1. 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 AASHTO- SCOHTS April 2010

2.  Reduce fatalities by 1/3 by 2008 from ~ 43,000 to 29,000/ year  Reduce the national fatality rate from 1.48 to 1.0 …One state at a time 2

3. Moving the Numbers FHWA Use of Data for Safety +++++++ 3

4. 4

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

6. 6 State Fatality Rates (per 100 Mil VMT) Distribution Of VMT RuralUrbanTotalRuralUrban California 2.680.921.2720%80% South Dakota 2.490.872.1277%23%

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

8. National Iowa Difference Overall 1.41 1.40 None Rural Roads 2.30 1.80 -22% Urban Streets 0.950.80 -16% 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

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

13. Year 200220032004200520062007 Fatal 406441388451439444 Major Injury 223220512173209018891960 Totals 263824922561254123282400 13 ?

14. 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. 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

16. “Better performance measures are needed to fully gauge the impact that future Federal resources will have on State programs.” 16

17.  “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

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.) 18

19. 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

20. 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 20

21. 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

22. 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

23.  Outcome measures ◦ Crashes, injuries, fatalities  Behavior measures ◦ Observed (belt use) ◦ Self-reported (survey)  Activity measures ◦ Law enforcement (citations) ◦ Media ◦ Other key activities 23

24.  Use the core outcome measures as an integral part of reporting to Congress and the public 24

25. 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) 25

26.  Overall  Seat belt use  Child occupants  Alcohol  Speeding and aggressive driving  Motorcyclists  Young drivers  Older drivers  Pedestrians  Bicyclists 26

27. Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies 27 www.ghsa.org/

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

29. ◦ 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 30

31. 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 31

32. 1. Number of fatalities on a 3-year moving average 2. Number of severe injuries on a 3-year moving average 32

33. “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 33

34.  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) 34

35.  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 35

36. 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 AASHTO- SCOHTS April 2010