7/28/2017. Safety Performance Management: Target Setting and Coordination. Agenda. Safety Performance Management (SPM)

Transcription

1 Safety Performance Management: Target Setting and Coordination Stephen Ratke, P.E. Safety Engineer FHWA Texas Division Agenda Safety Performance Management Overview Regulation and Policy Safety Performance Measures Target Setting Activities to Date Texas CY 2018 Targets Timeline Resources Safety Performance Management (SPM) Transportation Performance Management is required by MAP-21 and the FAST Act Safety is just one aspect of several TPM areas required by law Regulation further defines TPM in 23 CFR 490 Policy, guidance, and other materials produced by FHWA are online: 1

2 5 Safety Performance Measures Number of Fatalities Rate of Fatalities Number of Serious Injuries Rate of Serious Injuries Number of Non-motorized Fatalities plus Serious Injuries Targets are based on 5-year averages ( for 2018 targets) 4 Aligning Safety Measures and Targets SHSP Measurable Objectives HSP Measures and Targets Annual Targets Must be Identical HSIP Measures and Targets 5 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) 6 2

3 Aspirational: Halve Fatalities by Reduce fatalities by 50% from 67 in 2010 to 33 by Fatalities Years Evidence Based Safety Target Setting Framework 8 Safety Targets: Evidenced based, data driven targets Best Practices Integrate Target into Communications Institutionalize Safety Targets Practice Substantive Safety 9 3

4 FHWA Assessment of Significant Progress A State DOT is determined to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets when at least four of the five established performance targets a) are met or b) the outcome for a performance measure is less than the five year rolling average data for the performance measure for the year prior to the establishment of the State s target 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 11 Integration with MPO Activities If updated after May 27, 2018 Long Range Statewide Transportation Plans (LRSTPs) and Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs) must include safety performance measures and targets Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) must include a description of how the STIP & TIP contributes to achieving the targets in the LRSTP & MTP Evaluated through TMA planning certification review or State DOT oversight 4

5 Texas Safety Target Setting Coordination Workshop Held January 18 in Austin ~100 people invited including all MPOs and SHSP stakeholders ~30 attendees in person ~40 attendees via web Facilitated by FHWA and FHWA consultant Workshop Summary Discussed Texas experience to date with reporting safety measures to NHTSA TxDOT has been reporting increases in fatalities A goal of reducing from the projected increase Built a draft timeline for meeting the NHTSA and FHWA deadlines for state target setting Began the conversation of coordination with MPOs MPO deadlines and reporting mechanisms TBD Coordination and Current Activities TxDOT: Pulled data for target setting April 14 Established draft targets Presented to SHSP stakeholders for comments May 23 Approved by SHSP stakeholders committee May 31 Approved by SHSP Executive Committee May 31 Distributed to TEMPO June 30 Submitted to NHTSA July 1 Will submit to FHWA by August 31 5

6 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 4,500 Total Number of Traffic Fatalities 4,250 4,000 3,750 [CATEGORY NAME] CRIS: [VALUE] 2% reduction from projection 3,500 3,250 3, Fatalities (FARS data) Linear Projection Targets 2016 CRIS TxDOT Targets Fatality Rate 1.55 Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT % reduction from projection Fatality Rate (FARS data) Linear Projection Targets 6

7 TxDOT Targets Serious Injuries 20,000 Total Number of Incapacitating Injuries 19,500 19,000 18,500 18,000 17,500 2% reduction from projection 17,000 16,500 16,000 15,500 15, Incapacitating Injuries (CRIS data) Linear Projection Targets TxDOT Targets Serious Injury Rate 7.10 Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Million VMT Maintain negative trendline Incapacitating Injuries (CRIS data) Linear Projection Targets TxDOT Targets Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries Pedestrian Fatalities FARS Pedestrian Serious Injuries CRIS 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Bicyclist Fatalities FARS Bicyclist Serious Injuries CRIS Linear projection individually, then added together for the overall target 7

8 TxDOT Targets Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries - 2 3,000 Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2,750 2,500 2,250 [CATEGORY NAME] CRIS: [VALUE] 2% reduction from projection 2,000 1,750 1, 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: Year Target or Actual Data Source 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 Source Actual Data ,536 FARS ,516 ARF ,775 CRIS ,801 Target ,891 Target ,133 CRIS ,096 CRIS ,578 CRIS ,890 Target ,130 Target 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average 3, 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 Source Year Target or Source Actual Data Actual Data FARS ARF CRIS Target Target CRIS CRIS CRIS Target Target 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average Target expressed as 5-year average

9 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 Source Actual Data ,893 FARS-CRIS ,023 FARS-CRIS ,304 FARS-CRIS ,224 Target ,309 Target 2018 Target expressed as 5-year average 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? Timeline for 2018 Targets Target Setting Target Coordination Approval By Spring, begin By June, engaging DOT, secure CY SHSO, and MPO 2018 target stakeholders approval from Set targets DOT/SHSO for CY 2018 leadership July 1 August 31 By February 27 SHSO submits State DOT submits MPOs establish HSP to NHTSA HSIP Annual safety targets including 3 Report to FHWA, identical safety including safety targets targets Process repeats for each calendar year December 2019 Data available to evaluate targets March 2020 States notified whether they met or made significant progress toward CY 2018 targets 9

10 MPO Activities State targets available now Decide to support state targets or establish region specific targets Finalize targets by February 27, 2018 Reporting of targets to TxDOT to be determined Integrate performance measures and targets into other plans (MTP, TIP) after May 27, 2018 Technical assistance with target setting is available as needed Resources