PIARC TC C.2.1: Comparison of National Road Safety Policies & Plans

1. PIARC TC C.2.1:Comparison of National RoadSafety Policies & Plans NCHRP 17-18 (016) Case Studies Project Creating a Culture of Traffic Safety: Four Successful States Larry E. Tibbits Michigan Department of Transportation Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2. Four State Case Studies Minnesota Iowa Michigan Washington State

3. Case Study Sponsors • Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science (NAS) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

4. Project Elements • Four states selected by sponsors: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington State • Begun in October 2006 • Conduct in-state interviews • Develop a case study report for each state • Provide a PowerPoint presentation for each state and an executive-level summary

5. Purpose of Case Studies • Examine technical and institutional factors implemented by states that have realized success in reducing fatalities and their fatality rate • Identify success factors and key elements that could be shared with other states • Identify the process of institutionalizing safety and the incorporation of the 4 Es in achieving improvements over time

6. Major Case Study Factors • Organizational leadership • Political leadership • Processes used to institutionalize safety

7. Information Collection • Background and reference documents • State strategic highway safety plans • Highway Safety Office - highway safety plans • Historical data, data charts, informational tables, publications, Web sites

8. Information Collection(Continued) • In-state interviews • Highway Safety Office • Governor’s representative and staff • State Department of Transportation (DOT) engineering and safety staff • FHWA division staff • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) regional administrator • Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local government representatives

9. Overview of States • Wide range of population sizes • Wide range of annual vehicle miles traveled • Similar proportions of state and local road ownership • High standards for safety results * 2006 – Preliminary **2006 Sources: NHTSA; Iowa Department of Transportation; Michigan Traffic Crash Facts 2005; Michigan Department of Transportation; Minnesota Department of Public Safety – Office of Traffic Safety and the Minnesota Department of Transportation; Washington Office of Financial Management 2005 Data Book and Washington Traffic Safety Commission

10. Proportion of State vs. Local Road Miles Represented in Studies 37,687 416,531 Combined Total State & Local Road Miles: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota & Washington State

11. Case Study State Fatalities Compared to National Fatalities (1976-2005) Sources: NHTSA; Iowa: Office of Driver Services, Iowa Department of Transportation; Michigan: Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning; Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Public Safety – Office of Traffic Safety; Washington: Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Washington Department of Transportation

12. Case Study States’ Fatality Rates Compared to National Fatality Rate 1976-2005 Sources: NHTSA; Iowa: Office of Driver Services, Iowa Department of Transportation; Michigan: Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning; Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Public Safety – Office of Traffic Safety; Washington: Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Washington Department of Transportation

13. Summary of Major Findings • All states have achieved goals that have surpassed the national record • Iowa, Michigan, and Washington State achieved consistent gains over a longer period of time • Minnesota’s success is more recent, but impressive

14. Summary of Major Findings(Continued) • Every state has developed a cooperative, coordinated, collaborative program with statewide reach • Individual leaders have emerged in each state to champion the safety program

15. Organizational Leadership • Key individuals with passion for improving traffic safety • Strong partnership between the state DOT and Highway Safety Office • Barriers between agencies removed • Adequate technical and funding resources dedicated to local road improvements • Accountability for achieving results

16. Political Leadership • Strong interest and support from key state leaders and the governor in most cases • Sponsorship of key legislation and champions with interest over time • Enactment of most key traffic safety laws by the legislature • Provision of necessary monetary resources to support safety • Promotion and support of key safety programs with the public

17. Legislative Overview • State emphasis on enacting proven safety laws • Successful safety programs achieved even though a complete compliment of laws not yet accomplished X = Applies to this state ALR = Administrative License Revocation, BAC = Breath Alcohol Content, CPS = Child Passenger Safety Primary = Primary Enforcement Seat Belt Law, MC = Motorcycle, GDL = Graduated Driver’s License * Required only for less than 18 years old ** Two stage GDL process, rather than the three stage process used by the other states *** Details of the laws may vary by state Source: NHTSA

18. Processes toInstitutionalize Safety • Highly developed data collection and analysis systems • Statewide systematic approach to improve all roads (state and local) • Use of AASHTO model for strategic highway safety plan (CHSP/SHSP) development

19. Processes toInstitutionalize Safety (Continued) • Partnerships with federal, state, and local agencies for planning and implementation of behavioral and engineering programs • Statewide application of national impaired driving and seat belt mobilization programs

20. Variations in State Approach • DOT Organizational Structures • Iowa and Washington State - Centralized • Provide issue leadership, training and resources to locals from the state office • Michigan and Minnesota – Decentralized • Local DOT districts or regions provide problem identification, training, and resources based on state and local priorities • Safety planning and organizational leadership

21. Commonalities • Many common factors for success are shared among the four states within their varied structures and support systems: • Aggressive goal setting • Prioritized engineering strategies • Comprehensive behavioral programs • Advanced data collection and analysis systems • Reliance on data-driven planning and programming • Broad base of partnerships

22. Importance of Goal Setting • Aggressive goals • Iowa = “One death is one too many” (Less than 400 fatalities by 2015 – at 450 in 2005) • Michigan = 1.0 fatalities per 100m VMT by 2008 (1.09 in 2005) • Minnesota = Toward Zero Deaths (Less than 500 fatalities by 2008 – Exceeded goal in 2006) • Washington State = Zero Deaths by 2030

23. Importance of Goal Setting(Continued) • Clearly communicated goal to multi-disciplinary traffic safety partners • Targeted research-based strategies tied to data-driven priority areas

24. Successful Engineering Strategies • Leadership from the state DOT (centralized or decentralized) • Evaluation and prioritization of all roads (state and local) • Wide implementation of research-based low cost safety improvements • Local agency partnerships encouraged and supported

25. Successful Engineering Strategies(Continued) • Provision of “toolboxes” for safety strategies and tactics • Working relationships with state universities and/or engineering associations for data assistance, technical resources, and training

26. Successful Behavioral Strategies • Stability within the leadership of the state highway safety office • Focus on performance-based plans and data-driven project selection • Sponsorship of statewide impaired driving and seat belt mobilizations • Technical support to advocates for enactment of strong laws to influence behavior

27. Successful Behavioral Strategies(Continued) • Community involvement (Safe Communities, Local Task Forces, Corridor Projects) • Public education and targeted advertising programs to support enforcement campaigns

28. Priority on Data Systems & Analysis • Provision of a broad-based Traffic Records Coordinating Committee and strategic plan • Use of technology to enhance the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of data collection and analysis • Acquisition and distribution of advanced tools to locate and map data

29. Priority on Data Systems & Analysis (Continued) • Proactive use of data systems to identify problem areas and evaluate program effectiveness • Insistence upon data-driven, research-based planning and programming

30. Promotion of Partnerships • Worked with other state agencies to leverage resources and coordinate efforts • Built statewide partnerships with local communities and local governmental agencies • Established roles for state universities and local transportation assistance program centers in planning, programming, evaluation and training

31. Promotion of Partnerships(Continued) • Developed strong statewide network of law enforcement agencies • Reached out to non-profit organizations, associations and businesses • Collaborated with Federal agencies (FHWA, NHTSA & FMCSA)

32. Federal Support • Behavioral and local engineering solutions encouraged through technical resources and available Federal funding • Data and research provided to support key legislative initiatives • NHTSA • Regional support of state highway safety planning • Coordination and communications support for seat belt and impaired driving national mobilizations

33. Federal Support (Continued) • FHWA • Divisions and safety engineers interact regularly with state DOTs • Proactively support development and implementation of low cost state and local safety improvements • Collaboration fostered through Safety Conscious Planning and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan requirement

34. Federal Support (Continued) • Technical resources provided at many levels • Training • Research material • Safety publications • Peer to peer exchanges

35. Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors • Success can be achieved using different approaches and organization structures • A safety commission structure and/or dedicated state level leadership organization helps to achieve a comprehensive and coordinated program

36. Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors (Continued) • A strong vision is stated to target planning, programming and resources • An aggressive safety goal is developed and promoted • Individual leaders (champions) within state agencies are present • Focus is on the support of all public roadways (state and local) • Technical assistance and resources are allocated for local agencies

37. Summary of CriticalSuccess Factors (Continued) • Statewide law enforcement networks are developed to support strong traffic safety enforcement programs • Enactment of effective traffic safety laws is a priority especially to address behavioral issues • Legislative opposition is met by generating partnerships with non-governmental associations and organizations

38. Potential Threats toSustaining Success • Funding Reductions • Shift of future federal safety funding to less successful states or to new federal priorities • Political influences that may dictate a change in investment strategy • State and local government budget cuts • Evolving Crash Characteristics • Increase in motorcycle deaths, aggressive, distracted and speeding drivers - aging driver population • Inability to discover new and effective programs - fewer “easy” solutions available

39. Potential Threats toSustaining Success (Continued) • Weakening of Legislative Culture • Lack of a sufficient safety culture to make difficult or controversial policy choices - public attitudes that could weaken existing laws • Politically-driven repeals of key traffic safety laws

40. Potential Threats toSustaining Success (Continued) • Loss of Champions • Restructuring of state government and changes in leadership • Retirement programs resulting in the loss of key safety champions • Emerging Complacency • Status-quo mentality - will the state continue to try to make more gains after initial goals have been met? • Apathy among segments of the population not understanding the importance of trying to prevent fatalities

41. Potential Threats toSustaining Success (Continued) • Changes in message delivery and media interest • Challenges in communication with the public due to predominance of the Internet versus traditional newspaper, TV and radio broadcast, and cable news • Cultural shifts causing a loss of focus on the importance of safety

42. Future Direction for Case Study States • Continue SHSP process and implement the plan as a method for engaging partners and achieving goals • Targeted focus on data-driven, research-based strategies • Advocate for safety support at highest government and political levels

43. Future Direction for Case Study States (Continued) • Enhance data collection and analysis systems to fully utilize new technology • Maximize funding to support safety initiatives • Renew efforts to enact and retain key traffic safety laws

44. Project Contact Information • Full case study reports and state PowerPoint presentations are available for each state from FHWA and NCHRP • http://www.michigan.gov/tands