By the end of Lesson 7, you should be able to:
Highway safety is an important area of focus for state DOTs and the USDOT. There are few groups within the USDOT who are focused on improving highway safety. The first is the Office of Safety. The Office of Safety is comprised of two units. The Technologies Unit deals with safety-related highway design considerations and technologies which can be used to improve highway safety performance. The Programs Unit oversees federal and state safety programs. One of the key programs they administer is the Highway Safety Improvement Programs (HSIP). HSIP is a federal-aid program designed to provide funding to states for projects aimed at reducing fatalities and serious injuries on qualifying roadways. In 2016, the program provided about 2.2 billion dollars to the states for safety projects.
Fiscal Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Funding* | $2.226 B | $2.275 B | $2.318 B | $2.360 B | $2.407 B |
Reference: FHWA Website [1] accessed 12/31/2016
To qualify for HSIP funds, a state is required to develop and maintain a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is designed to guide the investment of funds to projects which have the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. To qualify for HSIP funds, states are also required to identify their priorities using a Data-Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA).
The second group within USDOT which is responsible for highway safety is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA is an administration within USDOT whose mission is to reduce crash fatalities and injuries. We’ll take a close look at NHTSA later in this lesson.
State DOTs commonly collect and use crash data to identify areas of their roadway networks where there are unusually high crash rates. However, looking at crash data alone can be misleading and result in a less than optimal use of available state and federal dollars. To address this problem, AASHTO, in conjunction with the FHWA, developed the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), a document which many consider the definitive reference on highway safety. The HSM offers a comprehensive and balanced approach and set of tools which consider operations, the environment, and the cost of construction alongside safety considerations. A good overview of the HSM can be found here. [2] The approaches provided in the HSM go beyond traditional approaches to identifying priority locations for safety improvements which rely solely on crash history data.
There are two fundamental problems associated with using crash data alone. First, crashes are statistical events and as such don’t occur at regular predictable intervals. Consequently, crash data alone can sometimes lead an agency to falsely identify sections of a roadway as high risk and, conversely, sometimes overlook a risky section. The second problem of looking solely at historic crash data is that it disregards the dependence of crash frequency on traffic. As traffic levels increase on a section of the roadway due to changing travel patterns, crash rates can increase. To overcome these limitations, it is necessary to look not only at historic crash frequencies but also at expected crash frequencies based on roadway characteristics and traffic data.
Tools have been developed which implement the approaches defined in the HSM. These include AASSHTO’s Safety Analyst and FHWA’s Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). However, states often lack much of the data required to effectively use these tools, such as horizontal and vertical curve data. Horizontal curves are roadway curves that turn to the left or right, and vertical curves are roadway peaks/hills and valleys. For my Capstone Project, I used roadway centerline data to extract horizontal curvature data from Pennsylvania’s roadways. I gave a lightning talk on the project at Penn State in November 2016 for GIS day. My presentation was just under 10 minutes in length (embedded video below).
Two model frameworks have been developed to help states structure the crash and roadway data needed for highway safety analyses in a standard format. The first is the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC [3]). MMUCC is a list of standard crash data elements and associated definitions developed by NHSTA. While the implementation of this model is voluntary, states are encouraged to adhere to the standard in collecting and compiling crash data. Similar in concept to the MMUCC, the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements MIRE [4] is a list of over 200 roadway and traffic data elements critical to safety management developed by the FHWA.
Collecting roadway data according to the MIRE model will not only benefit the state DOT in regards to traffic safety efforts, it will also help other core areas of transportation such as operations, asset management, and maintenance.
Once a section of roadway has been identified for needed safety improvements, an agency needs to decide which types of countermeasures would be the most effective. There are many types of safety countermeasures that could be implemented. Here’s a list of 20 proven countermeasures [5] published by FHWA’s Office of Safety.
FARS [6] is a system used to collect, store and analyze fatalities on U.S. roadways. The system is administered by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) which is part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The system includes data from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The primary purpose of the system is to monitor the effectiveness of vehicle safety standards and highway safety programs which are implemented at the state level. Only crashes which result in at least one fatality and occur on a roadway which is open to the public are included in FARS.
Some states make crash data available to the public and other interested parties via a web portal. As an example, Pennsylvania makes crash information available via the Pennsylvania Crash Information Tool (PCIT) [7].
Many of the reports on this site are similar to those in FARS. PennDOT is in the process of adding mapping capabilities to the next version of PCIT scheduled for release in the spring of 2017. Similar to FARS, PennDOT also makes raw crash data available. The PCIT site simply guides users to the PennDOT’s GIS Data Portal [8] for this data.
Pennsylvania crash data is available from 1997 to 2016. Differences between the FARS crash data and PennDOT’s crash data include:
As we learned in Lesson 6, spatial technologies are used to locate crashes and perform crash analysis to locate crash hotspots, otherwise known as crash clusters. Spatial technologies also play a critical role in expanding network screening to include roadway characteristics and traffic data in addition to historic crash data as called for in the HSM. Spatial analyses not only help in identifying priority sections of the roadway for safety improvements, but they can also be used to determine the countermeasures which are most likely to be effective and to assess their impact once they have been in place for a period of time. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, GIS plays a huge role in vehicle to vehicle communications and autonomous car technologies. These initiatives promise to have revolutionary impacts on highway safety and make the goal of 0 fatalities seem not so far-fetched.
In August 2013, FHWA published a document titled Assessment of the Geographic Information Systems’ (GIS) Needs and Obstacles in Traffic Safety [9]. In the document, FHWA identified some of the challenges states face in collecting and integrating crash data in addition to some of the opportunities GIS offers to address these issues.
This week, you’ll take some time to get to know the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA - pronounced "NITS-uh”). NHTSA is an agency within the USDOT responsible for reducing deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The agency was created by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 to administer programs that had previously been the responsibility of the National Highway Safety Bureau.
Dr. Mark Rosekind was the NHTSA Administrator under the Obama administration. Take a look at a 37-minute presentation (below) he gave at the Original Equipment Suppliers Association [10](OESA) 2016 annual meeting. Also, spend some time reviewing NHTSA’s 2016-2020 strategic plan titled “The Road Ahead [11]”.
Strategic Goal | Strategic Objectives |
---|---|
Safety |
|
Proactive Vehicle Safety |
|
Automated Vehicles |
|
Human Choices |
|
Organizational Excellence |
|
Credit: THE ROAD AHEAD, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Strategic Plan 2016—2020 (USDOT, NHTSA October 2016)
A few of NHTSA’s areas of focus are briefly described below:
NHTSA plays a large role in accepting and tracking vehicle safety complaints which can ultimately lead to safety recalls. They also administer the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) which assesses and scores vehicle models using a 5-star safety rating. Safety rating and recall information [13] is compiled and made available to consumers. Using this information, consumers can quickly determine how specific vehicles perform in front-end, side, and rear-end collisions in addition to rollovers. NHTSA also compiles safety information on car seats, tires, and other equipment.
DDACTS is a model which NHTSA developed in association with the Department of Justice (DOJ). It uses the temporal and spatial analysis of crash and crime data to identify the optimal deployment of highly visible law enforcement personnel and vehicles. Detailed information about the model is available in the DDACTS Operational Guidelines [14].
The purpose of the National 911 Program [15] is to promote and coordinate 911 services across the U.S. NHTSA is currently promoting and rolling out the Next Generation of 911 (NG911) which will modernize 911 systems based on advances in technology which have occurred since 911 was first put in place 50 years ago.
The Office of Vehicle Safety Research is a NHTSA Office that develops and implements research programs designed to reduce crashes, fatalities, and injuries. Some of their research activities can be found here [16].
The NCSA [17] is an office within NHTSA which provides analytical and statistical support to the agency through data collection, crash investigations, and data analysis. One of NCSA’s responsibilities is to maintain and enhance FARS. They also produce many useful and interesting publications summarizing information gathered by NHTSA [18].
This week, you’ll have a one-on-one chat with one of your classmates (or me) as per the schedule you were provided in Week 1. The discussion should be at least 30 minutes in length. If it’s the first time you’ve chatted with each other, spend the majority of time getting to know each other. Otherwise, focus on discussing the lesson content.
Next week, we'll hear from 2 speakers.
Our first speaker will be Mr. Jeff Roecker. Jeff graduated from Penn State with a degree in Geography and joined PennDOT in 2008. Jeff plays a lead role in the Department's Crash Data Analysis and Retrieval Tool (CDART), and he is the project manager for PennDOT's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).
FHWA requires all states to maintain a database of crashes in order to support the analysis of crash locations. There is variation from state to state on how they define reportable crashes, how they collect the information and how readily they share the information. Many states publish annual summaries of crash data for the prior year and also provide trending information for various crash statistics. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) publishes an annual report entitled Crash Facts and Statistics. The 2016 version of this publication can be found here [19].
Crash data is important to state DOTs for a number of reasons. First, without this data, an agency doesn’t know if things are improving. Second, this data can offer clues to where safety improvement or countermeasures are most needed. Crash patterns can also be used to help law enforcement design initiatives associated with seat belt usage and checkpoints for impaired drivers.
Law enforcement officials are generally responsible for reporting crashes. In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Police Officers Crash Report Manual provides law enforcement agencies instructions on reporting crash data including definitions of which types of crashes are reportable to PennDOT. The police use a multipage form (AA 500 [20]) to report crash data. The form captures extensive information about the crash including the location, all vehicles and individuals involved in the crash, the number and nature of any injuries, weather and road conditions at the time of the crash, a diagram of the crash, and statements from any witnesses. PennDOT also provides a detailed reference document known as Pub 153 [21] to help police officers complete the form correctly.
PennDOT also has a web-based system called the Crash Reporting System (CRS) which provides an electronic alternative to submitting crash data. A user’s guide for the system can be found here [22]. CRS is also used by PennDOT to review and validate all data which is automatically retrieved from paper forms which are received from law enforcement agencies. Any meaningful analysis of crash data requires that the data is accurate and complete.
State DOTs use crash data to identify locations where there are unusually high crash rates and also to determine measures which will likely lower these crash rates. One of the most useful types of crash analysis, which is used by many state DOTs, is a spatial technique known as cluster or hot spot determination. This type of determination is done using GIS software by stepping along each route and identifying sections of roadway which meet the definition of a crash cluster based on established parameter settings for the analysis.
In Pennsylvania, crash data submitted by law enforcement agencies electronically via CRS or the AA500 paper form, are processed and stored in a system known as the Crash Data Access and Retrieval Tool (CDART). CDART is a geospatial application which allows PennDOT to perform a variety of crash analyses including crash cluster analyses. It performs two basic types of crash cluster analysis. The first is a standard cluster analysis where each road is considered separately. The second is an intersection-based cluster which examines the number of crashes which occur on all associated roads within a certain distance of the point of intersection. One of the other interesting analyses CDART performs is a “before and after” analysis which compares crash frequencies for a section of roadway before and after a safety improvement was implemented to determine its effectiveness. For each of the analyses CDART performs, the system allows the user to generate tabular or map-based outputs. CDART is an internal tool to PennDOT and is not available for public use.
On May 30, 2013, Sharon Hawkins of the Arkansas DOT gave a 42-minute presentation on some of the GIS tools [23] they use to locate and analyze crashes (located below). The presentation was part of the FHWA GIS in Transportation webinar series. The webinar provides an excellent perspective on the importance of GIS in collecting and analyzing crash data. Many states have gone through a similar evolution and set of problems in their efforts to manage and utilize crash data to improve highway safety.
Our second speaker will be Mr. Jeremy Freeland. Jeremy is a Transportation Planning Manager in the Transportation Planning Division of PennDOT’s Bureau of Planning and Research. He is responsible for coordinating and overseeing all of PennDOT’s traffic collection efforts, both manual and automated. He is also responsible for assembling PennDOT’s annual Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) submittal to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Jeremy has been with PennDOT for 13 years. He earned a geography degree from Shippensburg University in 2003.
FHWA is responsible for collecting sufficient highway characteristics and performance data in order to support their own needs as well as those of the USDOT and Congress. HPMS is a national information system which was created to fulfill this need. Initially developed in 1978 as a replacement of biennial roadway condition studies which began in 1965, one of the primary purposes of HPMS is still to provide Congress with a biennial assessment of U.S. roads for use in estimating future highway investment needs. Here is a link to the 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance [24]. HPMS is also used for a multitude of other purposes, not the least of which is apportioning Federal-aid highway monies to the states.
The specific data collection and reporting requirements state DOTs need to comply with are defined in the HPMS Field Manual [25]. FHWA also provides software to submit, validate, and analyze state HPMS data. This software is web-based and is only available to authorized users (typically those staff at a state DOT with responsibilities for reporting HPMS data). The guide for the latest version of this software (i.e., version 8.0) is provided here. [26]
One of the most important types of data collected for HPMS is traffic data. Of the 70 or so HPMS data elements states are required to report, about a dozen are traffic elements. FHWA’s 2016 Traffic Monitoring Guide [27] is a document designed to help states put together a traffic monitoring program.
In this lesson, you learned about traffic safety and the efforts of state DOTs to make our highways safer. You also took a close look at federally reported crash data (i.e., FARS) in addition to an example of crash data which is collected at the state level.
Our transportation organization of the week was NHTSA, an administration with USDOT focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on America’s roadways. You had the opportunity to explore some of their specific activities and programs.
In our weekly webinar, we had the opportunity to interact with Doug Tomlinson, an expert in ITS.
In preparation for next week’s webinar, you learned a little about how crash data is collected in the field. You also took a look at HPMS and about the types of traffic data states need to collect in addition to the methods and tools they use to collect it.
Finally, you had the opportunity to get to know one of your classmates a little better and share some of your ideas and questions about this week’s lesson materials.
If there is anything in the Lesson 7 materials about which you would like to ask a question or provide a comment, submit a posting to the Lesson 7 Questions and Comments discussion. Also, review others’ postings to this discussion and respond if you have something to offer or if you are able to help.
Links
[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm
[2] http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Documents/HSMP-1.pdf
[3] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811631
[4] http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/
[5] http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
[6] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
[7] https://crashinfo.penndot.gov/PCIT/welcome.html
[8] http://data.pennshare.opendata.arcgis.com/
[9] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/13096/13096.pdf
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaTK2L8Nj4
[11] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog855/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.geog855/files/Files/12532-NHTSA-StrategicPlan-2016-2020.pdf
[12] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYy1epDMXjnuwQ7lrUPKEQg
[13] https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls#vehicle
[14] https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/ddacts/811185_DDACTS_OpGuidelines.pdf
[15] https://www.911.gov/about_national_911program.html
[16] http://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data
[17] https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/national-center-statistics-and-analysis-ncsa
[18] http://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#/
[19] http://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Documents/2016_CFB_linked.pdf
[20] https://www.reportbeam.com/RBInfo30/states/pdfsamples/PennsylvaniaSample.pdf
[21] https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/stateCatalog/states/pa/docs/PA_Crash_Manual_Pub153_sub_11_2010.pdf
[22] http://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Documents/WebManual.pdf
[23] http://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/p2xo4mimbcs/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
[24] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/index.cfm
[25] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/
[26] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/softwareguide/hpms_software_guide.pdf
[27] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/