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

tom.welch@dot.iowa.gov

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

tom.welch@dot.iowa.gov

AASHTO- SCOHTSApril 2010