1 / 36

Safety Performance Measures

Safety Performance Measures. AASHTO- SCOHTS April 2010. Numbers? Rates? Trends?. Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation Safety Engineer Office of Traffic and Safety Iowa Department of Transportation 515 239-1267 tom.welch@dot.iowa.gov.

koko
Download Presentation

Safety Performance Measures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Safety Performance Measures AASHTO- SCOHTS April 2010 Numbers? Rates? Trends? Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation Safety Engineer Office of Traffic and Safety Iowa Department of Transportation 515 239-1267 tom.welch@dot.iowa.gov

  2. 2003 Shared National GoalAASHTO, FHWA, NHTSA, GHSA, FMCSA • 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

  3. Traffic Records ForumJuly 26, 2004 Moving the Numbers FHWA Use of Data for Safety +++++++

  4. Fatality Rates per 100 Million VMT – 2002 US Avg. = 1.50 1.01 1.20 0.81 1.47 2.60 1.32 1.20 1.26 0.86 1.86 1.37 1.14 2.12 1.95 1.28 1.03 1.54 1.31 1.03 1.64 1.31 1.11 1.09 2.12 1.34 1.34 1.27 2.19 1.70 1.40 1.18 1.80 1.77 1.95 1.23 1.70 1.72 1.33 DC 1.61 2.18 2.13 2.23 1.97 1.41 1.80 2.43 1.69 2.02 1.78 1.76 0.00 to 1.50 1.50 to 2.61 1.34 PR VI

  5. Fatality Rates Can Be Misleading 2.12 SD 1.27 CA South Dakota’s roads are safer than California’s

  6. This phenomenon is known as“Simpson’s Paradox”

  7. (1.30) to zero zero to 0.83 Expected Fatality Rates (Weighted by Distribution of VMT) Compared to Actual Fatality Rates (0.76) (0.16) (1.26) (0.54) 0.64 (0.65) (0.46) (0.39) (0.30) 0.06 (0.39) (0.25) 0.19 (0.08) 0.13 (0.23) (0.07) (0.02) (0.52) (0.17) (0.17) (0.17) 0.81 (0.57) (0.29) (0.02) 0.02 0.05 0.23 0.29 (0.33) 0.10 0.19 0.21 (0.15) 0.01 0.29 DC 0.17 (0.06) 0.79 0.23 0.30 0.44 (0.18) 0.12 0.46 0.23 0.34 0.19 0.41 (0.10) Puerto Rico Virgin Islands

  8. 2006 Fatality Rates National Iowa Difference Overall 1.41 1.40 None Rural Roads 2.30 1.80 -22% Urban Streets 0.95 0.80 -16%

  9. 3

  10. 5

  11. 7

  12. 3 Year Average > 5Year Average > 7Year Average >

  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 North Preusser Research Group, Inc. GHSA 2008 Annual Meeting Scottsdale, AZ Sept. 8, 2008

  15. Need for Safety Performance Measures 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…”

  16. 2007 US DOT NHTSA Program Audit Reported: “Better performance measures are needed to fully gauge the impact that future Federal resources will have on State programs.”

  17. 2007 GAO Raised the Question: (Government Accountability Office) • “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?

  18. 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.)

  19. Objective Develop voluntary guidance on aminimum 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

  20. Project Organization • PRG – Contractor • Jim Hedlund, Highway Safety North – Project Director • GHSA – Subcontractor • Barbara Harsha and staff • liaison with States • facilities for panel meetings • Expert panel – advice and counsel

  21. Expert panel • 5 NHTSA: Chakiris, Weiser; Geraci, Michael, Oates • 5 State GRs: DepueMO, 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

  22. 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 Criteria for Performance Measures

  23. Types Of Performance Measures Considered • Outcome measures • Crashes, injuries, fatalities • Behavior measures • Observed (belt use) • Self-reported (survey) • Activity measures • Law enforcement (citations) • Media • Other key activities

  24. NHTSA Uses for Performance Measures • Use the core outcome measures as an integral part of reporting to Congress and the public

  25. Overall measures Core outcome measures C-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)

  26. Areas forPerformance Measures • Overall • Seat belt use • Child occupants • Alcohol • Speeding and aggressive driving • Motorcyclists • Young drivers • Older drivers • Pedestrians • Bicyclists

  27. Report Available from NHTSA or GHSA Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies www.ghsa.org/

  28. Performance Based Federal-Aid Programs February 23, 2009 AASHTO Legislative Briefing AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance Management Pete Rahn, Chair,Director, Missouri DOT

  29. 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.

  30. Recommended Safety Performance Measures for AASHTO Consideration STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Prepared by Iowa Department of Transportation Nancy J. Richardson, Director Tom Welch, P.E., State Transportation Safety Engineer May 2009

  31. Safety Performance Measures Recommended for State DOTs • Annual Number of Roadway Fatalities • 3-Year or 5-Year Moving Average of Annual Fatalities • Annual Number of Fatalities and Major Injuries

  32. Safety Performance Measures Adopted By AASHTO Board of DirectorsOctober 2009 • Number of fatalities on a 3-year moving average • Number of severe injuries on a 3-year moving average

  33. Next Step “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 Rahn 2/25/2010

  34. Current ActivityNCHRP Project 20-24(37) – Measuring Performance Among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices • 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)

  35. NCHRP 20-24(37) • 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 DOT February 2010

  36. Safety Performance Measures AASHTO- SCOHTS April 2010 Numbers? Rates? Trends? Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation Safety Engineer Office of Traffic and Safety Iowa Department of Transportation 515 239-1267 tom.welch@dot.iowa.gov

More Related