Safety Performance Measures
• Numbers?• Rates?• Trends?
Thomas M. Welch, P.E.State Transportation Safety
EngineerOffice of Traffic and Safety
Iowa Department of Transportation 515 239-1267
AASHTO- SCOHTSApril 2010
Reduce fatalities by 1/3 by 2008 from ~ 43,000 to 29,000/ year
Reduce the national fatality ratefrom 1.48 to 1.0
…One state at a time
2
2003 Shared National Goal AASHTO, FHWA, NHTSA, GHSA, FMCSA
Traffic Records ForumJuly 26, 2004
Moving the NumbersFHWA Use of Data for
Safety+++++++
3
4
Fatality Rates per 100 Million VMT – 2002US Avg. = 1.50
PRVI
0.81
0.86
1.01
1.03
1.03
1.09 1.11
1.14
1.18
1.20
1.20
1.23
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.311.31
1.32
1.33
1.34 1.34
1.34
1.37
1.40
1.41
1.47
1.54
1.61
1.64
1.69
1.70
1.70
1.72
1.76
1.77
1.78
1.80
1.80
1.86
1.95
1.95
1.97
2.02
2.12
2.12
2.132.18
2.19
2.23
2.43
2.60
0.00 to 1.501.50 to 2.61
DC
5
1.27
2.12
Fatality Rates Can Be Misleading
CA
SD
South Dakota’s roads are safer
than California’s
6
This phenomenon is known as“Simpson’s Paradox”
StateFatality Rates
(per 100 Mil VMT)
Distribution Of VMT
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban
California 2.68 0.92 1.27 20% 80%
South Dakota 2.49 0.87 2.12 77% 23%
7
Expected Fatality Rates (Weighted by Distribution of VMT) Compared to Actual Fatality Rates
Puerto RicoVirgin Islands
(1.26)
(0.76)
(0.65)
(0.57)
(0.54)
(0.52)
(0.46)
(0.39)
(0.39)
(0.33)
(0.30)
(0.29)
(0.25) (0.23)
(0.18)
(0.17) (0.17) (0.17)
(0.16)
(0.15)
(0.10)
(0.08) (0.07)
(0.06)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.01
0.02 0.05
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.34
0.41
0.44
0.46
0.64
0.79
0.81
(1.30) to zero zero to 0.83
DC
National Iowa
Difference
Overall 1.41 1.40 None
Rural Roads 2.30 1.80
-22% Urban
Streets 0.95 0.80 -16%
8
2006 Fatality Rates
3
9
5
10
7
11
3 Year Average >
5 Year Average >
7 Year Average >
12
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fatal 406 441 388 451 439 444
Major Injury 2232 2051 2173 2090 1889 1960
Totals 2638 2492 2561 2541 2328 2400
13
State of IowaFatalities and Major Injuries …..Which Year Was Safer? 2002 or 2006?
?
14
Traffic Safety Performance Measures
for States and Federal Agencies
Jim Hedlund, Highway Safety NorthPreusser Research Group, Inc.
GHSA 2008 Annual MeetingScottsdale, AZSept. 8, 2008
Required for each state traffic safety activities (23CFR 1200.20(a)(1)
“(a) A Performance Plan, containing the following elements: (1) A list of objectives and measurable highway
safety goals, within the National Priority Program Areas and other program areas, based on the highway safety programs identified by the State during the processes under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Each goal must be accompanied by at least one performance measure that enables the State to track progress, from specific baseline…”
15
Need for Safety Performance Measures
“Better performance measures are needed to fully gauge the impact that future Federal resources will have on State programs.”
16
2007 US DOT NHTSA Program Audit Reported:
“In some states, performance measures do not always contain sufficient detail or do not explain the specific actions that the state will take to achieve final targeted outcomes.
What steps, if any, can NHTSA take to improve the quality of state performance measures? 17
2007 GAO Raised the Question: (Government Accountability Office)
Theses examples illustrate the importance of establishing a common set of performance measures that cover key traffic safety program areas and that will be used by all States and NHTSA (as well as other federal agencies dealing with traffic safety.)
18
Develop voluntary guidance on a minimum set of performance indicators that could be used by federal, State, and local governments in the development and implementation of their highway safety plans and programs.”
Key features of performance measures: Consensus: federal and State Both general and specific subject area
measures Both outcome (bottom line) and intermediate Timeliness, accuracy, feasibility, costs and
benefits
19
Objective
PRG – ContractorJim Hedlund, Highway Safety North –
Project Director
GHSA – SubcontractorBarbara Harsha and staff
liaison with Statesfacilities for panel meetings
Expert panel – advice and counsel
20
Project Organization
5 NHTSA: Chakiris, Weiser; Geraci, Michael, Oates
5 State GRs: Depue MO, Murphy CA, Poole TN, Porter/Lind WA, Sandoval NM
1 State DOT: Welch IA 1 FHWA: Halladay 1 IACP: McMahon 1 State data expert: Presbury MD 1 TRB performance measure committee chair:
Neumann 5 research:
Dellinger CDCP, Fell PIRE, McCartt IIHS, Shinar Israel, Weiss PAR 1 wild card: McNamara
21
Expert panel
22
Criteria for Performance Measures
Important and valid; substantial impact on traffic safety
Uniform across States (for measures to be aggregated)
Sensitive to actual State-level trends Long-term; can be used for years Acceptable to stakeholders, consensus Operational definition; clear how to obtain measure Accurate, reliable, repeatable Understandable; easy to communicate to public Timely Reasonable cost for value of information Not too many; stick to most important
Outcome measures◦ Crashes, injuries, fatalities
Behavior measures◦ Observed (belt use)◦ Self-reported (survey)
Activity measures◦ Law enforcement (citations)◦ Media◦ Other key activities
23
Types Of Performance Measures Considered
Use the core outcome measures as an integral part of reporting to Congress and the public
24
NHTSA Uses for Performance Measures
Core outcome measuresC-1) Number of traffic fatalities (FARS)
C-2) Number of persons seriously injured in traffic
crashes (State crash data files)
C-3) Fatalities/VMT (FARS, FHWA)
25
Overall measures
Overall Seat belt use Child occupants Alcohol Speeding and aggressive driving Motorcyclists Young drivers Older drivers Pedestrians Bicyclists
26
Areas for Performance Measures
Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies
27
Report Available from NHTSA or GHSA
www.ghsa.org/
Performance Based Federal-Aid Programs
February 23, 2009 AASHTO Legislative Briefing
AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance ManagementPete Rahn, Chair,
Director, Missouri DOT
Establish National Transportation Performance Goals through which National Objectives Can
be Achieved
◦ National goals should be established in six areas including safety, preservation, congestion, system operations, freight and environment. For safety, the congress should enact the national goal of halving fatalities in two decades.
◦ Authorization legislation should direct AASHTO in consultation with APTA , the MPOs, and the U.S. DOT to establish national performance goals for each of the other five areas by two years after enactment .
◦ No rulemaking process would be required or desired, with the exception of a conforming rulemaking to accommodate the changes in statute.
Recommended Safety Performance Measures for
AASHTO ConsiderationSTANDING COMMITTEE ON PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT
Prepared byIowa Department of Transportation
Nancy J. Richardson, DirectorTom Welch, P.E., State Transportation Safety Engineer
May 2009
30
1. Annual Number of Roadway Fatalities
2. 3-Year or 5-Year Moving Average of Annual Fatalities
3. Annual Number of Fatalities and Major Injuries
Safety Performance Measures Recommended for State DOTs
31
1. Number of fatalities on a 3-year moving average
2. Number of severe injuries on a 3-year moving average
Safety Performance Measures Adopted By AASHTO Board of
DirectorsOctober 2009
32
“USDOT and others that these are the safety indicators we believe are good indicators to begin with and we would like to partner with them to gain trust and show transparency.”
Pete Rahn2/25/2010
Next Step
33
20-24(37)A1 Continuation of NCHRP Project20-24(37)A, Measuring Performance Among State DOTs, Sharing Good Practices – Repeat of Construction Schedule and Budget Performance ($75,000)
20-24(37)F Establishment of Comparative Performance Measures program Infrastructure to support national system performance data collection and analysis ($50,000)
20-24(37)G Technical Standards and guidance for national level performance measurements ($175,000)
Current ActivityNCHRP Project 20-24(37) – Measuring Performance Among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices
34
Will include discussion of 3/5/7-year moving averages of safety performance measures
“The volatility of three year trend should raise questions about the viability as a measurement tool.”
Washington DOTFebruary 2010
NCHRP 20-24(37)
35
Safety Performance Measures
• Numbers?• Rates?• Trends?
Thomas M. Welch, P.E.State Transportation Safety
EngineerOffice of Traffic and Safety
Iowa Department of Transportation 515 239-1267
AASHTO- SCOHTSApril 2010
Top Related