U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Print-friendly PDF version (586kB)
July 19-20, 2016
Through engaging peer workshops, the RSPCB Program matches agencies seeking solutions to roadway safety issues with trailblazers who have addressed similar challenges and emerged with a roadmap and noteworthy practices for approaching the issue.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) hosted a Peer Exchange for Virginia’s safety stakeholders to learn from peer states about noteworthy practices for using the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to drive down fatalities. The peer exchange was held July 19 and 20, 2016, in Richmond, Virginia. This report summarizes the results of the peer exchange, which was supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety’s Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building Program and the FHWA Virginia Division Office.
The FHWA Office of Safety and the FHWA Virginia Division Office worked with VDOT to convene representatives from the three peer States: Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota. In addition to VDOT, other stakeholders from Virginia included representatives from these agencies:
To plan the peer event, the FHWA Office of Safety worked with the FHWA Virginia Division Office to research a number of States that have successfully reduced fatalities. Different factors were reviewed from selected States including fatality trends, HSIP obligation rates, program administration practices, and geographic conditions. Virginia’s goal was to learn how other States have overcome challenges in their roadway safety programs and what tools they use to help reduce crashes.
Participating peer States prepared presentations organized around that goal and addressed Virginia’s needs through a series of roundtable discussions. The five key topics of discussion during the peer exchange were SHSP and Safety Culture, SHSP Coordination, Safety Countermeasure Success, District and Local Engagement, and Systemic Approach and Deployment. At the end of the exchange, the Virginia participants synthesized input from the peer States to prepare an action plan for improving Virginia’s SHSP and HSIP processes.
VDOT is updating its SHSP, which was last completed in 2011. Virginia’s vision for its SHSP is “Toward Zero Deaths.” The number of crashes in Virginia over the past decade has remained flat, while deaths and serious injuries have steadily declined. The reduction in crash severity indicates that the efforts of Virginia’s safety partners are working. VDOT plans to set new five-year goals and annual fatality targets in coordination with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
Virginia’s Highway Safety Office Director focused on the State’s behavioral programs. He explained that the effort is about saving lives and that safety stakeholders have to lead by example to demonstrate their commitment and create a cultural change. He stated that Virginia DMV reviews fatality numbers by quarter and has taken a new approach to crash data analysis, called PDCA:
He noted that VDOT and its partners use an online crash mapping program called the Traffic Records Electronic Data System (TREDS). TREDS automates and centralizes crash and highway safety related information. It provides interactive crash data reporting, and law enforcement can run reports for their region or town by emphasis area. There are high crash location maps, and other ways to visualize data. TREDS is offered to partners, but it is important to provide training.
The director discussed the following initiatives Virginia has implemented related to impaired driving, young driving, and pedestrian and bicycles:
VDOT provided an overview on the project delivery process for Virginia’s HSIP funding from the past five years. Notable components of Virginia’s program include:
Virginia’s systemic improvement program is under development. Previously, systemic projects were mainly related to intersections, but now this work is more often related to shoulder projects. Virginia has worked to create a new process flow requiring past and present project delivery to be completed within a reasonable timeline. The State is also is creating a new project intake portal. Virginia has collaborated with partners on the Roadway Departure Implementation Plan, sharing data, region and district staff meetings, traffic incident management training, planning and outreach advancements, district and statewide coordination on the HSIP, and SMART SCALE project development.
The following sections summarize the peer presentations and discussion across the five key topic areas.
Peers from Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota discussed how they use their SHSPs to develop and promote safety culture in their States: by engaging partners and coalitions and focusing on consistent messaging.
Representatives from FDOT discussed the components an agency needs to promote safety culture and its SHSP:
FDOT’s central office has about 20 staff responsible for the HSIP and SHSP, the Highway Safety Plan (HSP), Safe Routes to School, and crash data systems. A number of partners assist in implementing the plan, including educators, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, law enforcement such as the Florida Sheriffs Association, and others.
FDOT works with several coalitions involved in the Highway Safety Plan (HSP). The most active coalition is Alert Today, Alive Tomorrow – Bike/Ped, which has developed its own plan. The HSP and the Bike/Ped plan are related and have consistent goals. The coalition has been successful in finding champions to talk to peer districts. Florida’s Community Traffic Safety Teams (CTSTs) are regional entities funded by the HSP initiative. The CTSTs include representatives who work on the 4Es of highway safety—engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services—and come together to talk about local safety challenges based on crash data or perceptions of safety issues.
Leveraging outreach activities can be effective in marketing safety culture and in training practitioners. When FDOT representatives attend meetings around Florida, they make everyone aware of the SHSP and they work to engage meeting members in roadway safety. When partners are not aware of the SHSP, FDOT strives to educate them on how they can get involved. The Statewide Design Expo provides a good platform for promoting the SHSP because it brings together FDOT staff and consultants in one room.
To promote safety culture and increase awareness of issues that road users experience, LaDOTD collaborates with many stakeholders, including the Louisiana State University research group, FHWA, the Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety, the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (LHSC), the Local Technical Assistance Program, and the State Police. The safety program is building momentum, particularly through LaDOTD’s Safety Summit. It is also helpful that Louisiana’s new governor has a focus on transportation.
LaDOTD also uses regional coalitions to promote a strong safety culture. It established coalitions based on State police district boundaries. These coalitions are tasked with outreach, marketing, facilitation of monthly meetings, coordination of statewide emphasis area teams, and creation and maintenance of Regional Safety Action Plans, which are living documents tailored to a local area. Coalitions use the Statewide SHSP document as a guide and create regional versions that reflect issues based on local and regional data. Regional Safety Action Plans have objectives and strategies, and action leaders are appointed to ensure accountability. Regional coordinators who understand infrastructure and can act as a liaison for local road safety are housed in Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Challenges noted include the program’s rapid growth and issues with consistency, coordination, communication, and administrative oversight.
Consistent messaging is also key to promoting safety culture using Louisiana’s SHSP. The Louisiana Communications Coordinating Council was recently reactivated. Its purpose is to make messaging more consistent. The Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety takes the lead in coordinating council efforts.
Representatives from the Louisiana State Police discussed how involving law enforcement in the SHSP can promote safety culture. Law enforcement officers should understand the importance of crash data collection and different enforcement and education strategies. Getting buy-in from law enforcement helps LaDOTD communicate the need for detailed information about crashes, not just basic details. Louisiana is working to improve its crash data collection process and create continuity between different levels of government. Details of this effort include:
It was noted that Regional Safety Action Plans should use data analysis to validate the process to identify projects. Validation can occur with a pilot program that captures successes. For example, data shows that police involvement in child passenger safety is successful. Documented successes can motivate team members and administrators. As a direct result of the SHSP, the State police are more active in child passenger safety education and outreach, as well as enforcement. These analyses are presented to police department administrators to demonstrate how their outreach efforts have real impacts on safety.
There have been several legislative efforts and initiatives passed in Louisiana, including a distracted driving fine increase, a seat belt fine increase, and changes to the State’s graduated driver’s license law. Many of these initiatives would not have been possible without the foundation set by the SHSP, and partnerships between law enforcement, the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, and LaDOTD.
Minnesota’s mission is to “move Minnesota toward zero deaths on its roads using education, enforcement, engineering and emergency medical and trauma services.” Minnesota’s Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) program coordinator discussed Minnesota’s SHSP, which features the TZD logo, not MnDOT’s logo. By featuring the TZD logo, the State reinforces the plan’s focus on the TZD mission, and signifies the unification of stakeholders and the relinquishment of a single agency receiving credit for the plan. In addition to a program coordinator for all the TZD regions, Minnesota has co-chairs for the TZD program including the MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology Director and the Department of Public Safety Office, Traffic Safety Director.
To coordinate roadway safety efforts, Minnesota uses eight TZD regions, each with its own coordinator. Each of these regional partnerships has a local steering committee made up of traffic safety stakeholders and are led by the MnDOT district engineer and State patrol captain. The regional structure aims to coordinate individual traffic safety efforts and change safety culture through grassroots efforts. When safety culture is engrained in workplaces and the community, these efforts will not fall apart if a leader or champion leaves.
MnDOT districts also developed County Road Safety Plans to engage local highway agencies in the safety planning process and provide them with technical assistance in applying for State and Federal funding.
MnDOT’s Senior Research Analyst for Traffic, Safety, and Technology discussed Minnesota’s understanding of how safety partners work together. She noted three facts that influence connectivity:
Minnesota’s unique approach to safety prioritization includes a bullseye with higher priority emphasis areas in the center of the bullseye and secondary emphasis areas on the outer rings (Figure 1). Behavioral issues driven by safety culture, such as speeding, distracted driving, and unbelted drivers, are at the center of the bullseye.
Minnesota created a survey to further reveal priorities and safety preferences of stakeholders in different focus areas. The survey was based on a seven-step process that depicts the social ecology that influences a person and their behavior. The survey information is documented in the report Measuring Minnesota’s Traffic Safety Culture.
Minnesota has a TZD Communications Committee which coordinates messaging and promotions. NHTSA’s communications calendar is used to guide efforts.
A facilitated roundtable discussion identified key takeaways for Virginia.
Peers from Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota discussed how they coordinate the development and implementation of SHSPs using tracking, data sharing, regular meetings, and proactive communication with partners and stakeholders.
Florida coordinates a number of moving steps in its safety program: develop a plan, engage coalitions to act on the plan, establish meetings to work on and learn about the plan, use a tracking tool to analyze the plan, and develop supporting data to focus on emphasis areas.
The Florida SHSP tracking tool is effective for partners to gain awareness and learn about plan details and progress. The tracking tool can shed new light on data—for example, that many lane departure crashes are correlated with unbelted drivers. However, the tool is only useful if it draws from good data. Awareness of the tool also needs to be expanded, which requires marketing and training. Successful coordination in Florida includes using the tracking tool and working with coalitions that help input data into the tool.
The Safety Initiatives Manager at the Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety (LCTS) addressed SHSP coordination in Louisiana. LaDOTD funded the LCTS to support the SHSP leadership in managing and implementing highway safety research, workforce development and training, and communication and outreach initiatives. The manager’s responsibilities include coordinating the communications, marketing and outreach efforts with a top-down-and-bottom-up approach. Top-down efforts include working with FHWA, LaDOTD, LHSC, and Louisiana State Police. Bottom-up efforts include working with coordinators and partners from nine Regional Transportation Safety Coalitions. DOTD used set-aside HSIP funding to hire these coalition coordinators through MPOs that bridge the gap between State and local entities. Louisiana also has a designated SHSP Manager at the LaDOTD Highway Safety Section who manages coalition contracts and serves as liaison between regional coordinators and statewide leaders.
Louisiana has taken a regional approach to coordinate the 4Es across the nine regions in the State. Statewide teams, task forces, and subcommittees discuss 4E solutions. Statewide emphasis area leaders communicate with regional safety coalition coordinators and their respective regional emphasis area leaders to facilitate a well-coordinated regional version of the SHSP. To realize the goals and objectives in the plan, there is a dialogue and input solicitation that takes place from the time action plans are developed up until action steps or projects are implemented. Regular statewide meetings facilitate that discussion on top of constant email and phone consultations between leaders. Each coalition is comprised of regional coordinator and regional emphasis area leaders, who collaborate with local safety experts, advocates, and MPO staff to ensure the region develops and implements a local version of the SHSP within an agreed timeframe.
Coalition meetings are held monthly or quarterly. Messages are coordinated with the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission so that ideas are clearly communicated to the public. LaDOTD coordinates messaging with different stakeholders and uses NHTSA’s communications calendar as the overarching tool to guide the delivery of consistent messaging at specific timeframes.
Coordinating with safety-related events is also an important focus. Local Road Safety Plan peer exchanges in 2015 were hosted in different regions across the State to inform local agencies about safety on local roads. Louisiana also distributes an online newsletter with information on local road safety, links, articles, and events.
Louisiana’s SHSP Communications Coordinating Council (CCC) also coordinates communications. The CCC:
The SHSP CCC works to form new public-private partnerships and identify opportunities for SHSP promotions and media campaign sponsors, such as Shell, AT&T, and Coca Cola, and maintain existing partnerships, such as with State Farm.
Louisiana’s Data Reports are a useful tool to engage stakeholders with crash data related to the SHSP posted statewide and regionally on Louisiana State University’s Highway Safety Research Group SHSP Dashboard. Louisiana presented its Data Dashboard with a standard data analysis, which can be used in the planning process. Data analysis allows Data Dashboard users to view the efforts of coordinated messaging. Users can also select by region and then explore locations with the most fatal and serious crashes, or explore emphasis areas and choose targets.
For a decade, legislators in Minnesota considered passing a primary seatbelt law. To emphasize the need for this law, the TZD coordinator went to legislators and shared data on deaths related to unrestrained passengers. This and other outreach helped get a primary seatbelt law passed in Minnesota.
Minnesota’s TZD program is an effective platform for Minnesota’s successful SHSP coordination. TZD successes include public commitments to change traffic safety culture, collaboration with other traffic-safety advocates, and promoting best practices. Key elements include:
Minnesota communicates crash data from the year-to-date compared to the previous year to its partners make them aware of safety efforts. Partners include the courts, public health, employers, and the education system, as well as many other organizations. They are also in contact through a number of events, including regional campaigns and stakeholder breakfasts.
Minnesota presented a number of examples to demonstrate the value of the TZD program:
Minnesota described its SHSP data analysis efforts. Minnesota’s previous plan was data-driven. However, the approach for the update is to be data-informed, by analyzing several different data sources and synthesizing the results. This ensures that one data source does not drive the entire process. This new method recognizes best practices and highlights promising practices. This analysis also aims to reduce the number of crashes rather than focus on the number of individuals killed or seriously injured, which could skew the results.
“Enforcement should be highly visible, targeted, and coordinated at State and local events. Agencies should use interesting and engaging slogans to catch people’s attention and make them think about their driving behaviors.”
-MN TZD Coordinator
Minnesota noted that crashes do not have only one contributing factor, but often there are the several contributing factors that have common threads. A Principal Component Analysis was used to find hidden correlations and analyze data in different ways. Minnesota solicited stakeholder input to receive information from people at crash scenes and provide more information about why these crashes occurred. This analysis used games or exercises to discover the real priorities of stakeholders and identify their split-second reactions. For example, “Game of Loans” was a game that helped stakeholders make connections between contributing factors of crashes. This game allowed people to look beyond their individual emphasis area to address related issues. This game also highlighted that strategic partnerships are very important for improving roadway safety.
A facilitated roundtable discussion identified key takeaways for Virginia.
Peers from Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota discussed their successes in implementing infrastructure and behavioral countermeasures to address fatalities and serious injury crashes.
MnDOT discussed successful techniques to reduce conflict at intersections. Reduced conflict intersections include implementing engineering solutions that decrease the number of movements. J-turns are unpopular in Minnesota but have worked to reduce fatal and serious crashes at a relatively low cost compared to roundabouts or overpasses. Minnesota also discussed implementing conflict warning systems at intersections. Minnesota conducted a study in 2015 for 29 conflict warning systems with 30 control sites. Crash rates were reduced by 22 percent, but MnDOT acknowledged that these successful numbers may decline later.
Minnesota raised speed limits from 55 to 60 miles per hour due to political pressure, but engineers were strategic in making these changes and increased speed limits only where roads could handle it. High-visibility speed enforcement campaigns were deployed in conjunction with the change. As a result, the change had very little impact on fatal and serious injury crashes. Minnesota also included a lot of messaging and media releases associated with the change.
Representatives from the Louisiana State Police discussed the DWI “No Refusal” initiative, which resulted from a strategy in the SHSP. DWI “No Refusal” ensures that people cannot refuse an alcohol blood test, which is important because the evidence of alcohol in blood lessens within the time it takes to obtain a warrant. Medical personnel are trained to understand the process. The process includes blood kit protocol and the reason for the sample, crime lab protocol—warrant versus implied consent—and evidence to be delivered to the lab within seven days. In creating an action plan for this initiative, it was important to the State police to make the public aware of the initiative so that drivers could stop this unsafe behavior.
This initiative begins with a DWI checkpoint or saturation patrol. Patient care is paramount during a blood draw. Drivers may need to medical attention before their blood is drawn. Police cannot be selective when implementing this initiative—consistency is important to deter impaired driving. The State tracks arrests involving blood warrants and tracks the total number of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) trials. A decreasing trend of DWI trials will create a strong public safety message.
Louisiana State Police stressed the importance of persistence. Officers return to every parish in the State to encourage local law enforcement to join the DWI “No Refusal” initiative because it saves lives. This initiative addresses the emphasis areas of impaired drivers and sends a strong public safety message.
FDOT discussed Florida’s study on different safety countermeasures, such as rumble strips, longitudinal rumble striping, and high-friction surface treatments (HFST). In Florida, HFSTs coincided with large reductions in crashes. Other successful countermeasures include using access management strategies and road diets, also known as lane elimination.
The longitudinal rumble striping that Florida uses is not as deep as typical rumbles and is also made so bicyclists can use the roadway. Rumble striping is placed along the roadway lines to make drivers aware that they are leaving the roadway. With this countermeasure, six-lane arterials saw larger crash decreases than four-lane arterials.
“FDOT teamed up with Chick-fil-A and handed out sandwiches to people who used crosswalks correctly.”
-FDOT State Safety Engineer
A facilitated roundtable discussion identified key takeaways for Virginia.
Peers from Florida, Louisiana, and Minnesota discussed approaches for engaging stakeholders at the local and regional levels to keep them informed and involved and to always promote safety on the local roads.
To share best practices for district-level engagement, the Traffic Safety Program Engineer at FDOT District 3 presented on the process for delivering projects in a mostly rural area of Florida. Local outreach has been an important aspect of this work. He must promote and educate on the importance of safety projects to community and elected officials. Often times, engineers do not communicate their ideas effectively to stakeholders, but many communication issues can be avoided if partners are identified and engaged from the time a project is started. For one project, FDOT discussed the project with an elected official and then the elected official became the champion for the project at an MPO board meeting.
Each year, FDOT has a list of projects with clear dates of when they should be initiated, and when they should be approved by the FDOT headquarters office. The district hosts annual workshops that inform partners of the process of completing application forms. These workshops particularly help rural counties and local agencies with their applications. Collaboration is key for a successful safety project program. Key points discussed included:
The district has enhanced its safety focus by elevating safety into the 3R process: Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation. In Florida, many miles must be resurfaced, and safety corrective actions are often overlooked. FDOT provides design for local counties as a part of Districtwide Studies and Design programs, for which FDOT staff serve as consultant-managers. Pushbutton projects are projects that have critical safety needs. These projects require a State DOT and large contractors to mobilize quickly. The Florida Transportation Commission also provides leadership toward making safety a priority in Florida.
For project delivery, input from CTSTs is used to inform high crash lists. Lighting is an example of a systemic project identified for rural areas. Sometimes these projects are identified by citizens and local officials, and other times by the State. This year, systemic projects in Florida will be funded through HSIP. Districts strive to have more projects ready than what can be funded, so if more money is presented, a project can be pushed through last minute. Consultant staff build the applications.
For the HSIP project funding cycle, FDOT maintains a centralized SharePoint site. The central office reviews and prioritizes projects to help advance work program projects.
In Louisiana, the HSIP must go through several processes to achieve the goal of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. LaDOTD uses data to identify how to spend taxpayer dollars where the biggest need is apparent. Data is used to establish a baseline of what is considered average safety performance, and locations are compared to the average. LaDOTD strives to make this information accessible and easy to use so that data-driven projects are submitted to the safety program.
Louisiana’s Safety Program snapshot (Figure 2) shows where resources are being spent and the number of fatalities in each district. Some districts are much better at applying for projects and receive more funding. Eventually, LaDOTD would like to see a correlation between awarded funding with higher number of fatalities to address these issues. LaDOTD wants to institutionalize using project lists for accessing funding and setting priorities. LaDOTD has changed the model that determines which projects are eligible, which has led to more flexibility in the types of projects selected.
LaDOTD uses its Level of Service of Safety Dashboard to provide a visual data experience for district users. Districts receive extra application points if they coordinate with local agencies, such as MPOs and transportation commissions. To enhance consistency, they use tools, such as a crash data analysis tool that provides a general data analysis. LaDOTD is also developing an online application. State documentation includes a standard checklist, crash data analysis, crash modification factor documentation, benefit-cost analysis, and road safety audit reports. LaDOTD’s Highway Safety Analysis Toolbox offers a number of resources for HSIP project selection. Louisiana provides crash data analysis tools training, Crash Modification Factors training, and hosts district workshops with engineers.
In Louisiana, the SHSP and HSIP create an environment for better-informed decisionmaking, better-targeted investments, and fewer serious crashes. There is a project selection guide to help MPOs, because it can be overwhelming. The guide helps ensure a transparent process and the submission of data-driven projects. Louisiana is considering creating a budget allocation per district so that if funds are left on the table by a district, the money is redistributed.
In the past, MnDOT was inundated with requests to conduct road safety audits and corridor studies. Ottertail County, with MnDOT’s assistance, initiated a pilot program to review all roads systematically. This approach was successful and other States signed on to have County Road Safety Plans. Minnesota follows a nine-month process (Figure 3) to develop, fund, and implement projects at the local level.
Minnesota has developed many handbooks, including Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook and Bicycling and Pedestrian Fundamentals, which simplify complex transportation planning and engineering topics. These handbooks help facilitate conversations with local agencies. Behavioral ideas from these workshops are sent to the Governors Highway Safety Office (GHSO). In addition, some GHSO representatives participate in these workshops and present on ideas that can affect behavioral change. For projects that are outside the plans, MnDOT funds risk-based projects. There have also been projects listed in the plan, but were not funded. Lower-risk roads are usually passed over.
A facilitated roundtable discussion identified key lessons and ideas for Virginia to take away on improving district and local engagement for roadway safety.
Louisiana, Minnesota, and Florida peers discussed the systemic approach and deployment of safety countermeasures in their States.
LaDOTD discussed its systemic approach using aggregated crash-based data associated with road features. The systemic approach is not reactive; it is proactive. A medical analogy was used, comparing the systemic approach to the treatment of a medical condition based on risk factors. Fatalities are a moving target and focusing on site-specific locations can have a high local impact, while systemic projects can have a high system impact, resulting in greater overall reduction in fatal and injury crashes.
Louisiana conducted a pilot project with cable median barriers, which resulted in a significant benefit. Two-thirds of fatalities in Louisiana are roadway departures, so much energy goes towards reducing this crash type, and cross-median crashes are very detrimental. These sites are high-risk because they typically include high speed, loss of control, and are located in rural areas with no barriers or tree lines present and specific median widths. The benefits are reduction of severity and potential for cross median crashes due to a more forgiving material—cable versus concrete or guardrail. It is also more cost-effective. Disadvantages include overrides and under rides, increased total crashes that include property damage, and costly maintenance. When LaDOTD completed 105 miles of roadways with cable median barriers, the agency saw an increase in overall crashes, but a very high reduction in fatalities and severe injuries.
Louisiana also analyzed enhanced delineation and HFSTs on horizontal curves. They aggregated all of the crash data and saw that rural, two-lane roads have the highest risks. They identified the target crash type, roadway departure, and used statistics for different roadway characteristics to identify high-risk roadway features. The solutions included HFST, curve warning signs, 6-inch edge lines, and chevrons.
MnDOT discussed systemic safety improvements using a public health model to describe surrogates that can indicate risk. Surrogates are road attributes, such as types of roadway segments, intersections, and dangerous curves that are typically linked to higher crash risk. The systemic approach encourages projects that leverage these surrogates to identify locations that may be unsafe. The institutionalized approach for safety focuses on high-crash areas. Minnesota has also leveraged surrogates to begin a conversation about identifying high-risk locations for systemic improvements that have not necessarily been high crash locations.
Minnesota found the most crashes on urban roadways occurred with higher Average Daily Traffic and are multi-lane, with four or more lanes. Minnesota also looked at rural roads, because they wanted to leverage this opportunity and make data-driven decisions. For example, one project recommendation used a flow chart for lane departure crashes. MnDOT then sat down with county engineers to see where the model failed, and made adjustments with location-specific knowledge. At selected project sites, they implemented cable median barriers.
Minnesota also evaluated its systemic approach, using data from before 2013 and results from 2014 and 2015 after the systemic approach was implemented. Minnesota found it important to have data to support the systemic approach. Minnesota also looked at bicycle and pedestrian crashes, and applied this logic to evaluate the projects that aligned with the systemic approach projects from 2013. Statewide results improved in 2014 and 2015.
FDOT mainly focuses on intersection, lane departure, and bicycle-pedestrian projects for systemic implementation. Florida is a focus State for all three. New countermeasures are included in design standards and include systemic improvements such as lighting, countdown pedestrian signals, signal back plates, and striping. Systemic program implementation does not have a formal process. Florida’s main obstacle to analysis and implementation is related to data needs. For example, Florida does not have curve data.
In an effort to compile and analyze curve data, Florida examined existing plan sets to compile basic curve data. The second phase involves tying into its inventory of signs and ball-banking curves. It is a multi-year, multi-million dollar project to develop a systemic approach. Florida’s lane departure implementation plan uses a more systemic approach and strategies have been implemented, including a lighting project to address nighttime pedestrian crashes. FDOT is tracking progress on a SharePoint site.
The roundtable discussion began with participants identifying current practices related to deploying systemic countermeasures in Virginia.
Key takeaways for Virginia from the peer States’ presentations included:
Several commonalities between participating States emerged during the exchange. All participating States have used coalitions and DOT district offices to promote safety culture and improve safety program coordination. Louisiana and Minnesota have regional safety plans that reference the State’s SHSP but include specific projects targeted to the region. Communications are a key component to successful programs, with specific committees coordinating initiatives to promote consistent messaging. Dashboards and tracking tools are used to keep stakeholders engaged and active in the SHSP development and implementation process. All three peer States promote systemic countermeasures in their programs for infrastructure improvements and behavioral program approaches. Additionally, all States coordinate closely with their Highway Safety Offices.
Virginia identified a list of action items to consider during the close of the two-day peer exchange. The key points are summarized here:
SHSP and Safety Culture
SHSP and Coordination
District and Local Engagement
Systemic Approach and Deployment
|Name||Job Title||Organization||City||State||Business Phone||Business Email|
|Michael Lewis||Traffic Safety Program Engineer||Florida DOT - District 3||Chipley||FLemail@example.com|
|Joseph Santos||State Safety Engineer||Florida DOT||Tallahassee||FLfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|April Renard||Highway Safety Manager||Louisiana DOTD||Baton Rouge||LAemail@example.com|
|Rudynah Capone||Safety Initiatives Manager||Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety||Baton Rouge||LAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Carl Saizan||Major||Louisiana State Police||New Orleans||LAemail@example.com|
|Brad Estochen||State Traffic Safety Engineer||Minnesota DOT||Roseville||MNfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Katie Fleming||Senior Research Analyst||Minnesota DOT||Roseville||MNemail@example.com|
|Kristine Hernandez||Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths Program Coordinator||Minnesota DOT||Rochester||MNfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Mark Cole||Assistant State Traffic Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Fede Gontaruk||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Robin Grier||Assistant State Transportation Planner||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Gerry Harter||Virginia DOT||Lynchburg||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ben Hinkle||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Lindsey Hodges||Traffic Engineer||Virginia DOT-SWRO||Lynchburg||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ivan Horodyskyj||Program Manager||Virginia DOT||Fairfax||VAemail@example.com|
|Glenn Hott||Transportation Safety Program Manager||Virginia DOT||Suffolk||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Dwight Jenkins||Program Manager||Virginia DMV||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Angelisa Jennings||Deputy Director||DMV/Virginia Highway Safety Office||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Jay Knight||Acting Area Traffic Engineer-Salem District||Virginia DOT||Salem||VAemail@example.com|
|Deepak Koirala||Traffic Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Ray Khoury||State Traffic Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|In-Kyu Lim||HSIP Data Analysis Team Leader||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Garrett Moore||Chief Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Stephen Read||HSIP Planning Manager||Virginia DOT - Traffic Engineering Division||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Lori Rice||Deputy Director, Programs||DMV, Virginia Highway Safety Office||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Michael Sawyer||City Transportation Engineer||City of Richmond, Virginia||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Tien Simmons||Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Kenneth Thornewell||Engineer I||Virginia DOT||Fredericksburg||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Elaine Thurman||Engineer I||Virginia DOT||Salem||VAemail@example.com|
|Alexei Tsyganov||Strategic Highway Safety Engineer||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Tracy Turpin||HSIP Programs Manager||Virginia DOT||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Nathan Umberger||Regional Traffic Engineer||Virginia DOT - NWRO||Culpeper/Staunton||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Nicole Badillo||Student Intern||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Wayne Fedora||Assistant Division Administrator||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Kevin Jones||Planning and Environmental Specialist||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Karen King||Safety Engineer||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Theresa Mahoney||Intern||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Rodolfo Maruri||Team Leader for Structures and Bridges||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Elliott Moore||Area Engineer||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Cheng Yan||Planning and Environmental Specialist||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Jessie Yung||Division Administrator, Acting||FHWA Virginia Division||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Craig Feister||Division Administrator||FMCSA||Richmond||VAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|William Anderson||State Program Specialist||FMCSA||Richmond||VAemail@example.com|
|Jennifer Warren||Transportation Safety Specialist||FHWA Office of Safety||Washington||DCfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Karen Scurry||Transportation Specialist||FHWA Office of Safety||West Trenton||NJemail@example.com|
|Alex McNally||Community Planner||U.S. DOT/Volpe||Cambridge||MAfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Susan Smichenko||Community Planner||U.S. DOT/Volpe||Cambridge||MAemail@example.com|
|Nicole Waldheim||Associate||Cambridge Systematics||Bethesda||MDfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Stephen Brich||Senior Project Manager||Kimley-Horn and Associates||Virginia Beach||VAemail@example.com|
|July 19, 2016|
|8:30 A.M.||Welcome and Introductions||
|9:00 A.M.||Workshop Overview
|9:15 A.M.||Highlights of Virginia’s SHSP and HSIP||
|10:15 A.M.||SHSP and Safety Culture||Peer States
|11:00 A.M.||Facilitated Roundtable Discussion and Key Takeaways||All participants|
|12:45 P.M.||SHSP Coordination||Peer States
|1:45 P.M.||Facilitated Roundtable Discussion and Key Takeaways||All participants|
|2:45 P.M.||Safety Countermeasure Successes
|3:30 P.M.||Facilitated Roundtable Discussion and Key Takeaways||All participants|
|4:15 P.M.||Action Planning
|July 20, 2016|
Agenda for Day 2
|8:15 A.M.||District/Local Engagement||Peer States
|9:00 A.M.||Facilitated Roundtable Discussion and Key Takeaways||All participants|
|10:00 A.M.||Systemic Approach/Deployment||Peer States
|10:45 A.M.||Facilitated Roundtable Discussion and Key Takeaways||All participants|
|11:30 A.M.||Action Planning
Prioritize key takeaways/actions
|12:00 P.M.||Working Lunch/Continue Action Planning
Long and short term actions for Virginia to integrate into HSIP/SHSP (discuss benefits/barriers), champions
|Virginia participants with input from peer states|