Regional Safety Workshop

July 20, 2017

Regional Crashes (2007-2016)

2011-2015

Percentage

Increase: 63.2%

139,458

128,247 130,309

114,975

107,118

124,539

136,947

156,198

171,153 174,868

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

2011-20166

Regional Crash Rate Per 100 Million of Vehicle Miles Traveled (2011-2016)

2011-2015

Percentage

Increase:

38.7%

158.8

184.8

204.8 210.0220.2

237.4251.7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2016 & 2016 are forecasted estimates due to lack of VMT data

2011-20166

Fatalities in All Crash Types (2007-2016)

675

669

640

654

610 636 66

1

672

681

774

400

500

600

700

800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Serious Injuries in All Crash Types (2007-2016)

3,8

63

3,4

40

3,1

51

3,2

28

2,8

95

3,3

09

3,4

18

3,5

56

3,6

87

3,5

93

15,5

26

14,2

98

13,8

15

14,1

84

12,9

81

14,6

02

14,8

24

15,9

88

16,4

27

17,7

33

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Incapacitating Non-Incapactating

Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries (2007-2016)

215 233 173 184 206 233 223 204 260 324

710 696 592 578 513

660 660 785 705 737

1,674 1,855

1,645 1,709

1,469

1,864 1,878

1,997 2,090 2,140

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fatalities Incapacitating Non-Incapaciting

1.Number of fatalities

2.Rate of fatalities

3.Number of serious injuries

4.Rate of serious injuries

5.Number of non-motorized fatalities and

serious injuries

5-Year Rolling Average: Each target is based on a 5-year rolling average,

which is the average of 5 individual, consecutive points of data

Federal Safety Performance Measures

Fatalities/Serious Injuries by Focus Area

Regional Safety Plan

Areas of Focus:

▪ Intersections (2016 Texas Intersection Safety Implementation Plan)

▪ Bicycle and Pedestrian

▪ Distracted Driving

▪ Aggressive Driving

▪ Impaired Driving

Best Practice Research –Counter Measures

- TxDOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan

- Arizona SHSP

- California SHSP

- Kansas City - Towards Zero Deaths Blue Print

- Oregon Metro Regional Safety Plan

- Phoenix Safety Plan

Workshop Items▪ Maps – Issue identification by topic

– Geography– Corridor– Intersection– Demographic– Time of Day

▪ Countermeasures – Engineering– Enforcement– Education– Other (empowerment, legislation, etc.)

▪ Questionnaire– Areas– Challenges– Countermeasures

Regional Safety Plan - Goal

Improve the safety of our

region’s transportation system. Being able to safely drive, walk, bike, and

ride transit are all a part of a safe

transportation system.

Regional Safety Plan - Components

▪ Crash data analysis and performance measures

▪ Stakeholder involvement

▪ Identification of emphasis areas and issues

▪ Strategies (5 E’s - Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation, and Engineering)

▪ Implementation plan

Regional Safety PlanMulti-pronged approach to addressing our region’s transportation safety needs:

• Evaluation | data evaluation, setting targets and focus areas.

• Engineering | infrastructure investments.

• Education | educational outreach.

• Enforcement | enforcement of safe driving, riding, and walking practices.

• Encouragement and Empowerment| technical tools and training to partners and public.

• Emergency Management | Effective incident management practices.

• Legislation | passing/revising of laws and ordinances.

Regional Safety Plan – Next Steps

▪ Regional Safety Workshop – July 2017

▪ Analyze data and identify problem areas and patterns –August 2017

▪ Stakeholder outreach – August through October 2017

▪ Development of Strategies – November 2017

▪ Plan Completion – January 2018

Regional Safety Workshop

▪770 Fatalities▪ 20,000 Serious Injuries▪ 170,000 Crashes

Focus Areas Challenges Countermeasures

Texas Strategic Highway Safety Plan and

Safety Performance Management

Stephen Ratke, P.E.

Safety Engineer

FHWA – Texas Division

Agenda

SHSP Overview

Safety Performance Management Overview

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

A Plan to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads

A multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach

Data-driven problem identification and prioritization

Links to other plans and programs

www.TexasSHSP.com

Required since 2006

Must be updated every five years

Texas update to be completed by August 1, 2017

Texas 2017 – 2022 SHSP

Work began in November 2016

Executive Committee reviews and

approves

Management team provides data, support

Stakeholder Committee provides

feedback and direction

Emphasis Area teams develop strategies,

countermeasures, and actions

Stakeholder

Ranking

Problem Area Casualties

(K & A)

1 Distraction 21,121

2 Impairment 26,284

3 Pedestrians 8,749

4 Intersections 40,494

5 Speeding 17,963

6 48,171

FHWA Requirement Older Users 9,890

SVROR Head -

on

SHSP Emphasis areas

Texas SHSP Next Steps

EA teams develop action plans (Fall 2017)

Management Team and stakeholders develop branding and marketing (Fall –

Winter 2017)

SHSP regional forums (Spring 2017)

Establish regular EA team meetings

Establish regular Executive Committee meetings

Implement and track progress

Evaluate and modify

Vision Zero

Many states have created a “zero” fatalities brand as part of the SHSP

SHSPs and Vision Zero build upon the same principles from European efforts

Vision Zero

SHSP

Targets and Goals

Data Analysis

Priority Improvements

Funding Opportunities

Policy and Standards

Focus Areas and

Plans

Public Messaging

Aligning Safety Performance Measures

SHSP

Measurable

Objectives

HSP

Measures

and Targets

HSIP

Measures

and Targets

Annual

Targets Must

be Identical

8

Types of Target Setting

Evidence-Based Target Setting

Estimate of achievements for a specific set of investments, policies,

and strategies

Achievable

Relatively short timeframe (5 to 10 years)

Aspirational or Vision-Based Target Setting

Long-term vision for future performance

Vision for zero fatalities (Vision Zero, Towards Zero Deaths)

9

MPO Safety Target Requirements

MPOs establish targets for each of the five measures within 180

days after the State DOT reports targets

MPOs have two options when setting targets for each measure:

Establish a numerical target for each performance measure specific to

the MPO planning area

Agree to support the State DOT target

MPO reporting of targets to DOT to be agreed upon between

DOT and MPO

MPO targets are not evaluated by FHWA

10

Texas SHSP Target Setting

Safety targets were debated extensively

Desire for zero related goals and improvements in safety

Reflection of reality that near-term safety is on a negative trend

TTI and TxDOT presented several methods for establishing targets

Linear projection of annual numbers was agreed upon

Has the “best fit” of previous data and expectations

Consensus for a 2% reduction goal for positive slope trend projections

Consensus for maintaining trend for negative slope trend projections

TxDOT Targets – Fatalities

2018: 3,891

2022: 4,241

2% reduction from projection

2016 CRIS: 3,775

3,000

3,250

3,500

3,750

4,000

4,250

4,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Total Number of Traffic Fatalities

Fatalities (FARS data) Linear Projection Targets 2016 CRIS

TxDOT 2018 Annual Targets

Target: Total number of traffic fatalities

2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of

fatalities from 3,516 in 2015 to not more than 3,891

fatalities in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling

average would be as follows:

Target: Total number of

incapacitating injuries

2018 Target: To decrease the rise of serious injuries

from 17,578 serious injuries in 2016 to not more

than 18,130 serious injuries in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling

average would be as follows:Year Target or

Actual Data

Source

2014 3,536 FARS

2015 3,516 ARF

2016 3,775 CRIS

2017 3,801 Target

2018 3,891 Target

2018 Target expressed

as 5-year average

3,703.8

Year Target or

Actual Data

Source

2014 17,133 CRIS

2015 17,096 CRIS

2016 17,578 CRIS

2017 17,890 Target

2018 18,130 Target

2018 Target expressed

as 5-year average

17,565.4

TxDOT 2018 Annual Targets

Target: Deaths per 100 million vehicle

miles traveled

2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of deaths per

100 MVMT from 1.36 deaths per 100 MVMT in 2015 to

not more than 1.46 deaths per 100 MVMT in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average

would be as follows:

Target: Serious Injuries per 100

million vehicle miles traveled

2018 Target: To decrease the rate of serious injuries per 100

MVMT from 6.71 serious injuries per 100 MVMT in 2016

to 6.64 serious injuries per 100 MVMT in 2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling average

would be as follows:

Year Target or

Actual Data

Source

2014 1.45 FARS

2015 1.36 ARF

2016 1.44 CRIS

2017 1.45 Target

2018 1.46 Target

2018 Target

expressed as 5-year

average

1.432

Year Target or

Actual Data

Source

2014 7.05 CRIS

2015 6.62 CRIS

2016 6.71 CRIS

2017 6.68 Target

2018 6.64 Target

2018 Target

expressed as 5-year

average

6.740

TxDOT 2018 Annual Targets

Target: Total number of non-motorized

fatalities and serious injuries

2018 Target: To decrease the expected rise of

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries

from 2,023 in 2015 to not more than 2,309

non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries in

2018

The 2018 Target expressed as a five year rolling

average would be as follows:

Year Target or

Actual Data

Source

2014 1,893 FARS-CRIS

2015 2,023 FARS-CRIS

2016 2,304 FARS-CRIS

2017 2,224 Target

2018 2,309 Target

2018 Target expressed

as 5-year average

2150.6

Considerations for Targets

Safety outcomes are most linked to economic activity and population growth

In an environment of rising total numbers, does a goal below the projection make sense?

Can we actually achieve a reduction from the projection without major changes?

The models already account for what we have done so far

Are there other program changes we should be making?

Is there a reduction goal that isn’t arbitrary in nature?

Should the target be lower to help drive interest in making change?

Should the target be higher to demonstrate to executives that additional support is needed?

Resources

Safety Performance Measures

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/

SHSP

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shsp/

http://safety.transportation.org/

Vision Zero

http://visionzeronetwork.org/

http://www.towardzerodeaths.org/

http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx

Texas Intersection Safety

Implementation Plan

Stephen Ratke, P.E.

Safety Engineer

FHWA – Texas Division

Agenda

Texas ISIP Study Summary

Texas ISIP Countermeasures

Conventional vs. Systemic

Conventional Systemic

“High Crash Locations”

Purely reactive

Usually high CRF

Usually high cost

Limited impact on

statewide fatalities

Start with low cost,

effective countermeasures

Install at a large number of

locations with moderate

and high crash history

Prioritizes risk factors

over crash history

Potential to substantially

reduce fatalities

Basic Approach for intersections

Overarching goals of Texas ISIP

Prioritize intersection locations and

countermeasures for near-term implementation

Strengthen partnerships between TxDOT, MPOs,

local governments, and FHWA

Identify opportunities for enhancing Texas’s data

systems to allow for more robust systemic

analyses in the future

Systemic analysis

Data challenges

No single statewide intersection database

Traffic volume data not widely available for non state

maintained routes

What is available?

MPO TAZ shapefiles - area type (rural/urban)

TxDOT RHiNo database - classification of maintaining

agency

CRIS database - traffic control type as recorded by the

reporting officer

ESRI Street file - node location in GIS

Distribution of intersections and

crashes

Summary of Statewide Findings

Potential Crash Thresholds

More than half of the KA intersection crashes could be addressed by

targeting just 29% of the KA intersection crash locations

H-GAC Intersections, 1+ KA Crash

H-GAC Intersections, 3+ KA Crash

Desired Countermeasure Packages

Potential for widespread use

Current and potential deployment

Potential impact to severe crashes

Crash reduction factor

Easy deployment

Low cost

Favorable benefit-cost ratio

Install advance warning signs and

flashers

16

Install pavement markings: arrows

17

Install pavement markings: lane lines

18

Install enhanced pedestrian crosswalk

19

Install lane control signs

20

Install advance cross street name signs

21

Re-time signals - coordination and red

and amber clearance

22

Install retroreflective signal back

plates

23

Install red light indicator lights

24

Pedestrian countdown signals

25

Install Yield to Pedestrians blank out

sign at turn lane

26

Intersection lighting

27

Remove on-street parking to improve

sight distance

28