Considering Safety in the Transportation Planning Process

Chapter 1: Institutional Framework for Safety Planning

Scope and Organization of This Report

This report examines the integration of safety into the transportation planning process. Safety is an essential part of transportation and needs to be considered by all agencies involved-state departments of transportation (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), transit agencies, local governments, special districts, and non-profit organizations. Improving the safety of the transportation network requires an active, conscious approach to monitoring the transportation system for safety problems and anticipating problems before they occur.

The focus of this report is on incorporating safety into the transportation planning process for the multi-modal transportation system and on providing planners with information and techniques to better understand the role of safety within this process. To improve its understanding of the current framework and industry practices for the integration of safety in the planning process, the study team began the project with a comprehensive literature review. This review helped to identify U.S. agencies whose planning efforts have led to successful safety improvements. These agencies were then screened more closely for their dedicated safety efforts and for their coordination efforts with other agencies within their states. Ultimately, the team chose Oregon, Michigan, and Pennsylvania for the study, and the report draws particularly on the experiences in these states. Both the literature review and the case studies are available on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) planning websites. During this study, FHWA and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) jointly sponsored state forums to bring together transportation planners at all levels to discuss safety and planning efforts as well as possibilities for increased coordination. The study team participated in several of these forums to further understand industry efforts. The objective of this report is to illustrate how safety can be integrated into transportation planning. Too little experience in safety planning has been gained, particularly at the local level, to identify best practices. However, the report illustrates a variety of approaches that have been used and compares their strengths and weaknesses.

This report outlines the multi-modal planning process, emphasizing the areas where safety could be considered. The report is organized into five chapters. The remainder of this chapter discusses the importance of safety in planning, the legislative background, the agencies involved in safety and transportation planning, the role of safety as part of the transportation planning process at the state and metropolitan planning levels, sources of funding for transportation safety activities, and some of the institutional challenges to incorporating safety into the planning process.

Chapter 2 examines different approaches to DOT's and MPO's long-range safety planning processes. This chapter starts with a discussion of states' long-range plans and identifies ways in which safety should be included. While federal law does not mandate long-term safety goals, improving safety over the long term is implicit in most of the legislative actions that Congress and the states have taken. Reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes on the nation's transportation network is a common goal of most safety programs. Different strategies for improving safety over the long term are illustrated.

Chapter 3 examines the short-range transportation planning process in the context of the transportation improvement program. This chapter looks at specialized studies and their role in the planning process, as well as the MPO's role as the coordinator. Chapter 3 also analyzes truck and transit safety and planning approaches and discusses various methods for benefit-cost analysis.

Chapter 4 details how a crash database is constructed and managed. It includes discussion of the traditional database approach, as well as the newer geographic information system (GIS) approach. Various tools used for safety analysis are described, as well as some available software.

Finally, Chapter 5 discusses other agencies and organizations having programs relating to safety planning. It outlines some of their projects and presents examples of their successful partnerships.

Background

Why Safety is Important for Transportation

The public expects, and demands, that the transportation system be safe and efficient for all users. Transportation is an essential part of modern existence, linking the various activities in which people participate-home, work, school, shopping, and recreation.

Improving transportation safety can help to alleviate a myriad of health, financial, and quality-of-life issues for travelers. Fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle crashes are a major public health problem. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported 41,821 deaths resulting from 37,409 motor vehicle crashes in 2000. While the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has been decreasing consistently and is the lowest on record (1.54 per 100 million VMT), motor vehicle crashes continue to be a major cause of death in the United States. Fatalities from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all ages from 1 through 24.1

Vehicle crashes are a major source of congestion on the road system. Intelligent transportation system (ITS) priorities of the past 10 years have included improving the response of emergency services in relieving congestion from incidents along heavily traveled roadways, an indirect consequence of the debilitating effects of motor vehicle crashes.

Perhaps the most important reason for actively encouraging safety on the transportation system is that crashes of all sorts can be prevented. We no longer view crashes as accidents or random events. We now understand that certain populations (teenagers) are more likely to be involved in deadly crashes, that alcohol contributes to the likelihood of crashes, that unsafe vehicles are more likely than safer vehicles to produce injuries to their occupants, and that certain locations are more likely to have crashes. We also understand that transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists are equally important users of the roadways, and we need to understand how the transportation network operates as a system, as opposed to as independent modes.

Transportation safety has improved since the early 1970s, when the federal government started to promote safety and to demand that states and local governments take actions. Vehicle manufacturers have improved designs and added airbags to make vehicles safer. States have enacted laws requiring the use of safety belts and child restraints, and usage of both has increased dramatically. City planning departments and MPOs have worked together to program funds for bicycle and pedestrian-friendly roadways and paths. Transit agencies have started to aggressively collect data to analyze frequent accident locations and develop countermeasures. States and local governments have improved unsafe roadways. The result of these and other countermeasures, such as legislative improvements, public information, education and training, has been an improvement in the general safety of the transportation system.

Why Safety is Important for Transportation Planning

Although the public demands a safe transportation system, safety historically has not been an explicit part of transportation planning. A clear need has developed for safety to be considered as part of the planning process instead of as a reactionary consideration as it has been. To be adequately addressed, safety must be a key goal within the process. This is a critical time to formally increase safety's role in the planning process. The 1990s showed a leveling off of fatalities, and it is important for planners to remain aggressive in developing even more strategies and countermeasures to improve system safety.

A systematic method for including safety in the planning process has not yet been identified. A discussion of the planning process, and potential spots for systematically including safety, is presented later in this chapter.

Legislative Background

Until the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), federal laws have separately addressed transportation system safety and security and required transportation planning processes. Federal law requires that the road system be kept safe and that road safety improvements be continuous. Federal law also requires that federally funded highway and transit projects in urbanized areas be based on a transportation planning process. These historic laws are discussed in the following sections.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 created the federal requirement for urban transportation planning. As a condition for federal funding, transportation projects in urbanized areas with populations of more than 50,000 must be based on a continuing, comprehensive, urban transportation planning process undertaken in a cooperative manner between states and local governments. This was the beginning of the "3C" planning process-continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative. This requirement led to the creation of the MPO because a need clearly existed for one agency capable of carrying out the planning process.

State Highway Safety Program

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 USC Chapter 4, Section 402) requires each state to have a highway safety program, approved by the Secretary of Transportation, to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage. The Section 402 Highway Safety Program is administered jointly by NHTSA and FHWA. In its current form, the program sets forth the minimum requirements for state highway safety programs and provides funds for non-construction projects aimed at reducing injuries, deaths, and property damage from motor vehicle crashes. These requirements include developing or upgrading traffic record systems; collecting crash data; conducting traffic engineering studies; developing technical guides for state and local highway agencies; developing work zone safety projects; encouraging the use of safety belts and child safety seats; conducting roadway safety public outreach campaigns; and developing enforcement programs to reduce impaired driving, combat drivers who speed or drive impaired, and reduce aggressive driving. The Section 402 program is primarily oriented toward improving crash information systems and modifying driver behavior to reduce crashes, although the program will fund safety tool development and some engineering work. This legislation was landmark in providing direction and funding for making highway safety improvements.

Hazard Elimination Program

The Highway Safety Act of 1973 introduced a federal mandate for roadway safety, requiring each state to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify high-hazard locations that may constitute a danger to vehicles and pedestrians. States must assign priorities for correcting identified hazards and develop a schedule of projects for their improvement. The law establishes a benefit-cost methodology for identifying safety project locations and establishes a means for assigning priorities. Like the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the 1973 act provides mandates for states, a systematic approach to safety improvements, and an earmarked funding source for the improvements.

The initial legislation, Section 152 Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), made construction funds available for roads on the federal-aid system other than a highway on the interstate system, which was covered under other legislation. The 1973 act also created a separate Railway/Highway Crossings Program, Section 130. The legislation earmarked funds for each program.

In 1982, the legislation was amended to extend Section 152 authorization to all public roads, except the Interstate Highway System, which had its own authorization (Highway Improvement Act of 1982). The current law (23 USC, October 1983) essentially unifies this principle, stating:

Each State shall conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey for all public roads to identify hazardous locations, sections and elements, including roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads, which may constitute a danger to motorists and pedestrians, assign priorities for the correction of such locations, sections and elements, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for their improvement.

(Section 152 Hazard Elimination Program; II-91-II-92)

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1991 (ISTEA) combined the separate funds for Section 152 Hazard Elimination Program and Section 130 Railway/Highway Crossings Program. Section 133 (d) (1) of Title 23 USC of the Highway Safety Act establishes a Surface Transportation Program (STP) and states that 10 percent of the funds apportioned to a state for STP "shall only be available for carrying out sections 130 and 152 of this title." The amount of funds in each category (Section 152 or 130) could not be less than the amount that was allocated in 1991. ISTEA further noted that the 10 percent safety set-aside funds were to be the minimum amount for use in safety improvements. States could allocate additional funds to improve the safety of entire public transportation system.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TEA-21, enacted in 1998, expanded the safety programs of ISTEA. TEA-21, for the first time, brought in safety and security as a planning factor, particularly to be considered when preparing plans/transportation improvement programs (TIP):

It is in the national interest to encourage and promote the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight and foster economic growth and development within and through urbanized areas while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution.

The regulations required safety (along with security) to be a stand-alone planning factor for the first time, by defining the scope of the planning process to "provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will . . . increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users."

In addition, TEA-21 extended HEP to all public roads, including the Interstate Highway System, and provided for funding of safety improvements along the interstates. TEA-21 further expanded transportation safety efforts to allow:

HEP funds to be used for bicycle and off-road improvements on publicly owned routes as well as traffic-calming devices
Railway/highway crossing programs to include bicycle safety
Increased motor carrier safety inspection efforts
A railway/highway hazard elimination program in high-speed rail corridors
A Safe Communities Program that allows cities so designated to fund safety programs from a variety of categories within Title 23

Enabling Regulations

Parallel to this legislation, FHWA issued a series of regulations in 1979 that came to be known as the Highway Safety Improvement Program.2 These regulations were modified in 1991 and 1998.3 The regulations establish three components of the program:

Planning-a process for collecting and maintaining a record of accident, traffic, and highway data; analyzing available data to identify highway locations that are hazardous; conducting engineering studies of hazardous locations; prioritizing implementations; conducting an expected benefit-cost analysis; and paying special attention to railway/highway grade crossings
Implementation-a process for scheduling and implementing safety improvement projects and allocating funds according to the priorities developed in the planning phase
Evaluation-a process for evaluating the effects of highway improvements on safety including the cost of the safety benefits derived from the improvements, the accident experience before and after the implementation, and a comparison of the pre- and post-project accident numbers, rates, and severity

In short, federal legislation has created a mandate for highway and transit safety on all public systems. States and, by implication, local jurisdictions are required to monitor their transportation networks for safety problems and to develop mitigation strategies for each high-hazard location. They are required to conduct a benefit-cost analysis and to prioritize projects on the basis of the benefit-cost analysis. The legislation creates a strategy for safety planning and a required minimum level of funding.

The consideration of safety in the transportation planning process is a new concept. States, MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments clearly have varying mechanisms for identifying areas with safety concerns and procedures to address these areas. These agencies have also implemented the required transportation planning processes. For the first time, TEA-21 introduced safety as a component in the transportation planning process. This will require a new level of coordination between the groups responsible for these efforts as they now have common objectives to meet, and must work collaboratively to meet them. New processes must be developed to ensure that the safety component becomes a permanent and critical part of the planning process.

Agencies Involved in Safety and Transportation Planning

A wide variety of agencies and organizations have activities and programs closely related to safety and transportation planning. These include federal, state, regional, and local agencies as well as national non-profit and for-profit organizations and interest groups (see Exhibit 1-1). These agencies and organizations can serve as valuable resources to state and MPO transportation planners in understanding the efforts, funding sources, and expertise available. These agencies have their own specific goals for safety and their own methods for considering safety. Each of the agencies and organizations involved in transportation safety operates on a different timeframe. Some focus on short-term safety improvements, others on analyzing methods for longer range projects. The differing goals of these agencies can cause additional challenges to planners because they must consider the varying modes, nomenclatures, and goals of these organizations. A detailed description of these agencies is included in Chapter 5, in addition to examples of ways in which the agencies form partnerships to meet common objectives. This not a comprehensive list of all safety partners, just an overview of several key players.

Exhibit 1-1
Partners in Safety Planning

Federal Federal Highway Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Transit Administration	State State Departments of Transportation State Departments of Public Safety State Departments of Emergency Management
Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations Local Departments of Transportation Transit Agencies City Planning Agencies Local Governments	National Transportation Research Board National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives Roadway Safety Foundation Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Institute of Transportation Engineers American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials American Automobile Association

Considering Safety as Part of the Transportation Planning Process

Safety can be incorporated into the transportation planning process in a variety of ways. In traditional transportation planning, safety can be accomplished through both long-range and short-range planning activities. A simplified overview of the traditional transportation planning process is depicted in Exhibit 1-2.

Exhibit 1-2
FHWA's Representation of the Transportation Planning Process

A circular diagram describing steps in the transportation planning process.

Source: A Citizen's Guide to Transportation Planning, Federal Highway Administration

Transportation planning is a cyclical process that continually improves the current transportation system through planning and programming both project and non-project solutions to the needs of the system. A project solution is a physical improvement to the system infrastructure; a non-project solution is a management-operation such as a program improvement to the system (for example, a dial-a-ride or van pool program). Planners develop long-range plans for the transportation system based on the goals for the system, the identified future needs, and solutions to address those needs. The long-range plan is carried out through short-range planning activities, most of which are programmed through the transportation improvement program (TIP) or the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). The TIP is a multi-modal programming document for defined projects. Through the programming process, transportation planners evaluate projects for funding and inclusion in the TIP. The STIP is the collaboration of the state's transportation systems and is the defining vision for the transportation system and services. In metropolitan areas, the plan notes all of the transportation improvements scheduled for funding during the next 20 years. After both project and non-project solutions are implemented in these plans, they are monitored and evaluated with performance measures to determine how well the needs of the transportation system are being met.

Planning activities carried out by the MPO area are specified in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP is the statement of work, budget, and schedule for federally funded planning activities in the area. It may include provisions for activities such as special studies to identify system needs and solutions and to pursue innovative data collection and analysis needs. State planners have a similar unified planning document. Funding for the projects is available from the federal government, state government, and local sources. The funding available depends on the type of project.

The graphic above is shown in the beginning of the following three chapters, highlighting which areas are addressed in that chapter.

How Safety Fits in the Transportation Planning Process

Safety can be incorporated into the traditional transportation planning process in many areas. Exhibit 1-3 depicts the simplified cyclical transportation planning process in the context of safety. Safety is incorporated through the involvement of the public and professional safety community, special studies and data analysis, various dedicated safety projects, and as an element of other transportation projects. Public and professional involvement figures prominently in incorporating safety into the transportation planning process. The involvement is beneficial throughout the various stages of planning especially in developing safety goals and identifying future safety needs. Public and professional involvement is also important for implementing non-project solutions to address the safety needs of the transportation system. MPOs and DOTs can fill the coordination role, which is necessary throughout the planning process to facilitate the inclusion of safety. Special studies and crash data analysis are useful in various stages of the process including identifying future safety needs and potential solutions. Within each chapter, this report identifies how safety can be considered in the transportation planning process.

Exhibit 1-3
Overview of Transportation Planning Process in Context of Safety

Safety and Long-Range Planning Activities

State DOTs are responsible for establishing long-range goals and objectives for their transportation systems. MPOs develop long-range goals and objectives for the metropolitan areas. The safety of the transportation system is almost always one of those goals. These goals should not be limited to highway safety, but should also address the safety of other modes, including transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and heavy vehicles. States and MPOs should coordinate with their planning partners to develop the appropriate safety goals, objectives, and measures of effectiveness for the transportation system. This coordination should also extend beyond planning partners to include other groups interested in the safety of the transportation system such as law enforcement, emergency management, community groups, and safety advocates.

The safety goals and objectives are considered in the context of the future needs of the transportation system. Crash data analysis, special studies, and corridor studies can identify additional measures and projects that will be needed in the future to provide a safe transportation system. Similar to developing the goals and objectives, the planning partners and other stakeholders can help identify future safety needs. On the basis of the goals and objectives, both the state and the MPO can develop a long-range plan to address the future needs of the system.

Long-range planning activities for safety may also include incorporating safety into long-range facility planning through techniques such as predictive modeling or expert review. Safety could also be considered in long-range land-use planning and access management decisions. These issues are further discussed in Chapter 2.

Safety and Short-Range Planning Activities

The safety goals and objectives of the long-range plan are carried out through short-range planning activities. MPOs mainly program those activities through the TIP, and Statewide planners through the STIP. Safety can be incorporated in a variety of ways in the TIP or STIP programming process. Targeted long-range safety programs are often implemented project by project through short-range programming. Safety can also be one of the criteria used to evaluate and prioritize projects submitted for inclusion in the TIP or STIP. Safety projects can be submitted directly as a result of hazard identification programs, truck or freight safety programs, pedestrian or bicycle safety programs, or transit safety programs. Planners can encourage the consideration of safety improvements to all projects submitted for inclusion.

MPOs can use their roles as regional coordinators to incorporate safety into the transportation system. MPOs can serve as forums for various safety issues facing the transportation system, particularly those safety issues that are interjurisdictional. MPOs can also bolster support, both with the public and professional communities, for safety initiatives and consideration in all aspects of the transportation system.

Funding Sources for Safety and Transportation Planning Activities and Projects

Federal legislation provides several funding sources for a variety of safety improvements. TEA-21 reflected an unprecedented commitment to improve transportation safety. USC 23 makes funding available for safety improvements through several programs.

The Highway Safety Program (Section 402), administered jointly by NHTSA and FHWA, provides funds for state and community highway safety grants. These grants to states are available for enforcement, crash record systems, training, public education, and safety tool development. Typically, Section 402 funds are distributed by an office of safety planning, which is most often found in the Department of Transportation, the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety. The governor of the state is responsible for administration of the program through a state highway safety agency, and the person responsible for the program administration is called the governor's representative for highway safety. At least 40 percent of Section 402 funds must be expended for local traffic safety problems by political subdivisions of the state. The federal share is 100 percent of the cost of projects. Funding for Section 402 was about $146 million for fiscal year 2001.

The Hazard Elimination Program (Section 152) provides funds for safety improvements involving construction at hazardous locations and segments. The program can fund a variety of projects such as the installation of traffic signals and the construction of divided medians, or sidewalks. The expenditures can be made on any public road, any public surface transportation facility, any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway, or any traffic-calming measure. The federal share is 90 percent of the cost of projects.

The Railway/Highway Crossings Program (Section 130) provides funds for improvements at railway/highway crossings. Projects funded under this program include the installation of signs and markings, flashing light signals, automatic gates, and crossing surface improvements. Bicycle facilities also can be funded under this program if they improve safety at crossings. The federal share is 90 percent of the cost of projects.

The Surface Transportation Program provides for an optional safety set-aside within the 10 percent STP allocation, above and beyond the specific funds allocated to Section 130 or 152. This optional amount may be used at the discretion of the state and may be allocated to either the Section 152 or 130 programs. The federal share is the same as the program to which the funds are allocated-100 percent for the Hazard Elimination Program and 90 percent for the Railway/Highway Crossing Program. The combined funding for STP safety was about $546 million for fiscal year 2001.

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is the MPO for the Detroit metropolitan area. It has been able to finance its safety efforts through multiple funding sources. SEMCOG receives safety funds from both from the Office Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) of the Michigan State Police and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) through TEA-21. OHSP receives Section 402 and other monies from NHTSA, as well as funds from FHWA. SEMCOG has received funds from OHSP for both engineering activity and other driver behavior programs, such as the establishment of the statewide elderly mobility task force. Thus, SEMCOG receives funding from U.S. DOT through two different state agencies.

Institutional Issues to Safety Planning

A variety of institutional issues exist that make integration of safety into transportation planning difficult. It is important to understand these barriers in order to take proactive steps to overcome them.

Project Funding. Transportation funding is always in demand, as many key decision-makers would prioritize projects that accomplish other goals, such as congestion mitigation, before they would consider safety within the planning process. Planners must incorporate safety as a primary goal for it to be properly weighted by decision-makers and must encourage safety to be considered as a primary evaluation measure.
The time horizon for long-range transportation planning compared to the short-term focus of safety activities. Safety issues have to be addressed immediately and cannot be forestalled. Part of this problem stems from the short-range perspective of constituents within a community. For example, if a community views an intersection as unsafe, this places pressures on transportation agencies to create short-term improvements to that intersection and distracts from the development of longer range safety planning focus.
Institutional battles over control and responsibilities, such as between a state DOT and a local government. The case studies showed that within a given state, the roles and responsibilities for safety and transportation planning are not clearly defined. States, MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments should strive to understand each other's goals and projects in order to work together effectively.
Split responsibility for safety in a metropolitan area between multiple agencies. In many cases, within one region, several entities are responsible for the safety of the transportation system. A city, an MPO, and a state DOT may be responsible for varying parts of an area. Coordination among these agencies is crucial to implement their multi-modal plans.
Lack of crash information that could allow safety issues to be identified. Another ongoing concern is the quality and consistency of the data collection activities within an area. Transportation planners need reliable safety data to demonstrate where the problem areas exist and to develop countermeasures.
Liability concerns over data sharing. In many states, access to the crash data remains an issue. Agencies responsible for collecting and maintaining data are often reluctant to share data freely, but local agencies may need it to accurately conduct short-range planning. Planners should work with the state and local safety professional to gain access to safety data.
Need for more technically trained personnel in local governments, MPOs, and state DOT planning offices. Agencies need to make available the appropriate resources to effectively develop safety goals, understand future safety needs, develop solutions, consider safety goals and projects in the long- and short-range plans, and monitor and evaluate the projects. These trained personnel must also understand the key players for this process within a state and how to effectively coordinate among various agencies.
New partnerships among organizations (public and private) not traditionally involved in the planning process. The incorporation of safety into the planning process is a new concept, and will include players not previously involved in transportation planning. These agencies must collaborate with the more traditionally involved players to understand the role they could provide. Some examples of non-traditional partners include state highway police departments and insurance companies.

Understanding these challenges can assist agencies in considering safety in the transportation planning process. The goal of this report is to address these challenges and provide solutions and real-world examples.

Endnotes

The comparison is for fatalities from "unintentional injuries," which includes most deaths from injury and poisoning. The category excludes homicides (including legal intervention), suicides, deaths for which none of these categories can be determined, and war deaths (NSC, 2000, 8). By comparing National Safety Council with National Vital Statistics Systems data, it can be seen that fatalities from motor vehicle crashes exceed all other causes for ages from 1 through 24 (NSC, 2000, 8; DHHS, 2000, 176-77). back to text for chapter 1, endnote 1
Federal-aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 8 - Highway Safety, Chapter 2 - Safety Program Implementation, Section 3 - Highway Safety Improvement Program; Transmittal 298, HHS-11, March 5, 1979. back to text for chapter1, endnote 2
Subchapter J - Highway Safety, Part 924 - Highway Safety Improvement Program; 23 CFR Part 924. back to text for chapter 1, endnote 3