NCHRP 20-24(37C) – Comparative Performance Measurement

1. NCHRP 20-24(37C) – Comparative Performance Measurement Safety Performance Based on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) • April 2009

2. Value of Comparative Performance Measurement for Safety • Comparative performance measurement is a powerful technique for motivating and facilitating changes that result in improved performance • Motivates organizations to pursue improvements by showing them what their peers have been able to achieve • Highlights effective practices associated with states that “moved the needle” for traffic fatality rate during the 2000-2007 timeframe • Results adds to a growing compendium of best practices (construction delivery, pavement smoothness, safety…) • Comparative performance provides a compelling basis for executives for further improvement and associated practices. • Linking results to practice at a macro level in the case of safety has proved valuable not so much for discovering new practices, but for reinforcing and lending further support to already recognized best practices.

3. Value of Comparative Performance Measurement for Safety (cont.) • Looking at what multiple high performing states have done allows distillation of important practices • Compared to the two other areas (on-time, on-budget and pavement smoothness), safety is more "mature" with respect to performance measurement and use of performance data to target improvements. • A single "take away" from the interviews with top performing states, it is the critical importance of being able to FOCUS activities based on credible and timely data. • Safety practitioners have institutionalized use of performance data for discovery of what works well and what doesn't. • Continued work towards improving comparability of safety data across states is important – it will be valuable as federal performance measures are explored for reauthorization.

4. Final Set of Performance Measures • Primary Performance Measure • % change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in total fatalities per 100 million VMT • Secondary Performance Measure (tie breaker or screening) • 3 year average 2005-2007 Fatality rate • Supplemental Performance Measures • % change in 3 year average between 2003-2005 and 2005-2007 in total fatalities per 100 million VMT (most recent portion of the 2000-2007 time period) • % change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in urban fatality rate (fatalities on roads with urban functional classification divided by 100 million VMT on roads with urban functional classification) • % change in 3 year average between 2000-2002 and 2005-2007 in rural fatality rate (fatalities on roads with rural functional classification divided by 100 million VMT on roads with rural functional classification) • Change in 3 year average of total number of fatalities

5. Performance Results

6. Methods for Identification of Top Performing States Four methods used – recommendations reflect “union” across methods • Straight ranking based on percentage change in fatalities • Screen out states with lower than national average fatality rate, then rank based on percentage change in fatalities • Geographic peer groupings - select top state within each of 5 geographic zones (see next slide) – based on percentage change in fatalities, with absolute fatality rate as tie-breaker • Urban/Rural peer groupings – 5 groups based on percentage of 2000-2002 fatalities on urban classified roadways – select top state within each group – based on percentage change in fatalities, with absolute fatality rate as tie-breaker

7. Peer Groupings - Geographic Regions • Used by FHWA for Travel Monitoring – 5 regions (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08maytvt/region.cfm)

8. Peer Groupings - % of Fatalities on Urban Roadways • Group 1 • Less than 15 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (9 states) • ME, MS, MT, ND, SC, SD, VT, WV, WY • Group 2 • 16-30 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (15 states) • AL, AS, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, MN, NE, NH, NM, OK, OR, UT, WI • Group 3 • 31-45 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (14 states) • AK, CO, DE, GA, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, PA, TN, TX, VA, WA • Group 4 • 46-60 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (8 states) • AR, CA, FL, HI, IL, MD, NV, NY • Group 5 • Over 60 percent of fatalities on Urban Classified Roads (4 states) • CT, MA, NJ, RI

9. Summary Results and Recommendations for Best Practice Identification * tied or close second

10. Alaska Colorado Connecticut Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota New York Utah Selected States Top Performing States - Interviewed Tier 1 Top Performers

11. Improvements in safety performance were the result of: Coordinated, Focused Effortson the 4E's (Engineering – Enforcement – Education - Emergency Response) with Findings Committed Players Solid Leadership Dedicated Resources no big surprises, no silver bullets

12. High degree of consistency across states interviewed in what people felt was important Findings

13. Findings Key factors leading to good performance were: • Leadership and Interagency Partnerships • Performance Targets and Continuous Monitoring of Progress • Support Legislation to Reduce Highway Fatalities • Use timely and accurate data to target programs and countermeasures for greatest payoff • Maximize coordination across state and local law enforcement agencies • Pursue creative and proactive public communications and messaging

14. Safety Data for Comparative Performance Measurement • Shift to use of fatalities to fatalities+injuries to provide a more robust basis for comparison • Fatalities are relatively rare events – random variations impact performance results • Continue work on consistency across states on definition and reporting of serious injuries. • Support improvements to timeliness of both crash and VMT data • States that have achieved quick turnaround have reported significant benefits in terms of willingness to use the data to target resources where they will have the greatest payoff • Improve locational accuracy of crash data (particularly for local roadways) • Quantification of both enforcement activities and engineering improvements to allow for cross state comparison would be of value • % of freeway miles with shoulder rumble strips by year (for engineering) • % of annual nighttime/weekend VMT represented by enforcement activities.