projects and completed the following tasks tailored by crash and project type:  Developed a unique application of the systemic method for improving pedestrian safety on both rural and urban roadways.  Reviewed literature related to characteristics of pedestrian crashes, factors influencing pedestrian safety and countermeasures that may potentially reduce the number and severity of pedestrian crashes.  Identified and evaluated factors contributing to vehicle-pedestrian collisions.  Identified and ranked segments based on the presence of crash contributing factors.  Summarized the countermeasures aimed at reducing pedestrian crashes.  Prioritized pedestrian safety improvement projects.  Prioritization was based on weighting by crash cost by crash type.  Systemic safety management approach may be programmed further out in the future.  Would like to use systemic analysis for roadside improvements.  Started process with existing datasets; additional data could be collected using google earth. Implementation and Funding The implemented mandated legislative systemic widening program was only 10-percent funded. TxDOT is scheduled to widen 2,000 mi of narrow highways along with adding rumble strips over the next 5 years at an estimated cost of $636 million dollars. TxDOT has also implemented several other safety programs such as the intersection safety program, which focuses on the five

57 largest MPOs with varying funding needs. Median barriers projects were installed on 500 mi of divided highway at a cost of $80,000 per mi and $8,000 per-mi-per-year for maintenance. For pedestrian safety on rural and urban roadways, crossing and marked crosswalk (high visibility) treatments were considered at a cost of $40,000 per unit and $2,540 per unit respectively. Horizontal curve safety considered alignment/advisory speed signs at a cost of $300 per unit, post mounted delineators at $3,000 per curve, and speed advisory marking in lanes at $300 per unit. These projects have not been funded, and the only current option would be to seek project funds through the HSIP. Additional information about TxDOT’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  TxDOT has had trouble with current safety culture with many potential hot-spot projects that are unfunded, which makes it more difficult to secure funding for systemic projects.  It is challenging to find funding for systemic projects compared to hot-spot improvements.  TxDOT needs more tools and resources to sell the benefits of systemic projects. Evaluation The results from the legislative widening mandate efforts resulted in widening up to 25 percent of the narrow highways ranked by crash contributing factors. TxDOT plans to conduct before/after evaluations, but has only recently implemented systemic projects and will need to wait for the after data. Historically, TxDOT has only kept the five most recent years of crash data, which makes it difficult to perform before/after evaluations. They have recently begun keeping the ten most recent years of data but do not yet have ten years of data available for analyses. 4.5 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Background Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s (KYTC) purpose for systemic analysis is to reduce the risk of fatal and serious-injury crashes. Previous methodologies mitigated crashes at a location, but crashes were still occurring at similar sites. This observation led to a safety cultural shift to implementation of low-cost safety improvements at multiple locations rather than at single sites (i.e., hot-spots). Beginning in 2010, Kentucky performed a roadway departure analysis and identified three primary countermeasures for reducing roadway departure crashes (rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and signing [chevrons]). Kentucky began exploring systemic safety analysis more in-depth in 2011 after joining the low-cost pooled fund states (LCPFS) and seeing other webinars. Currently, KYTC has an HSIP investment plan that has a variety of initiatives within three primary categories: roadway departure, intersections, and other specific initiatives. The transportation safety program now includes initiatives that are reactive based on hot-spots, proactive based on systemic safety management approaches, and other initiatives that are a combination of reactive and proactive. Additional information:  The three treatment areas are roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle.  There is an HSIP Coordinator in each of the 12 district offices.

58 Methodology KYTC initially used critical crash rate to prioritize projects. With the publication of the HSM, Kentucky moved away from this method and developed agency-specific SPFs (2012) that use Empirical Bayes (EB) models to estimate the number of expected crashes. These estimates are used for prioritizing sites for safety improvements. Sites for improvement have expanded to corridors with investment of systemic improvements. KYTC developed an HSIP investment plan based on crash types that have the highest fatalities and injuries. The investment plan directs about 66 percent of HSIP funding to roadway departure initiatives, 17 percent to intersection initiatives, and 17 percent to other initiatives. The HSIP Investment Plan describes the background, the methodology and implementation, and the benefits of each initiative. KYTC utilizes the traffic safety group at the University of Kentucky’s Transportation Center to perform annual network screening analyses, assist with program/initiative evaluations, and help with preparation of the annual HSIP Report. The HSIP program focuses on implementing low-cost, effective countermeasures. These low-cost, effective countermeasures are first identified, and then the crash database is queried to prioritize highway sections that have targeted crashes at or above a crash threshold to ensure cost-effective deployment of these countermeasures. During the interview, the research team noted the following regarding KYTC’s systemic safety analysis approach:  KYTC developed agency-specific SPFs and its own tools to update SPFs on an annual basis using five years of data.  KYTC uses usRAP to prioritize roadside improvements. They also have a Safety Analyst license and are in the beginning stages of using the software.  Additional data collection is being done to improve the roadside, ADT, curve, and intersection databases.  Road data are maintained by KYTC, and crash data are maintained by the State Police (100 percent electronically reported).  KYTC ranks sites for potential safety improvement using excess expected crash frequency as the primary safety performance measure. Implementation and Funding KYTC receives roughly $40 million dollars in HSIP funding per year and spends approximately half of the funding on systemic improvements. Within the predetermined budget, KYTC treats as many locations as possible. Projects are generally prioritized for implementation based on excess expected crash frequency. Occasionally, other factors, such as grouping an identified project with another project is used. Systemic improvements tend to be implemented as standalone projects and in conjunction with other maintenance and/or safety projects. There are a few systemic, low-cost improvement types that have been adopted as standard practices for most projects such as rumble strips and SafetyEdgeSM (durable pavement edge in KY). Essentially, any project that includes pavement surfacing that meets certain width criteria will automatically receive SafetyEdgeSM and/or rumble strip treatments. Systemic safety

59 improvements per project/site is estimated to be about $250,000. This figure has a large potential variance and could range from $0 to $750,000 (or more) spent on systemic safety improvement per project. Additional information about KYTC’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  Countermeasures that have been implemented include cable median barriers, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments (HFST), pavement markings, SafetyEdgeSM, tree removal, and signing (chevron) on state routes.  Before deploying countermeasures, communication with the public has been helpful to educate on the purpose and need for the improvements.  Louisville is a pedestrian focused city under the FHWA Program and has utilized a systemic safety management approach. Jefferson County is developing a local road safety plan. Evaluation Each year KYTC performs a before/after analysis on all HSIP-related improvements. The HSM’s methodologies are used to determine the effectiveness of the safety improvement. Roadway and crash data are used. Kentucky’s roadway data are archived annually. Evaluation has been limited, and no evaluation has been done for specific implementation sites, but have been done for systemwide crash data as part of the HSIP annual reporting for certain countermeasures including rumble strips, cable barrier, and high friction surface treatments. For rumble strips (lane-departure crashes), cable median barriers (median crossover crashes), and HFSTs (wet-weather lane-departure crashes), there are three types of analyses: Wilcoxon signed- rank test, EB crash analysis, and benefit/cost analysis. The Wilcoxon test and EB crash analysis test determine if the reduction in crashes at sites where these safety treatments were implemented is statistically significant. The benefit/cost analysis quantifies how much of a benefit the safety treatments provide. All three treatments were shown to have a significant crash reduction by at least one of the two significance tests, and all three treatments have a benefit/cost ratio greater than 3:1. Other countermeasures have been hard to measure/evaluate because many of the recent HSIP funded projects include both systemic and reactive improvements. This makes it difficult to determine how much benefit is attributed to the systemic improvements and how much benefit is from the other improvements. Evaluations have shown that HFSTs have resulted in 80-percent reduction of crashes in curves under dry conditions and 90-percent crash reduction under wet conditions. 4.6 Rhode Island Department of Transportation Background Rhode Island Department of Transportation’s (RIDOT’s) strongest motivation to use the systemic process was to reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries. Most fatal and serious injuries are spread across the state with very few hot-spots, which prevented traditional hot-spot analysis and treatments from being very effective. A law was introduced in 2013 and initiated in

60 2014 to set up a project management group that would deliver projects more efficiently. As a result, the Rhodeworks Program was developed (10-year plan) to help streamline this process. Emphasis was put on hot-spot treatments and systemic projects were being developed. Since then, RIDOT is slowly moving away from hot-spots analyses and into a more systemic safety management approach. This Rhodeworks Program is expected to expand to reach locations that did not have concentrations of fatal or serious crashes. Additional information:  Road departure, intersection angle, and pedestrian/bike crashes comprised 80 percent of all fatal and serious injuries; therefore, they are the main focus of RIDOT’s systemic safety management approach.  Rhodeworks Program was introduced to help streamline project implementation (hot-spot and systemic projects).  The Rhodeworks Program was established as a 10-year program, which is not as flexible but effectively supports communication with the public.  One-third of roads are locally owned. The projects primarily focus on state roads because of their higher volumes. Methodology RIDOT’s systemic methodology is constantly evolving, but it is still focused on crash contributing factors. Consultants are contracted to run systemic network screening and develop SPFs for prioritization to develop the plan. RIDOT is looking at shared safety issues along a roadway or roadway segment that may be mitigated by an improvement. Also, RIDOT is considering using roadway data on roadways where issues are occurring and comparing to other roadways that have similar roadway data/characteristics to make improvements to those roadways. RIDOT let a contract to collect Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) data but switched to using interns to collect the remaining state data due to a lack of funding. RIDOT uses serious crashes, geometric design, and traffic data to prioritize locations. The following crash types and associated crash contributing factors are listed as examples:  Intersections: Facility type.  Curves: Entering speed, facility type, radius, wet (for high friction), and visual trap.  Lane Departure: Number of lanes and speeds.  Pedestrian: four lanes and unsignalized crosswalks. During the interview, the research team noted the following regarding RIDOT’s systemic safety analysis approach:  Previously safety improvements were split 50/50 for systemic and hot-spot treatments; moving forward RIDOT plans to split funding 90/10 for systemic and hot-spot treatments, respectively.  RIDOT is now programming for 2021 and implementing program management standards along the way so that they are aware of projects and expectations.

61  Internal staff are being trained on systemic safety analysis by listening to FHWA webinars on the systemic safety management approach.  RIDOT is developing an internal tool to conduct systemic safety analysis. Implementation and Funding Implementation of safety projects are most successful when the central safety office leads the systemic analysis. RIDOT tries to have projects on deck and ready so that if the funding is procured, projects can be quickly implemented to use the money. Many projects are low cost, which can be easily implemented even with a constrained budget. RIDOT spends roughly $5 million a year on systemic safety improvements projects. HSIP proposal forms include multiple criteria (B/C, K/A reduction, etc.), which are used to score a project. Systemic safety improvements are done alongside maintenance projects but can also be standalone projects. RIDOT has implemented rapid flashing beacons (RFBs) at uncontrolled four-lane pedestrian/bike crossings, and centerline and shoulder rumble strips were implemented in coordination with high-risk rural roads funding. Overall, systemic safety is data intensive, and education and initial buy-in from the agency are key. It is also important to be able to create policies and procedures to effectively communicate improvements to municipalities and the public. Additional information about RIDOT’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  There is approximately $12 to $13 million in funds available for HSIP (primarily safety treatments) and surface transportation program (mostly pavement projects).  Systemic projects are on a 10-year plan. Treatments include: high friction surface treatment, signing and striping, rumble strips, clear zone removal, curve signage/striping, and road diets.  Over 150 sites have been treated/improved using the systemic safety analysis.  Lidar data are being used for project scoping.  Crash data are collected 100 percent electronically and updated nightly. Evaluation RIDOT measures the success of their systemic safety program by evaluating emphasis areas, looking at site specific data (if applicable), and comparing the treated sites to non-treated sites. No before/after evaluation analysis has been done for systemwide crash data, but it has been done for site-specific locations. Before/after reports have been completed for high friction surface treatments, road diets, and curves. The systemic safety analysis has shown to be more effective in reducing fatal and serious crashes than the traditional approach. RIDOT has experienced good before/after results, and sometimes reductions greater than the CMFs predict. RIDOT is still in the process of obtaining data from systemic improvements that have been implemented. Evaluation difficulties occur when no crash data are available before and/or after the safety implementation.

62 RIDOT has developed a GIS tool that will have a public interface to show what projects are planned for the future. This will help coordinate with other projects and strive to work with project management and implementation. Areas of improvement for the future of the systemic program include:  Maintaining data quality is a priority after the data are captured.  Project implementation and agency buy-in can be a challenge. Emphasis would ideally be put on initial public outreach.  Set up policies and procedures to effectively communicate improvements to municipalities and the public.  Educate construction crews on what they do, and why they do it (stop bar location, guardrail, rumble strip installation, signing). 4.7 Maine Department of Transportation Background Maine Department of Transportation’s (MaineDOT’s) purpose is to identify broad traffic safety issues, diagnose and quantify the issues through data analysis, and define an effective mitigation toolbox for implementation and countermeasure performance. In 2010 when Maine undertook its median cable barrier program, crash contributing factors were identified using the available data and installation plans were set up to extend over several years. This was the genesis of the systemic safety program. Since then, MaineDOT has applied a systemic safety management approach to other areas of their safety program, such as their SHSP lane-departure strategies, which is an area of focus due to the high amount of fatal crashes of this type across the state. Additional information:  Maine Bureau of Highway Safety oversees 24,000 statewide miles; 8,000 are state-owned and 16,000 are locally owned.  MaineDOT coordinates with various safety partners/advocates to reduce serious-injury crashes.  70 percent of fatal crashes are lane-departure related; lane departure was the primary focus of the systemic safety approach.  Maine has experienced a significant increase in pedestrian fatalities, and this is the focus of future systemic safety initiatives. Methodology MaineDOT’s systemic safety program is a crash contributing factor data-driven analysis with well-coordinated efforts from the local team. With strong data, safety priorities are identified to give a clear picture of where disproportionate crash exposure exists and performance is assessed.

63 MaineDOT uses a three-stage approach that starts with crash data analysis:  Defining general concerning crash trends (usually those with disproportionate fatal and serious injuries) and HSM-based screening for intersections.  Defining crash contributing factors such as speed, traffic volume, location type (intersection and curve), and road/traffic classification/characteristics that identify the locations with high potential for crashes.  Developing core mitigation strategies that would be applied at locations with high-crash potential. Additional information:  GIS-based data are used to identify locations of need, but data elements used depends on the area of focus.  A quarterly police crash report census is conducted to ensure flow of submissions are consistent.  Training opportunities are available for Maine State Police on crash event details for improved documentation.  Once a strategy is defined, there may be future stages of implementation where crash contributing factor criteria are broadened to further improve the system’s safety. Implementation and Funding Many of MaineDOT staff directly and indirectly support implementation of the systemic analysis results. A GIS platform allows for coordination of safety projects and implementation of safety treatments with other planned projects. Starting in 2006, 500 mi of centerline rumble strips were systemically installed, 76 mi of divided highway barriers were improved (mostly interstate), and a systemic safety management approach for curves is in progress. Pedestrian fatalities have also been an area of over representation in Maine, and pedestrian safety strategies have been implemented but are more programmatic than systemic. Funding for these systemic projects can be programmatic as funding is limited. Systemic projects tend to range from $1 to 2 million per year and varies based on the program being pursued and greatly depends on mitigation type and length of installation. Funding is usually split 50/50 on systemic and programmatic analysis versus spot improvements. These splits vary year to year and depend on department perceived safety needs. Funding comes through a collective business approach and discussion with DOT stakeholders as part of the work plan process based on identifying safety needs and integrating impactful systemic strategies of all types. Additional information about MaineDOT’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  HSIP funding is approximately $3.5 to $6 million annually.  $3 million allocated to other highway safety investments may be applied to systemic improvements. Over 150 sites have been treated/improved using the systemic safety analysis.

64 Internal education training courses include:  Systemic 101 – Welcome to the concept of cable median barrier.  Systemic 201 – Let’s get analytical (Head on).  Systemic 401 – Complex risk factors (Went off the Road). Evaluation MaineDOT evaluates the success of their systemic safety program through before and after performance measures systemwide and at specific implemented sites. Project installation occurs over a series of years, and road settings may vary (AADT and speed); costs of mitigation are incurred on a per-mile basis. This has led Maine to develop before and after results based on a number of years exposure (before/after) on a per-mile-of-exposure basis. Constantly expanding planning perspective, Maine has incorporated the use of METRANS. The system provides a linear referencing and a spatial network hub, which enables MaineDOT to synchronize location referencing data on highways with other departmental systems. As the program grows, the DOT continues to listen to feedback to collaborate and tweak the approach as needed. The success of the systemic program has broadened within MaineDOT and engages the highway safety committee to push initiatives in the right direction and to obtain feedback and input. MaineDOT is now looking to expand crash contributing criteria for the future improvements (e.g., other road classes, possible lower AADT thresholds, etc.). Lessons learned and outcomes from the systemic program include:  Establish a board with a committed and passionate team to pursue the best strategies.  Three white paper reports have been produced – one for rumble strips and two for median and wrong-way safety.  As new systemic opportunities are identified, existing ones will be tweaked.  Developed social media for promotion and public outreach, such as StoryMap. StoryMap is an interactive map that presents the user an overview of the safety initiatives, what they are, where they are implemented, and why they were implemented. 4.8 Minnesota Department of Transportation Background The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has focused on investing transportation funding to reduce severe crashes. Starting in 2009, an Olmsted County pilot project jump started the systemic program by promoting a proactive approach for safety improvements where crashes did not occur. MnDOT utilized a data-driven approach and documented crash contributing factors, proven safety improvements strategies, and recommended safety projects to better position statewide counties for federal funds in the HSIP. MnDOT’s County Road Safety Plan (CRSP) has streamlined the process to allocate HSIP projects and funding to locally owned roadways using a systemic safety analysis approach. Additional information:

65  A systemic safety management approach has been applied statewide but has fully been embraced by the local system.  Operators of the local system have found great value in using systemic safety management approach to receive HSIP projects.  There is a focus on low-cost systemic safety projects. Methodology The systemic process started with a focus on locally owned roadways and expanded to the state system. The systemic safety management approach in Minnesota served as the basis for the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool and continues to evolve but always depends on data availability and the agencies involved. Data were initially based off individual county’s data, but as the program grew, each county’s data were lumped together. The local system fully embraced the systemic safety management approach and multiple counties were investigated to broaden and see the aggregate approach and common issues. Crash contributing factors were developed by looking at ADT ranges, crash data, roadway data collected using Google Maps, and video logs for modified roadway and clear zone assessment. The use of NCHRP Report 500 provided proven low-cost countermeasures that could be implemented, and the counties also had the flexibility to incorporate their own projects that were not systemic-based. The development of CRSP helped improve the quality of the HSIP as well as the process of systemic improvements. Emphasis was put on the right location so that different strategies could be developed that were viable in the community. Additional information:  Multiple county workshops were held to engage county representatives in systemic efforts.  Crash contributing factors were established through a review of crash data and data collected through Google Maps.  Project selection is based on the presence/absence of crash contributing factors and low- cost countermeasures.  MnDOT is looking into the use of Waze data, Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) and Traffic Asset Management System (TAMS) to support the systemic approach in the future. Implementation and Funding MnDOT has invested $3.5 million dollars for all counties to participate in a systemic program. The first phase wrapped up in three years and was well received by local agencies. MnDOT is in the works of the second phase of this systemic program and looking to identify new crash contributing factors (if possible) and moderate to high-cost projects. Phase 1 was 100-percent state funded, and Phase 2 would be 80/20, State/Local funded, respectively. Approximately $300 million worth of safety projects have successfully been implemented. MnDOT District safety plans have been completed twice, re-evaluating Phase 3 of the district safety effort so that the projects are more systemic in nature. With 90 percent of plans

66 implemented on the local system, 70 percent were projects using a proactive approach, and 30 percent were based on a more reactive approach. Many counties would not be investing in safety if the DOT had not created the program to support the counties and the systemic safety management approach. Without full funding from the state, the counties may not have been on board. Additional information about Minnesota’s implementation of a systemic safety approach includes:  Initially the County Road Safety Plans were 100-percent funded by State; updates to the CRSP would be 80/20 state to local funding, respectively.  County Engineers would embrace systemic project implementation but would need approval from the County board.  Implemented projects include but are not limited to: edgeline rumble strips/stripes, enhanced pavement markings, intersection lighting, dynamic warning devices, enhanced curve delineation, enhanced intersection signing, and enhanced red light enforcement. Evaluation MnDOT has not completed a formal evaluation process on the success of their systemic analysis. Future investigation needs to be done for accurate results, but trends have shown, in the county network compared to state and other roads, the steepest decline in fatalities and serious injuries have been on the county roadway network. County systems have been far ahead of the state system when it comes to systemic improvement projects. MnDOT data are very limited, but MnDOT will assess the systemic application versus hot-spot locations. They are working on a before-and-after analysis comparison based on the available data. Areas of improvement for the future of the systemic program include:  Project implementation were not tracked but are in the works.  MnDOT is working on a before-and-after analysis of implemented projects, which is difficult if there were no crashes before or after a specific timeframe. 4.9 Utah Department of Transportation Background The Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT’s) safety program is run out of their central office. Staff at the central office reach out to the four regional offices to identify candidate project locations. Central office gives the regions suggestions for project types and project locations, but relies on the regional office staff to identify the projects they wish to pursue. Once the regions submit their project ideas, central office reviews them to see if they are eligible for HSIP funds. If a project is approved, central office works with the region to ensure they want to follow through with it and then puts it on a three-year plan to fund it. The process of identifying and selecting safety projects in Utah is summarized as follows:  Safety projects are selected by regional staff.

67  Central office staff will recommend projects to the regional staff if they have not identified their own.  Central office analyzes selected projects to determine HSIP eligibility and B/C ratio.  Central office programs all safety projects, ensuring that those with the highest B/C ratio are funded first. Methodology All state-managed routes in Utah and some county routes have been analyzed using ViDA, the software tool that supports the usRAP program. usRAP is a systemic program in that it uses data pulled from images of the roadway and roadside to identify the characteristics on the roadway that may indicate a higher or lower potential for crashes. The software then identifies where along the roadway specific safety countermeasures could be applied that provide a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0. Roadway investment plans can be developed for certain levels of available funding or for certain minimum B/C ratios. The benefits of each project ViDA recommends are determined by the factors on the roadway that could contribute to crashes rather than on crash history. UDOT does not use the results of ViDA to program their safety funds, but the information obtained from this tool is considered when prioritizing safety projects. This approach allows them to consider projects at locations where a substantial crash history has not yet developed. For each potential safety project identified or selected by the regional offices, through either the ViDA software or another means, a consultant for UDOT performs a safety analysis to calculate the estimated crash reduction and associated benefits. This calculation is performed using three methods: 1. The HSM crash predictive methodology. 2. Application of treatment CMF to three-year crash average. 3. usRAP crash reduction estimate. From these three methods, the result that warrants the highest B/C ratio is assigned to the project/application. Projects with the highest B/C ratio are funded first. The Region staff provide the cost estimates for the benefit/cost calculation. UDOT described their project selection methodology as follows:  ViDA/usRAP is used as one of three potential methods of justifying a project.  When two or more methods point to similar crash reduction benefits, the agency feels more confident in the estimates.  Including the usRAP methodology allows for a proactive approach to programming safety projects. usRAP helps focus on roadway attributes that are within the engineer’s control to change and improve safety. Implementation and Funding The usRAP methodology was selected by UDOT for safety project programming because it allowed for a proactive approach to project selection and because they saw it as a less expensive

68 alternative to the Safety Analyst software. UDOT began using the usRAP approach in 2013, and soon after hired a consultant to become an expert in using ViDA to perform safety evaluations and in developing benefit-cost ratios for projects using several approaches. UDOT also worked with a local university to become trained in the usRAP methodology to code the characteristics of their roads for input into the ViDA software. This is cost efficient and reduces the needs associated with training DOT staff to code the roadways properly. Once the data has been collected, the program is very easy to run and results are intuitive to understand. Previously, each region was allocated a certain amount of safety funding, and all projects that fell within the funding limit with a benefit-cost ratio over 1.0 would be programmed. Recently the prioritization has shifted to allocating HSIP dollars to the projects with the highest B/C ratios regardless of which region the project is in. Therefore, districts with greater needs may receive a larger allocation of safety funds than others. Evaluation Currently, UDOT conducts annual reporting of crashes three years before and three years after the implementation of a safety project, as FHWA requires. Because ViDA occasionally recommends projects at locations without documented crash histories, it can be difficult to show the need for improvements at such locations. While individual sites might rate lower than expected, the overall HSIP Program B/C ratio has been traditionally strong. The lessons learned reported from UDOT about using the usRAP methodology include:  Some usRAP justified safety projects do not score well in a before-after evaluation of effectiveness. However, even projects using the traditional methods may not always score well using the before-after evaluation.  Occasionally, projects identified for implementation by ViDA were questioned by regional staff because there was not a documented crash history.  It is difficult to find and keep updated all of the cost information required by ViDA to show benefit-cost ratios. Typically, only the crash reduction estimates were used and the B/C calculations were computed outside the software using a single implementation cost.  The usRAP approach recommends projects that might not otherwise be identified because it is not biased to the agency’s culture and history. 4.10 Summary of Systemic Safety Programs Reviewed The systemic safety programs at eleven state and local highway agencies were reviewed by the research team and described in the preceding sections. A summary of each agency’s program, including the purpose, the systemic tools used, the crash types and facility types addressed, the treatments applied, and the lessons learned in the process are presented below in Table 8.

69 Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Kentucky Transportation Council Primary Contact: Michael Vaughn Culture change to focus more on implementation of low-cost safety improvements; makes sense to develop a safety improvement program with multiple strategies (i.e., hot-spot and systemic) rather than a single strategy (i.e., hot-spot) Roadway departure; intersections; pedestrians and bicycles Cable median barriers, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, pavement markings, SafetyEdgeSM, tree removal, and signing (chevrons) on State routes. Louisville and Jefferson County are developing Local road safety plans with systemic safety projects focused on intersections, bicycles, and pedestrians. Roadway departure analysis began with the treatment then determined the appropriate locations; shifting from improving single sites to corridors and implementation is coordinated with maintenance. Initial approach used critical rate to prioritize projects. With publication of the HSM, developed agency- specific SPFs for roadway departure crashes. Developed agency- specific SPFs and own tool to update SPFs on an annual basis. Webinars, FHWA Systemic Safety Tool, usRAP training, Safety Analyst training High friction surface treatments have resulted in 80% reduction of crashes in curves under dry conditions and 90% crash reduction under wet conditions. Performed simple before and after, Wilcoxon signed- rank test, Empirical Bayes, and benefit- cost analysis for evaluation (HFST, cable median barrier, rumble strips) All had a benefit- cost ratio of greater than 3:1  Before deploying countermeasure, communication with the public to educate them on the purpose and need for the improvements may have been helpful. A proactive media campaign with the residents may have mitigated some of the public complaints.  Do not wait for great; continue to evolve the process based on data availability and quality.  usRAP and Safety Analyst have been used but the agency preferred the flexibility of developing their own tools using agency-specific SPFs.  Continue to improve ADT, curve and roadside data, intersection database.  Previous methodologies mitigated crashes at a location but crashes were still at similar sites; systemic is proactive.  Coordination with planning and maintenance is recommended. Maine DOT Primary Contact: Dennis Emidy Systemic safety analysis was being advocated nationally, and safety team determined the systemic safety management approach was needed to be more proactive. Cross median head-on crashes, roadway departure, (intersections, pedestrians, and wrong-way driving planned for future) Cable median barrier, centerline rumble strips Used the FHWA Systemic Safety analysis approach and developed minimum benefit- cost threshold for implementation prioritization FHWA Systemic Safety webinar and peer exchange Before-and-after analysis; building database to conduct more detailed evaluation  It has been beneficial to proactively communicate with the public and coordinate with safety stakeholders such as motorcycle and bicycle groups.  Close coordination with IT has allowed for continuous database development for use in prioritization and evaluation.

Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) 70 Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Minnesota DOT Primary Contact: Bradley Estochen When MnDOT was using a traditional hot- spot approach, they conducted numerous site visits where they could not find anything wrong or concerning at the sites, so they decided they needed another way to approach safety management. Initial focus was on rural, local network; expanding to include state network and urban areas as well Low cost (e.g., centerline rumble strips and chevrons) Used similar methodology to FHWA Systemic Safety analysis approach and developed minimum benefit- cost threshold for implementation prioritization, focusing on fatal and serious-injury crashes and crash contributing factors to prioritize locations Held workshops with multiple counties Compared trends on state trunkline and local routes to demonstrate success of program  Need to get the county board involved early in the process.  Approach has not been embraced by the state as much as by local agencies. Oregon DOT City of Salem Marion County Primary Contact: Douglas Bish FHWA Roadway Departure Focus State developed Roadway Departure Implementation Plan that included a systemic safety management approach; The data-driven approach provided an implementable and defendable transportation safety management program for all public roads. Expanded the program to intersections and pedestrians / bicycles. Roadway departure; intersections; pedestrians and bicycles Rumble strips, curve warning, delineators, SafetyEdgeSM, shoulder widening, reflectorized backplates, illumination at signalized intersections, rapid flashing beacons, buffered bike lanes, enhanced pedestrian crosswalks and countdown pedestrian signals, street lighting, road diets. Network screening based on crash thresholds, used geometric data from crash reports to identify locations and appropriate proven countermeasures using a benefit-cost analysis of fatal and serious-injury crashes to prioritize projects. Working on developing sustainable analysis tools. FHWA Focus State initiatives; State developed process, policies and training From 2002-2008 RD crashes accounted for 66% of all fatalities in Oregon, an annual average of over 300 RD crashes. From 2009 -2015 fatalities accounted for 55% of all fatalities or an annual average of just under 200 fatalities per year.  Continue to build the data set available for systemic analysis; methodology was adjusted to use the quality geometric data from the crash reports.  Provide consistent messaging with the public; “Sound of Safety” rumble video developed.  Implementation takes time due to available funding levels, grouped projects together to improve implementation.  Some treatments are now part of standards (SafetyEdgeSM, rumble strip).  Lack of low-cost safety improvements for narrow rural county roads has been a constraint.  Funding maintenance of low-cost safety improvements in the future is a concern.

Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) 71 Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Rhode Island DOT Primary Contact: Sean Raymond After completing all of the Hazard Elimination Projects, many of the hot-spot projects were complete, and they needed to expand the program to locations that did not have concentrations of serious-injury crashes. Roadway departure, intersection, angle, pedestrians and bicycles High friction surface treatment, signing and striping, rumble strips, clear zone removal, curve signage/striping, road diets Using serious- injury crashes and crash contributing factors to prioritize locations; developing state- specific tool for system screening and prioritization FHWA Systemic Safety Tool webinars, consultant support Implementation is underway, data will be compiled for evaluation in the future  Implementation of safety projects are most successful when central safety office leads the analysis of the system, determines locations and strategies and develops preliminary plans.  Established a 10-year transportation program based on Department priorities which is not as flexible but effectively supports communication with the public. Texas DOT Primary Contact: Darren McDaniel TxDOT had legislative mandate for systemic widening program Roadway departure and head-on crashes along rural 2-lane State maintained roads, less than 24 ft, and more than 400 vpd; Analysis expanded to intersections, median barriers, pedestrians, and horizontal curves Pavement widening program; intersection implementation plan; median barrier installation program; pedestrian safety program FHWA Systemic Safety Tool with enhancements to contributing factor weighting and prioritization FHWA Systemic Safety Tool webinars, work with the University Collecting data to conduct before and after evaluation in the future  Having difficulty changing the culture since there are so many potential hot-spot projects that go unfunded it is difficult to secure funding for systemic projects.  Systemic program is still very data intensive and data collection continues to be a priority.

Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) 72 Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Utah DOT Primary Contact: Jeffrey Lewis usRAP methodology used as one of several approaches to justify investment in safety projects; allows state to program projects that cannot be justified using other safety analysis approaches. Also used to identify potential projects that are not otherwise identified by district staff. All crash types on state- managed routes and some county routes (more counties being added) All treatment types included in ViDA (70+) usRAP originally used to obtain risk rating for each road; now also used to identify recommended countermeasures and to determine benefit-cost ratio for considered countermeasures. usRAP assessment is used in calculation of a safety score to prioritize which projects get funded. Users must be trained in coding the roadway characteristics into a database which is input into ViDA software. Utah uses a consultant and support from Universities trained in application of usRAP and ViDA Site characteristics for all roads in the state entered into ViDA software to determine crash risk and recommended cost- effective countermeasures  Helpful to have trained coders available to record roadway characteristics (such as at a university); otherwise staff training is needed and coding roadways can be resource- intensive.  Benefit-cost ratios calculated by ViDA are dependent on good input data regarding treatment costs. It is time consuming to gather this info and keep it up to date, so ViDA can be used to calculate benefits only.  Treatments recommended by ViDA can be used to validate projects suggested by district staff or to give districts ideas for projects when they are not sure how to allocate safety dollars. Washington State DOT Primary Contact: Matthew Enders Balanced, proactive program for State; Program for local network all systemic due to rural nature and lack of crash clusters Lane departure, intersections, pedestrian (cities) Cable median barrier, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, active warning signs, compact roundabouts FHWA Systemic Safety Tool; Contributing Factor-Based SPFs; Safety Analyst (basic network screening and exploring systemic module) FHWA Systemic Tool Training, LTAP training for local agencies Trends by roadway ownership; trends by targets crash types and facility type  Do what you can with what you have but continue to add and improve data quality and quantity.  Communication with elected officials is important.  Local road safety plans are required to document the methodology, sites, and treatment.

Table 8. Summary of Systemic Safety Programs by Highway Agency (Continued) 73 Agency Represented Systemic Program Purpose Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Treatment Types Methodology Training / Support Evaluation Method Challenges and Lessons Learned Thurston County Primary Contact: Scott Davis Participation in FHWA Systemic Safety Tool pilot project; Systemic required by State for HSIP; Safety program is heavily systemic- based right now, but will likely become more of a mix of systemic and hot-spots in the future Roadway departure for curves, urban and rural corridors Curve improvements include signing, wider edge lines, raised pavement markers; corridor improvements include rumble strips, pavement markings, signing, high friction surface treatment; beginning to review side slopes and roadside hardware FHWA Systemic Safety Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Tool; LTAP and State DOT training programs focused on systemic and proven countermeasures Trends by roadway ownership; curve crashes have reduced by 38% based on naive before and after evaluation  Systemic process has allowed for more improvements to be made across a larger part of the system in a timely fashion.  Have worked to implement a systemic process for safety projects using available resources as well as worked closely with construction / maintenance to be as efficient as possible and improve installation and maintenance of treatments.  Engage public regarding signing and rumble strips near homes.  Seek leadership support to improve communications and messaging.

Next: Section 5. Conclusions and Future Research »
Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Highway agencies have traditionally managed the safety improvement process by identifying and correcting high-crash locations (“hot-spots”), where concentrations of crashes and, often, patterns of crashes of similar types, were found. However, when crashes are evaluated over too short a period of time (3 years or less), locations may be identified as hot-spots simply due to the random nature of where crashes occur.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 285: Developing a Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis describes the research methodology and findings that supported the development of a systemic safety - an alternative (or supplement) to the hot-spot approach - analysis guide and associated training materials.

The document is supplemental to NCHRP Research Report 955:Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!