INTEGRATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Sponsored by: New York Metropolitan Planning Organizations Federal Highway Administration
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Table of Contents Background ............................................................................................................................
1
New York State MPO SCP Forum...................................................................................... SCP Forum Objectives .................................................................................................. Participants .................................................................................................................... Agenda ...........................................................................................................................
2 2 3 3
Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................... Planning It Safe.............................................................................................................. Countermeasure Strategies.......................................................................................... Resources........................................................................................................................
3 3 7 14
Recommendations and Next Steps .................................................................................... Recommendations......................................................................................................... Next Steps ......................................................................................................................
16 16 17
Appendix A Forum Participant List Appendix B Forum Agenda Appendix C Traffic Incident Response Scan
Planning It Safe
i
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Background Injury is the leading cause of death in the U.S. from about six months to 45 years of age and, because it so disproportionately strikes the young, it is also the leading cause of lost years of productive life. Motor vehicle injury is overwhelmingly the largest component of these losses. Safety improvement requires progress toward reducing the crash experience of drivers, passengers, and other more vulnerable road users. In 2003, 42,643 people died on the nation’s roadways, and nearly three million were injured in motor vehicle-related crashes. Over the past few years, the number of fatalities has remained essentially unchanged. The human and economic consequences of these crashes are unaffordable and unacceptable. In the absence of substantial progress, more than 400,000 people will die on the roadways during the current decade at a cost of nearly $2.0 trillion. The majority of motor vehicle crashes is predictable and preventable; the carnage is unnecessary. The major focus and most visible commitment to safety in the U.S. over at least the past two decades have been on vehicle crash worthiness and driver behavior; yet, the effectiveness of those strategies appears to have plateaued in terms of reducing the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. In 2003, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, issued a “Call to Quarters” and set a national goal of reducing fatalities to a rate of 1.0 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2008. In 2003, 1,491 people died in motor vehicle crashes in New York. The statewide fatality rate was 1.10, which is lower than the national rate of 1.48 and close to the national goal. All U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) modes and many other organizations are supporting this goal, including the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). A number of strategies are being implemented across the nation to drive down the human and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes and meet the goal of 1.0 fatality per 100 million VMT by 2008. One initiative focuses on the explicit consideration of safety in the traditional transportation planning processes. This action is mandated for all state DOTs and metropolitan planning organization (MPOs) by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and its implementation is supported by a group of strategies led by a broad-based coalition of transportation agencies and professional associations known as the Safety Conscious Planning Working Group (SCPWG). One of the strategic initiatives is to sponsor state and regional safety conscious planning (SCP) forums to start a dialogue among the traditionally siloed transportation and safety agencies and to develop collaborative strategies for improving safety. New York is the 23rd state to host a forum. A second relevant and important initiative is based on implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which will, upon completion, include 22 countermeasure areas and guidebooks designed to assist states in developing comprehensive highway Planning It Safe
1
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
safety plans (CHSPs), identifying their priority problem areas and contributing to the nationwide effort of achieving the 1.0 goal.
New York State MPO SCP Forum The New York forum was unique because it was conceptualized, planned, and organized by the MPOs. The New York State MPO Association represents the state’s thirteen metropolitan planning organizations. They range from small urban areas like Elmira and Ithaca to the New York City metro area. The Forum was held June 9 and 10, 2005, in Poughkeepsie, New York. Steven Gayle, Executive Director of the Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study (BMTS), brought together MPOs from around the State for a forum planning meeting. Coordination was provided by a dedicated planning committee, whose members include: •
Steven Gayle, Executive Director, Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study;
•
Aaron Frankenfeld, Transportation Planning Director, Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
•
Rich Perrin, Executive Director, Genesee Transportation Council;
•
Jay Schissell, Director, Elmira Chemung Transportation Council;
•
Eoin Wrafter, Senior Planner, Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council;
•
Stan Darwak, New York State DOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Division
•
Richard Beers, Planning Engineer, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), New York Division; and
•
Richard Backlund, FHWA, New York City Metro Office.
SCP Forum Objectives The New York MPOs were interested in learning about strategies for integrating safety into the traditional transportation planning processes and their potential role in the development and implementation of a CHSP. The forum was designed to share good practices from within and beyond New York in both safety planning and safety countermeasures. The planning committee established the following set of objectives to guide the forum planning process: •
Outline and review traditional traffic engineering approaches for addressing safety;
•
Identify proactive safety improvement strategies;
Planning It Safe
2
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
Learn the procedures and requirements for acquiring highway safety funds to support education and enforcement programs; and
•
Identify and structure a strategy for sharing best practice among the 13 New York MPOs.
Participants Nearly 90 people registered for the New York State (NYS) MPO SCP Forum, representing a mix of professionals from New York and New Jersey MPOs, Departments of Public Works, state and local police departments, Traffic Safety Boards, city/town/county engineers, transit operators, thruway and port authorities, the DOT, consultants, the FHWA, and NHTSA. A participant list is provided in Appendix A.
Agenda The Forum began with a keynote address reviewing the transportation planning process and discussing potential safety integration strategies. The presentation was followed by panels addressing different perspectives on enhancing safety and specific examples of good practice. Breakout groups were structured to focus on one of three topics: 1) engineering, 2) human factors, and 3) proactive planning strategies. Each of the breakout groups reported on “lessons learned” followed by a general discussion on next steps for NY MPO safety integration efforts. The agenda can be found in Appendix B.
Lessons Learned Planning It Safe The keynote address was given by Dr. Michael Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Meyer is a national expert in transportation planning and the author of the Guidebook for Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning and Decision-making. He began by presenting an overview of the generic transportation planning process, and showed where safety could be addressed and how safety conscious planning can be used as a starting point for developing CHSPs, as well as specific countermeasure plans. The idea in SCP is to establish a commitment to collaboration and to develop shared goals, objectives, and performance measures. Dr. Meyer defined the steps in transportation planning as follows: Step 1: Understanding the problem – What do the data say? Step 2: Creating a vision – What are we trying to achieve?
Planning It Safe
3
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Step 3: Developing goals, objectives, and performance measures – How does the vision link to reality (i.e., goals and objectives), and how do we measure progress? Step 4: Using the data – What analysis methods and tools are available for understanding the problem and identifying alternative improvement strategies? Step 5: Evaluating alternative strategies – What methods are available for evaluating tradeoffs and determining investments in specific strategies, such as infrastructure improvements, law enforcement, policies, operations, etc.? Step 6: Implementing the strategies – How do we implement and monitor the safety goals and objectives in the long- and short-range transportation plans, and how will we evaluate the outcomes?
Vision Why is visioning important? If safety is not in the vision/mission statements, then it will not likely be reflected later in the process. Educating the public and elected officials is critical to the success of any safety program. In the first place, safety is a priBest Practice: Vision Statement ority planning requirement according California has a safe sustainable transportation system to Federal law, but there are other that is environmentally sound, socially equitable, legitimate reasons to address safety economically viable, and developed through issues. One strategy is to compare the collaboration; it provides for the mobility and costs of safety and congestion. accessibility of people, goods, services, and information Washington State estimates the cost of through an integrated, multimodal network. motor vehicle crashes as three times higher than congestion-related costs. The congestion costs in the Atlanta Region (2001 data) were estimated to be $2.021 billion, while the traffic safety costs totaled $3.314 billion. Another strategy for educating elected officials and the public is to compare crime and crash statistics. Jurisdictions typically find that the number of deaths and injuries associated with traffic crashes far outweighs the number of crime-related fatalities. In fact, research has shown that highly visible traffic enforcement has a positive effect on crime suppression as well.
Data Collection, Management and Analysis Safety planning is a data-driven enterprise; however, access to the relevant data is often an issue because of the following several factors: •
Under-reporting – Minor crashes are seldom investigated.
•
Field coding – Filling out the police accident reports is not a priority at crash scenes; officers are focused on treating the injured and returning traffic flow to normal.
•
Reference system – Different methods are used for locating crashes.
Planning It Safe
4
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
Inconsistencies – State databases contain different variables and are presented in different formats.
•
Timeliness – Data is often two to three years old, if not more.
•
Accessibility – Some states and regions do not share data with other agencies for fear of liability.
•
Rates – Using fatality and injury rates often masks the true nature of the problem. Using raw numbers probably provides a better method for identifying problems and tracking performance.
Best Practice: Houston/Galveston and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) are able to integrate, analyze, and display their crash data. They disaggregate by type of crash and safety issue (e.g., truck/ pedestrian/bicyclist safety, location (hot spots), impaired driving, etc. They also provide safety services, such as training for local engineers, mayors and judges, and school education programs; form partnerships with government at all levels, the private sector, non-profits and community groups; review project designs for safety; and encourage their constituents to include safety in designs.
Dr. Meyer encouraged the audience to Keep working on the data issues but, in the meantime, there are things that can be accomplished without good data. For example, if crashes cannot be located for identifying hot spots, interviews with law enforcement, the public, local engineers, and others may reveal crash problems based on observation and experience. Knowing the characteristics of your safety challenge is a basic point of departure. Although some participants said that state data is available to the MPOs, some MPOs do not have access to it. The participants agreed to explore this apparent discrepancy further.
Safety Integration Methods Other states and MPOs are working to create methods for integrating safety into the current transportation planning processes. Opinions differ as to the most effective methods for achieving safety integration. Safety prioritization criteria can be used to ensure safety is a consideration in state transportation improvements programs (STIPs) and transportation improvement programs (TIPs). Effective methods for rating safety in project prioritization schemes are elusive. In addition, it is not clear how to address noninfrastructure projects in traditional transportation plans.
Planning Process Assessment Tool Professor Meyer summarized by providing the following checklist for assessing the status of safety in the transportation planning process: •
Is safety addressed in the vision statement?
•
Is safety included in at least one planning goal and objective?
•
Does the plan include safety-related performance measures?
Planning It Safe
5
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
Are crash data and other information sources used to identify problems and potential solutions?
•
Are one or more analysis tools used to analyze impacts?
•
Are safety evaluation criteria used?
•
Do products/plans include at least some actions that focus on safety?
•
To the extent that a prioritization scheme is used to develop programs, is safety a priority factor?
•
Is there a systematic monitoring process?
•
Are all the key safety stakeholders involved in the planning process?
Best Practice in State and Regional Safety Integration Both Iowa and Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) have longstanding, effective comprehensive transportation safety programs with several features in common. The following list of action steps is characteristic of both jurisdictions: 1. Created a vision for the safety program. 2. Generated support from other agencies, as well as appointed and elected officials through long-term, continuous public education. 3. Collected, organized, and analyzed data to identify and quantify safety problems. 4. Mapped the high crash locations and examined the demographics associated with those locations. For example, both jurisdictions realize they have a rapidly growing older population whose mobility and safety needs must be addressed. 5. Performed evaluation on safety projects and conducted cost/benefit analyses. 6. Recruited and educated partners to assist with program and project implementation. 7. Monitored and established a feedback loop to link the information produced in evaluations to the vision, project selection, and all other steps in the process. While there may be other steps along the way, this list establishes a baseline for comprehensive planning efforts. The same framework can be used to develop specific countermeasure area plans. Using a data-driven, collaborative, comprehensive approach with the support of appointed and elected officials is common practice in other countries that have made gains in safety in recent years. For example, the State of Victoria in Australia has reduced fatalities by 50 percent over the past 10 years. This simply demonstrates that the objec-
Planning It Safe
6
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
tives can be accomplished. States in the U.S. may use different strategies, but the basic steps are the same in all successful cases.
Countermeasure Strategies Steven Gayle encouraged the participants to think about future planning needs and strategies (i.e., a proactive approach). Planners should study the demographic trends and anticipate future issues, such as the aging driver population and increasing commercial vehicle traffic. Countermeasure strategies were generally addressed according to the four Es of safety – engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency response – in both formal presentations and the breakout discussion groups. A more general “human behavior” component was also addressed. In all cases, data are critical for correctly identifying the location, size, and characteristics of a safety problem. To increase the “readability” of the Forum report, the information is synthesized from the presentations and group discussions. For more detailed information, the individual presentations can be viewed on the accompanying CD.
Data The Elmira Chemung Transportation Council (MPO) has experienced difficulty getting data from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), so they have developed a regional system where 75 percent of crashes are automatically matched to a location with geographic information systems (GIS), and the rest are coded by hand. The data are available in most cases within 90 days. A consultant is compiling quarterly summaries of City of Elmira crash data. According to Jay Schissell, the MPO finds many uses for the crash data, including the following. •
Updating the long-range plan;
•
Developing corridor and network studies;
•
Identifying high crash locations (network analyses) and announcing plans for addressing them;
•
Implementing a new signal system and a traffic control system;
•
Educating the public and working with the media; and
•
Identifying locations for selective traffic enforcement.
Planning It Safe
7
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Engineering The FHWA’s priority safety areas include lane departures (run off the road and head on collisions), intersections, and pedestrian safety. These areas were chosen, because at the national level, a large proportion of the fatalities involve one or more of these characteristics. The issue of pedestrian safety is particularly important for New York, where the percentage of pedestrian fatalities (25 percent in New York City) is well above the national average (11 percent). Lane departure crashes often include speeding, inattention, poor visibility, and colliding with obstacles. Rumble strips have reduced these crashes in some places by as much as 70 percent. Other countermeasures include removing obstacles, such as trees, poles, brick and steel mailboxes, and upgrading guard rails. Other countermeasures focus on reducing impact severity with crashworthy devices; shielding the obstacles; providing better guidance and delineation with wet reflective pavement markings, back lighting, etc.; and identifying and removing hazardous roadside hardware. At the national level, 25 percent of fatal crashes and 50 percent of injury crashes occur at or near an intersection. Increasingly, attention is being focused on the use of red light running cameras which have been proven effective in New York City (NYC) and other places, yet city and state governments are often reluctant to authorize this effective enforcement technique, because of the “big brother” connotations. Roundabouts have been proven effective in mitigating hazardous intersections. Pedestrian Safety The School Safety Engineering Program in NYC was presented as best practice by Jackson Wandres of the RBA Group. Safe Routes to School is a program aimed at improving the safety and security of school neighborhoods so children will walk or bike to school; hence, increasing their exercise and health, as well as reducing congestion. In NYC, between 70 and 90 percent of the students walk to school, but many concerns remain about the safety of the walking environment. The goals of the School Safety Engineering Program are to: 1.
Improve traffic and pedestrian safety;
2.
Create a database for each school;
3.
Map walking routes to school (See Figure 1 for an example, i.e. the map for Henry Thoreau Shoal, P.S. 17 & Annex);
4.
Identify school safety measures;
5.
Develop mitigation measures for 135 priority schools; and
6.
Identify 32 schools and conduct engineering studies for capital improvements.
Planning It Safe
8
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Although most of the suggested countermeasures are geared toward engineering, it is also important to address educational, cultural, and enforcement issues. The problems identified in the studies included congestion on the sidewalks and around the schools, illegal turns and other unsafe driving behaviors, vehicle mix, lack of signage, etc. Often parents were virtually teaching their children dangerous behaviors when walking them to school by what Wandres called “gap theory” (i.e., cross where there is a gap in traffic!) This is considered normal behavior in NYC. However, children do not have the ability to judge speeds and gaps in traffic. A second cultural phenomenon observed is aggressivity. Aggressive drivers beget aggressive pedestrians. Youth were observed showing off or proving themselves by “taking on” the traffic. The program goals have been largely accomplished, and the program is entering the implementation phase. One of the products of the study was a toolbox of approximately 70 mitigation measures for the engineers, such as speed humps, road narrowing, curb extensions, center medians, colorized pavement, signs, signals, markings, etc. The toolbox also includes an evaluation matrix to show decision-makers the tradeoffs and various countermeasure outcomes. Figure 1: Safe Routes to School Map for Henry Thoreau School P.S. 17 & Annex
Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council Safety Strategies Andy Avery, Senior Engineer for the City of Elmira, and Chris Smith, Fisher Associates, described their regional safety programs.
Planning It Safe
9
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
Data – The Elmira Quarterly Crash Reporting project uses GIS-based crash data to provide monthly updates, average crash rates, and high crash locations. Graphs can be generated that illustrate correlations between types of crashes, road conditions, driver age, collisions with fixed objects, and month. GIS data show high crash intersections by comparing crash rates with other city intersections.
•
The Traffic Signal Upgrade project – Signal upgrades and road safety audits on existing roads. Safety audits are a proactive process to identify sites with promise for improving safety before there is an incident. Historically, safety programming has been reactive, responding to the findings of crash investigations.
•
Removing trees close to the roadway
•
Repainting worn pavement markings and replacing damaged and faded signs and detection loops
•
Providing left-turn bays at intersections to respond to older driver needs
•
Improving geometrics at corners to protect pedestrians from turning motorists
•
Modifying “share the road” signs to alert motorists to bicyclists
•
Installing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/driver feedback loops
•
Posting crossing guards to protect children at a new school location where students cross a high-speed road to get to the building
Work Zones The public is impatient with work zones; they want crews to get in, get out, and stay out. The MPO’s challenge is to design a work zone that meets customer expectation for safe and efficient service. Planners can minimize disruption by coordinating schedules within and between jurisdictions and ensuring stakeholder participation (e.g., bus operators need to know that a road is going to be closed so passengers are not left waiting. New Jersey MPO Engineering Strategies The NYS MPOs invited MPOs from New Jersey to share their experiences and strategies. Lois Goldman, Manager for Corridor Studies and Project Planning for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NHTPA), and Tim Chelius, Executive Director of the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO), described how they use data to identify safety problems and road safety audits to develop collaborative, multidisciplinary strategies. In South Jersey, intersection audits led to low cost ($100,000) safety improvements when the original estimate for fixing the intersections was $9.2 million. Due to the success in identifying problems and effective low cost solutions, audits are now an ongoing activity. SJTPO uses the $1 million it receives from the NJDOT for safety improvements each year, in part to help local governments with project development. Even though NYSDOT does not provide that level of safety funding to MPOs, safety pro-
Planning It Safe
10
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
jects can be funded without a set-aside if there is a justification for the project based on benefit/cost analysis. NJTPA used NJDOT data to identify and prioritize safety problems. One outcome was to help NJ Transit assess the safety needs of two high crash bus stops. Twenty-three locations were identified as high priority. NJTPA was able to provide $2.4 million for county safety improvements, and engineering studies are being conducted. The MPO continues to work on safety project prioritization criteria as there is little guidance available.
Emergency Response Mr. Kevin McGinnis of the National Association of State EMS Directors spoke to the importance of improving emergency response to mitigating crash consequences. The future of emergency response lies in technology, much of which is available but far from fully implemented. The golden rules of emergency response aim to achieve an average of 10 minutes for emergency responders to arrive at the scene of an accident, and less than one hour for transporting injured victims to hospitals or trauma centers. The “Golden Hour” has been scientifically evaluated and found to be highly correlated with survival and injury mitigation. Efficient emergency response is important not only to the victims of primary crashes, but also victims of secondary crashes caused by the initial incident. In urban settings, 911 operators often receive eight to 10 calls for a single event from cell phones, but the phones often do not have Global Positioning System (GPS) units. In a rural area, it takes an average of 20 minutes before notification is received. Technology has been developed to automatically notify emergency services when something happens to a vehicle, and capture the vehicle velocity at the time of the crash. By knowing whether the victims were wearing safety belts, if the airbag deployed, whether the vehicle rolled over, etc., the degree of injury can be estimated. This technology not only results in better preparation for first responders, it also notifies a helicopter unit to respond given a specific level of estimated injury severity. Crash notification time is being reduced nationally by technologies, such as enhanced 911 systems, cell phones, cameras, loops, and transmitters. In addition, advanced technology is being tested which holds promise for the future (e.g., automatic collision notification, information on the severity of the accident, vehicle location, and transmittal of victim information to hospitals prior to arrival). An “EMS2 Event Monitoring System” is an information systems concept that could help EMS responders improve response times, dispatch the most appropriate resources, and provide high quality patient care. Future ITS technology that goes beyond current strategies like emergency vehicle traffic signal preemption will improve emergency response time and safety; better interconnect police, fire, and EMS responders; and put emergency trauma physicians “virtually” inside the ambulance. The application of advanced technology to the emergency response function has the potential to improve both short and long term medical outcomes for crash victims.
Planning It Safe
11
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Incident Management Treating the victims quickly and effectively is only one part of a larger program usually referred to as incident response or incident management. It is the incident response team that first arrives at the accident scene, protects the victims as well as other travelers, and manages the process to restore the traffic flow and prevent secondary incidents. In April of 2005, FHWA and AASHTO sponsored and co-chaired a scanning tour of England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden to study Traffic Incident Response (TIR) methods in those countries. (See Appendix C for a copy of the scan report.) Capt. Henry deVries of the I-95 Corridor Coalition participated in the tour, and described incident response strategies with promise. Because managing highway incidents typically involves numerous public safety and transportation agencies, communication and standard operating procedure are critical. The European countries provided examples of systems that have established protocols and defined responder responsibilities. In one country’s example a prioritized set of effective incident response system objectives are accepted by all responders: •
Worker safety.
•
Traffic safety.
•
Assistance to victims.
•
Maintaining flow of vehicles.
•
Salvaging cargo/vehicles.
These programs require clearly defined leadership and collaboration among a number of agencies. Interdisciplinary and interagency training was identified as having great positive benefit. MPOs in some parts of the country have facilitated such training. Emergency signage to direct traffic and reflective clothing are additional effective safety measures. “Quick clearance” policies and programs reduce secondary incidences and reinstate the normal traffic flow. Captain deVries encouraged all participants to adopt quick clearance as a priority in their agencies. MPOs can play a key part in establishing effective incident management/incident response programs in their regions. They often have many of the key agencies as members of their planning and policy committees and can facilitate cooperative discussion. They also have the technical capability to measure the impact of highway incidents on safety (in terms of secondary crashes in traffic queues) and on non-recurrent congestion.
Addressing Human Behavior through Research, Education, and Enforcement Research Human error and crash causation are linked. In fact, 95 percent of the variance in crashes is human centered, according to Tom Granda, FHWA Office of Safety Research & Development. Human error refers to decisions and/or actions taken by road users, design, operations, and maintenance engineers, transportation planners, and others. Human beings are the most complex part of the transportation system. Planning It Safe
12
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Many individual characteristics affect how an individual reacts to a situation (e.g., training, experience, risk perception, aggressiveness, physiological state, age, emotional state, social influence, etc.). Other contributing crash factors may include task complexity, cognitive requirements, psychomotor requirements, and infrastructure-related elements, such as the condition of the physical roadway, roadway geometry, lighting, traffic control devices, signage, etc. Research has identified a number of tools and safety solutions to address human error. The challenge is to choose the most appropriate tool for a given specific circumstance. Because of limited resources to support FHWA’s human factors research; there is much “common wisdom” about what is safe that has not been tested. For example, the ability of visually impaired pedestrians to negotiate roundabouts has not yet been well researched, nor has the benefit of in-pavement lighting for mid-block crosswalks. On the other hand, a good deal of research has been done in relation to the needs of older drivers and older pedestrians. MPOs whose demographic forecast shows an aging population could benefit from including these safety strategies in their transportation plans and programs. Education and Enforcement Both the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) and TEA-21 called for a renewed emphasis on safety in the metropolitan planning process. In response to the legislation, SJTPO created the South Jersey Traffic Safety Alliance to develop regionwide traffic safety programs, share successful practices, exchange information, and support traffic and pedestrian safety projects. South Jersey Transportation Safety Alliance Teresa Thomas described the following safety countermeasures that have been implemented by the Alliance to carry out the mission: •
A Needs Assessment Survey is conducted every other year. In the first survey, respondents complained about the lack of sidewalks. In response, five areas have been identified for improvement and two have been implemented.
•
In the 1998 and 2000 surveys, the top issues were aggressive driving and speeding. One countermeasure used Federal planning funds to support speed radar trailers, which are effective during implementation, but there does not appear to be a longterm gain.
•
A crash data analyst uses NJDOT data to identify problems. They looked at alcoholrelated crashes and could not identify any engineering countermeasures, but the police used the analysis to deploy alcohol enforcement.
•
A Buckle Up stencil is painted on streets by inmates from the Sheriff’s office.
•
The SJTPO coordinates the Saved by the Seat Belt Club, which recognizes those who have avoided serious injury or death when involved in a crash because they were wearing a safety belt.
Planning It Safe
13
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
The Alliance conducts child safety seat inspections and event, trains technicians and instructors, and conducts public education campaigns to ensure safe travel for children.
•
The Be Safe Be Seen program focuses on bicycle and pedestrian safety. SJTPO distributes bracelets, joggers shoe tags, spoke reflectors, etc. to increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists.
•
The Alliance sponsors a defensive driving program, which results in an insurance reduction on the liability portion for three years or a two-point reduction.
•
A HERO campaign promotes designated drivers.
•
Vehicles are impounded for impaired driving infractions.
•
Fatal vision goggles are used to simulate the effects of drinking on driving and other skills.
New York Metropolitan Transportation Commission Kevin Wolford, NYMTC, presented a Spanish Language Bicycle Safety Lecture program that grew out of their Sustainable East End Development Strategies project on Eastern Long Island. The Spanish-speaking population is a challenge because safety issues are impacted by the language barrier. Choosing to focus on bicycle safety resulted from recognizing that many of the Spanish-speaking residents of the area rely on the bicycle as a principle means of transportation. NYMTC arranged to hold training sessions at a local Catholic Church. More than 300 people attended five public outreach sessions, and many additional requests have been received. Other MPOs in regions with significant population groups of non-native English speakers may consider adapting the NYMTC model to their own unique needs.
Planning It Safe
14
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Resources Highway Safety Funding Criteria All states and U.S. territories receive Federal funding for highway safety programs. These funds are directed to a Governor’s Representative for Highway Safety (GR) through NHTSA.
NHTSA Priorities Sami Richie, NHTSA Eastern Region, described NHTSA’s role as promoting traffic safety through behavioral programs and motor vehicle manufacturing standards. NHTSA’s priorities are as follows: •
Increase safety belt use.
•
Reduce impaired driving.
•
Improve data and traffic records.
Other significant safety issues of interest to NHTSA include aggressive driving, drowsy driving, distracted driving, speeding, and motorcycle safety. The participants suggested additional priority areas including older drivers and pedestrians. Mr. Richie advised the MPOs to become involved with the county Traffic Safety Boards to access information on these and other countermeasure programs.
MPO – Highway Safety Collaboration Historically, the GRs have not worked closely with MPOs. There are exceptions, such as Iowa and Louisiana, but it is not the norm. In New York, the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee (GTSC) serves as the highway safety office. The Committee is made up of 13 state agencies that have a stake in safety and an interest in the complex behavioral issues. GTSC conducts surveys (telephone and observational) to get feedback on their operations. The surveys show that 1) people know the right thing to do, and 2) 90 percent claim they are better drivers than the average. In other words, people do not take responsibility for their own actions while using the roads. GTSC uses a data-driven process to program their resources, but they primarily support education and enforcement programs. GTSC distributes a letter each February announcing the priority funding areas and calling for proposals by May. The GTSC philosophy is to fund as many community programs and projects as possible across the State. Ken Carpenter, GTSC Director, encouraged the MPOs to submit applications and work with the highway safety community. Eligible funding categories include:
Planning It Safe
15
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
•
Data collection, management, and analysis. A specific initiative involves TraCS, a software program that electronically captures and downloads citation and accident investigation data into a statewide database.
•
Engineering studies.
•
Traffic signal optimization design work.
•
Traffic enforcement on DOT selected high accident corridors.
•
Buckle up New York.
•
Child passenger safety programs to reach parents and educate them on proper installation.
•
Selective traffic enforcement programs (STEP).
•
Alcohol programs – New York has a unique system for supporting alcohol enforcement and other impaired driving programs known as “STOP DUI,” which collects DUI fine monies and transfers the funds back to the communities. This program generates approximately $20 million per year, which equals GTSC’s budget. Therefore, although the agency supports national alcohol enforcement mobilization campaigns, it is more likely to address other traffic safety priorities; however, there is some evidence that communities are using fine money to balance budgets rather than to address the traffic safety issue.
•
Community-based traffic safety programs.
•
Intermodal projects dealing with vehicles, pedestrian, bicycles, commercial vehicles, rail, snowmobiles, etc.
•
Distracted driving strategies and countermeasures.
•
Age-related safety issues (e.g., child passenger restraints, older person safety and mobility, and teen drivers).
Recommendations and Next Steps Collaboration among the safety stakeholders is a key to the success of any initiative. Steven Gayle described how coordination can benefit planners and noted the need for interdisciplinary education, so designers understand maintenance needs and planners understand engineering needs. This mirrors the notion of interdisciplinary training for public safety and emergency response agencies. To the extent that each discipline remains isolated, a positive impact on safety will be far more difficult to achieve.
Planning It Safe
16
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Recommendations 1. All MPOs should consider establishing a systematic process for addressing safety. Adequate, timely, and geocoded crash data is a required input for any system that is developed (see recommendation on TraCS). Annual audits of high-crash locations and locations identified by the community as having safety problems are recommended as a strategy. The audit team should include members of the MPO, agencies with roadway jurisdiction (local public works departments and NYSDOT), transit agencies, police and emergency responders, and citizens. The purpose of the audits is to identify both low-cost short-term countermeasures, and more significant projects to consider for inclusion in the TIP. Potential next steps for the NYS MPO Association might include: a. Develop an audit process that could be used or adapted by NYS MPOs. b. Monitor implementation of the developing statewide crash data system to ensure MPOs have access to the data in a timely manner. c. Identify options for gaining access to professional engineering services, including a possible statewide NYS MPO agreement. 2. MPOs should work to develop a relationship with the county Traffic Safety Boards (TSBs) to facilitate a coordinated approach for addressing safety issues. This will give TSBs access to MPO technical abilities and MPOs access to TSB education and enforcement capabilities. This can be a challenge, particularly in metropolitan areas that extend across a number of counties. The NYS MPO Association should contact GTSC and the New York State Association of TSBs to identify the best approach for establishing ongoing relationships. 3. Form a NYS MPO group to meet quarterly or semi-annually and work on safetyrelated issues. 4. Establish and institutionalize a statewide group of stakeholders to suggest priority initiatives, leverage funding on behalf of all the MPOs, identify best practice and appropriate joint approaches to safety planning, and respond to Federal and state legislation. 5. Reconvene the forum annually or biannually to continue sharing good practice and to report on the experience and performance of actions taken by the MPOs to better integrate safety into plans and programs. 6. Collaborate with the NY State Police and GTSC to implement TraCS in the local jurisdictions. 7. Provide training for transportation planners on effective safety countermeasures. 8. Educate MPOs on current practice in incident response/incident management, and encourage involvement in the development of regional incident management plans, coordination, and training. Planning It Safe
17
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
9. Develop tools that support the MPOs and encourage them to examine the data and establish safety priorities; apply for ITS and countermeasure funding; publicize the benefits of safety improvements; and educate decision-makers and the public. 10. Encourage MPOs to facilitate cooperation of all disciplines in transportation planning by bringing together maintenance, operations, and engineering departments early in the planning process. 11. Advocate for human factors research, especially as it relates to behavioral reactions to engineering designs and technology.
Next Steps 1. Distribute proceedings of the NYS MPO forum with a CD of the presentations. 2. Develop a best practice report based on the forum presentations. 3. Develop a protocol for annual Safety Audits. 4. Identify more opportunities for MPOs to bring together various disciplines and encourage communication and collaboration. 5. Work with the NYSDOT and NYSDMV on data issues (e.g., access, timeliness, and analysis strategies). Market TraCS to local police agencies. 6. Collaborate with county TSBs.
Planning It Safe
18
Appendix A Forum Participant List
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Name
Agency
Telephone
E-mail
Jean Shanahan
Mid-Hudson South TCC
845-431-7921
[email protected]
Dan Coots
Mid-Hudson South TCC
845-431-7930
[email protected]
Jean Gunsch
Mid-Hudson South TCC
845-431-5725
[email protected]
Darrin Moret
Mid-Hudson South TCC
845-431-5936
[email protected]
Mark Anduze
NYSTA
518-436-2767
[email protected]
Hector Boggio
GBNRTC
716-856-2026
[email protected]
Sharon Heyboer
HOCTS
315-733-2262
[email protected]
Salvatore Mamone
NYMTC
212-383-7232
[email protected]
Lorenzo Rotoli
Fisher Associates
585-334-1310
[email protected]
Chris Smith
Fisher Associates
585-334-1310
[email protected]
Jay Schissell
ECTC
607-737-5510
[email protected]
Michael Perry
ECTC
607-737-5510
[email protected]
Andrew Avery
City of Elmira
607-737-5766
[email protected]
Harry Miller
HOCTS
315-733-2262
[email protected]
Jack Hohman
NYSTA
845-918-2504
[email protected]
Fernando de Aragon
ITCTC
607-274-5570
[email protected]
Victor Jorrin
ITCTC
607-274-5570
[email protected]
Sandra Misiewicz
CDTC
518-458-2161
[email protected]
Teresa LaSalle
CDTC
518-458-2161
[email protected]
Stan Merritt
Poughkeepsie DPW
845-451-4188
[email protected]
Mary Rowlands
SMTC
315-422-5716
[email protected]
Willy Grimmke
Washington County DPW
518-746-2440
Gregory Szewczyk
NYSDOT
716-847-3614
[email protected]
Christopher Church
NYSDOT
716-847-3246
[email protected]
Kealy Salomon
Dutchess County
845-486-3600
[email protected]
Eoin Wrafter
Dutchess County
845-486-3600
[email protected]
Mark Debald
Dutchess County
845-486-3699
[email protected]
Thomas Mank
Ulster County Transportation Council
845-340-3340
[email protected]
Kevin Buchal
NY State Police
518-457-9743
[email protected]
Daniel Larkin
NY State Police
518-473-7972
[email protected]
Robert Hogan
NYSP Toop K Traffic
845-677-7300
[email protected]
Hector Hernandez
NYSP – Hudson Valley TMC
Richard Filkins
BMTS
Steven Gayle
BMTS
[email protected]
Cynthia Paddick
BMTS
[email protected]
Planning It Safe
[email protected] 607-778-2443
[email protected]
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Name
Agency
Telephone
Aaron Frankenfeld
AGFTC
Kristina Hong
AGFTC
Patrick Carroll
Rotterdam Police Department
518-382-8224
Elaine Troy
NYSDOH Healthy Heart
518-402-0723
[email protected]
Susan Herbel
Cambridge Systematics
407-829-6424
[email protected]
Casey Woodley
Cambridge Systematics
617-354-0167
[email protected]
Aizaz Ahmed
NYMTC
212-383-7283
[email protected]
Chris Hardej
NYMTC
212-383-7253
[email protected]
Richard Pepe
Team Traffic
845-739-8471
[email protected]
Thomas Ionta
Wilbur Smith Associates
845-473-6500
[email protected]
James Walrath
Wilbur Smith Associates
845-473-6500
[email protected]
Manoj Madhavan
WSA
845-473-6500
[email protected]
Mike Doody
NYSDOT Region One
518-388-0372
[email protected]
Clyde Jasinski
NYSDOT P&PM
315-793-2450
[email protected]
Terrence Murawski
NYSDOT
315-793-2450
[email protected]
Maureen Riano
NYSDOT
315-793-2450
[email protected]
Scott Davis
Erdman Anthony & Assoc.
845-234-8280
[email protected]
Judith Breselor
Rensselaer County
518-283-1651
[email protected]
Bill Naylor
NYSDOT Region Nine
607-721-8072
[email protected]
Mark Pyskadlo
NYSDOT Region One
518-388-0380
[email protected]
Richard Backlund
FHWA, NY Metro Office
212-668-2205
[email protected]
John Helmer
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5785
[email protected]
LeRoi Armstead
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5934
[email protected]
Russell Robbins
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5978
[email protected]
James Rapoli
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5991
[email protected]
Akhter Shareef
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5793
[email protected]
Laura Lemire
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-7922
[email protected]
Marty Neveu
NYSDOT MPO Bureau
518-485-0110
[email protected]
Lois Goldman
NJTPA
973-639-8413
[email protected]
Lynn LaMunyon
Schoor DePalma
732-577-9000
[email protected]
Nicholas Verderese
Schoor DePalma
732-577-9000
[email protected]
Barbara O’Rourke
NYSDOT
David Rettig
NYSDOT Region One
518-388-0456
[email protected]
Michael Croce
Bergmann Associates
585-232-5137 x380
[email protected]
Andrew Saracena
PANYNJ
973-565-7832
[email protected]
Planning It Safe
518-746-2199
E-mail
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Name
Agency
Telephone
E-mail
Renato Camacho
PANYNJ
973-565-7837
[email protected]
Kevin Wovak
NYSDOT Region One
518-388-0456
[email protected]
Richard Beers
FHWA
518-431-4125 x244
[email protected]
Shandrian Jarvis
FHWA
518-431-4125
[email protected]
Richard Peters
NYSDOT Region Eight
845-431-5723
[email protected]
Barbara Peters-DeMeo
Westchester County DPW
914-995-2555
[email protected]
Kevin Roseman
Westchester County DPW
914-995-2555
[email protected]
Joe Aversano
UCAT
845-340-5582
[email protected]
Cynthia Ruiz
UCAT
845-340-3334
[email protected]
Tom Temistokle
NYSDOT
631-952-7439
[email protected]
Richard Perrin
Genesee Transportation Council
585-232-6240
[email protected]
Tim Chelius
South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
856-794-1941
[email protected]
Jennifer Hogan
Institute for Traffic Safety
518-453-0291
[email protected]
David Stein
City of New York DOT
212-442-7173
[email protected]
Ann Marie
Sledge-Doherty, City of NY DOT
212-442-7173
[email protected]
Kelly Libolt
The Chazen Companies
845-454-3980
[email protected]
Joanna Censullo
The Chazen Companies
845-454-3980
[email protected]
Planning It Safe
Appendix B Forum Agenda
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
INTEGRATING SAFETY INTO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING JUNE 9-10, 2005 POUGHKEEPSIE, NY A Statewide Safety Conscious Planning Forum Co-sponsored by the New York Sate Metropolitan Planning Association and the Federal Highway Administration THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005 11:30 – 12:30 Registration 12:30 – 2:00
Opening Session Keynote: Dr. Michael Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology Panel: Three Perspectives on Enhancing Safety Improving the Infrastructure: The Engineering Approach R. Emmett McDevitt, Safety Engineering, FHWA NY Division Addressing Human Behavior Thomas Granda, FHWA Office of Safety R&D Emergency Response: Mitigating the Consequences Kevin McGinnis, Program advisor, National Association of State EMS Directors
2:15 – 3:30
Panel: Building the Linkages to Planning: Sharing Good Practice Traffic Engineering: Addressing Dangerous Locations Jay Schissell, Elmira Chemung Transportation Council Human Behavior: Working with NHTSA Programs Aaron Frankenfeld, Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council Proactive Planning: Getting Ahead of the Problem Steven Gayle, Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study
3:45 – 5:30
Breakout Sessions: Learning from One Another Attendees will choose one of the three tracks identified above. Each breakout will have a number of resource people who will make brief presentations on their work, to seed the discussion.
6:00
Dinner
FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 2005 8:00 Continental breakfast 8:30 – 10:30
Breakout session continue
10:30 – 12:00
Reconvene and report: What have we learned that can improve the integration of safety into the MPO planning process? What are the next steps?
Planning It Safe
Appendix C Traffic Incident Response Scan Report
Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
TRAFFIC INCIDENT RESPONSE SCAN APRIL 8-24, 2005
In April of 2005, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) sponsored and co-chaired a scanning tour of England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, for the purpose of studying Traffic Incident Response (TIR) methods in those countries. Members of the scanning tour included representatives from several state departments of transportation, as well as police, fire, EMS, and private sector personnel. Within that group, two relevant organizations were represented: the I-95 Corridor Coalition’s Coordinated Incident Management Program Track; and the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. While a comprehensive analysis is being prepared by FHWA and AASHTO, this summary of best practices and information gathered during this trip focuses on practical applications as they relate to these two organizations, with specific reference to the function of law enforcement involvement in TIR operations, and safety issues related to responding to and managing incident scenes. The privatization of service patrol programs by national automobile clubs also is addressed. Each country reported a significant projected increase in highway usage over the next several years. With the exception of Sweden, which is in the midst of a very ambitious construction program to “ring” Stockholm with an obviously overdue highway and tunnel system over the next dozen years, each country’s transportation agency recognized that it could no longer “build its way out of congestion”, and that proper management of roadway and personnel resources was necessary to offset the tremendous economic and quality of life issues resulting from congestion. England, Germany, and the Netherlands have each diligently developed plans and practices which leverage the benefits of coordinated incident response among transportation agencies, police, fire, EMS and private sector resources. Authors note: Acronyms may not appear to reflect the English version of agency names, as the acronyms are subject to translation.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE Each country visited had unique philosophies on the function of law enforcement for managing traffic incidents. In some cases, these differences may have evolved from historical reactions to specific events, organizational or national culture, or a lack of resources. England The English program includes a very close working relationship between the Central Motorway Police, the Association of Chief Police Officers (representing the Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
39 regional police departments around England), and the Highway Authority (England’s equivalent to FHWA). This relationship, along with the philosophy that the police were best serving the public by concentrating on traditional law enforcement issues (speed enforcement and crime fighting), has evolved into the development of a “Traffic Officer” Program, which is managed by the Highway Authority. Following a “Roles and Responsibilities Review” which resulted in the Traffic Management Act of 2004, 1,200 uniformed traffic officers are being hired by the Highway Authority to respond to and manage highway incidents and provide temporary signage, manage road closures, and assist disabled vehicles. These officers will be directed via seven regional control centers, which will be coordinated by the National Traffic Control Center. Traffic officers do not provide traditional road service patrol repair and supplies; this is managed by private enterprise and covered later in this report. The absorption of duties by the Highway Authority is being phased over time, and will eventually be a fully staffed 24/7 operation at which time the police will “Pull the Plug” on traffic services. It is notable that this program was created thru a partnership between the Highway Authority and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Once the police are on the scene, however, it was made clear that they are in charge of the incident response, and traffic officers, as well as Fire and EMS responders, take direction from the police officer in charge. The Fire Service’s mission at highway incidents is to “make the scene safe” under the direction of the police. Management of towing and recovery response is complicated for police agencies in England; in a highly regulated area, legal interpretations vary from place to place. Two types of recovery exist: statutory, where the vehicle is abandoned, is an obstruction, or is in an otherwise dangerous place; and non statutory, covering all other situations. Rates, protocols, and liability are affected by these designations, which can vary by region, and the local police may act as an intermediary in fee collection. The police are attempting to secure legislation to streamline the process of removal, storage, and disposal of vehicles left on the highway. It was repeatedly reinforced that the Highway Authority operates its network, while the police focus on law enforcement, and that both disciplines believe that this configuration enhances safety while improving service. Initial analysis of the first phase of this program has shown a measurable reduction of impact related to incidents, improved on–scene safety, and positive feedback from the public. It also has fostered better relationships between the Highway Authority and the police. Additionally, the police report that, as a result of being released from handling minor traffic incidents, they are experiencing greater visibility and higher ticket and arrest statistics. The “Killed or Seriously Injured” (KSI) rate has been reduced by 24 percent. There are still some counterproductive protocols with regard to investigating fatal automobile accidents. Each fatal accident is investigated as a homicide investigation, often with total roadway closure for periods of eight hours or more. The emphasis in the U.K. appears to be more toward diversion routing rather than quick clearance. As in the U.S., bureaucracy, regulation, and threat of litigation hamper efforts to improve network management in this area. A recent snowstorm, during which motorists were stranded in their vehicles in excess of 12 Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
hours without relief, has served as a catalyst toward forcing necessary regulatory change in current practices. As the British are expecting a 40 percent increase in traffic volume over the next 20 years, they recognize the need to maximize their efficiency in managing incidents efficiently. Both the police and the Highway Authority utilize new technologies to achieve their collective mission in several innovative ways. Collaboration on determining “Casualty Cluster Sites” leads to light overhead sign gantries to facilitate variable speed and lane usage designations, as well as electronic speed enforcement cameras. These locations are clearly identified to the public, with an emphasis on modifying driver behavior rather than generating revenue. The use of Automatic Number Plate Readers (ANPR) allows police to monitor passing license plates for active warrants, stolen or uninsured vehicles, or suspended registrations. Hits on the system cause an alarm to register at police headquarters. This generates a response from area patrols which have been freed up by the traffic officers’ handling of minor incidents. The City of London, referred to as the “ANPR Ring of Steel,” is surrounded by these readers, aiding in counterterrorism efforts as well as basic criminal detection. (Subsequent research indicates that the U.S. license plate system would be able to utilize this technology, even though plates differ from state to state. The system is able to “learn” the different styles of plates based on color, font type and size and other characteristics; and then discern between states.) Germany The German program is significantly different that the British and the Swedish programs in several ways, most notably in that the Transportation Departments are not involved in incident response. The police operate the transportation system with regard to incident management are responsible for Traveler Information and Recovery Operations. Many incident management functions have been privatized through Automobile Clubs, including some EMS and air ambulance services, as well as certain traveler information systems, telematics, and road service patrols. The police maintain control over VMS messages, and manage contracts with towing and recovery firms. They also maintain a relationship with the Red Cross for assisting with providing relief to motorists stuck in protracted closures. Germany is divided into 16 “Landers” (similar to states), and each has its own uniformed police force responsible for highway patrol. The Germans are very rigid in their requirements related to response time: German law mandates that emergency personnel respond to incidents within 8-12 minutes (depending on the service) 90 percent of the time. Doctors ride with Paramedics, and are required to be on scene within eight minutes of incident detection. The issue of “who’s in charge” at the accident scene did not seem to be a problem. The police are in charge of overall incident operations, while the fire service makes all necessary decisions related to safely securing the scene and protecting emergency personnel during firefighting and extrication. Notably, the use of volunteer responders is widespread. There are over 1.1 million volunteer firefighters in Germany as volunteerism is compulsory in lieu of military service. Congestion of responders at Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
incidents is eased by regulations that prohibit firefighters and EMS workers from driving to the scene in personal vehicles, owning personal emergency lights, and require them to respond from a fire house or designated staging area. As many volunteers respond from work, employers are compensated by the community for lost productivity due to firefighting duties. The German police utilize special equipment and tactics to efficiently and safely manage incident scenes. Their vehicles are equipped with reflective traffic cones, folding signs, and blinking lights. The vehicles also have reflective markings which, when angled properly, “point” traffic in the appropriate direction for proceeding around the incident. Parking the emergency vehicle at an angle prevents motorists who are approaching from the rear from misjudging whether the emergency vehicle is moving. Dispatch protocols include sending secondary responders to the rear of the traffic queue. An executive order regarding delay management places responsibility at the hands of the Highway Authority. The functional responsibility for managing delay at incident scenes is entirely that of the police. Similarly, the police have written orders regarding quick clearance and maintain a sense of urgency at incident scenes to get the road open as expeditiously as possible. Netherlands The Dutch Authorities have twice traveled to the United States to study incident management and response, and claim to have taken the best from what they observed and have deployed these practices in the Netherlands. This statement can truly be taken as a compliment to United States’ practices, for what was observed in the Netherlands was certainly the most comprehensive and well blended incident response program on the tour. Probably the most notable aspect of the Dutch program was the uniformity of response among disciplines. Police, Fire, EMS, (privatized) Service Patrol, and even Towing and Recovery agents are all trained by a National Traffic and Information Management Center program to ensure uniformity in the “handling of calamitous situations.” Responding personnel make up an Incident Management Coordination Team. Team members all have generic duties with regard to securing an incident scene, based on their order of arrival rather than individual discipline. This philosophy insures that each incident is secured, triaged, and managed exactly the same way, regardless of who gets there first. In this “Team” concept, the discipline which is ultimately in charge is determined case by case, depending on the dynamics of the situation. The Dutch were very aware of the necessity of partnerships between the Highway Authority and emergency service agencies, and noted that the Authority sends a representative to significant incidents to monitor the effects that the management/recovery effort has on traffic. The Dutch also were quite aware of the “Quick Clearance” concept, stating that the government’s focus was on clearing the highway, not saving the load. They are working with trucking and insurance industries toward generating an understanding of costs related to unnecessary congestion. There is an entity in the Netherlands sponsored by the insurance industry, the “Salvage Transport Institute,” which currently sends representatives Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
to incident scenes in an attempt to minimize the effect of recovery on the equipment and cargo involved. The ongoing evolution of managing this conflict should be worth tracking for our own Quick Clearance issues. The Dutch Highway Authority operates a National “Test Center for Traffic Systems” for the purpose of establishing nationwide uniformity in developing ITS systems and response techniques. The authority has identified the issues caused by having multiple traffic centers across the country, each operating different systems. The Test Center also serves as a “National Training Institution” for highway traffic control, producing a training and certification process for TMC/TOC operators. This hi-tech facility supports comprehensive simulation training for operators and responders. Sweden The Swedish incident response program examined on this scanning tour was focused primarily on the tunnel system within the city of Stockholm, and particularly on the most recently opened tunnel -- the Soder-Lanken, or South Link Tunnel – the partially completed ring road around the city. The Swedes acknowledged that the costs of congestion in Sweden were significant, and claimed that incident-based congestion costs their economy the equivalent of $300 million U.S. dollars annually. In Sweden, it appears that the fire services are primarily in control at incident scenes, and the Fire Department coordinates the efforts of Service Patrols during the incident management process. The Swedish Road Authority noted that it had the legislated authority to close and open roads without waiting for the police to respond, and that most on-scene management was the function of Fire, EMS, the Road Authority and contracted towers. Fire services claimed to maintain a philosophy of trying to keep a lane open, and stated that law enforcement tends to keep the roadway closed for investigative purposes. It is the responsibility of the fire officer in charge to coordinate the other disciplines at the scenes and to communicate with the media. The Swedes engaged in the unique practice of emailing incident scene/victim photos taken with cellular phones to trauma centers prior to EMS’ departure from the scene. The Road Authority stated that incident scene video, when available, was sent to police and fire departments for the purpose of promoting quick decisions about opening lanes. The penetration of CCTV in Sweden is significant; they are currently operating 451 cameras and have immediate plans to bring that number to 700, with 100 percent coverage in the tunnels around Stockholm. Although a representative from Law Enforcement was briefly present during our visit, that representative did not make a presentation or discuss incident management procedures. SAFETY The Dutch police have identified a desired performance measurement of a 50 percent reduction in fatality rates by 2010, from peak statistics experienced in1986. Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Their focus will be on enforcement and education, with intensive use of mobile video to capture speed violations, seatbelt usage, and drugged and drunk driving, as well as to assist with behavior modification of the aggressive driver. They pointed out that, similar to the United States, there are more than 40,000 European highway fatalities annually. In addressing safety at the incident scene, the Dutch have a remarkable program called “IM+” which leverages the benefits of interdisciplinary partnerships and uniform training to deliver a “safer and faster” incident response team. This is accomplished through the execution of a “Safety Order of Priorities” which identifies required safety practices for all responders. These are listed as: 1- Manage your own safety first – safe response, proper positioning and lighting, reflective garments, working only in designated “safe” zones. 2- Traffic Safety – providing a clear message to approaching traffic to direct flow. 3- Rescue of accident victims or stranded motorists. 4- Salvage of cargo or vehicles. A key directive for all responders was the requirement of a 100-meter buffer between the rearmost/first vehicle to respond and the accident scene itself. There also is a similar requirement to maintain a one-meter “risk zone” buffer between the work area and the nearest open travel lane. As part of the National Incident Response Training Program, these requirements reinforce the philosophy that before responders can help an incident victim, they must first protect themselves and approaching traffic, and only then may they address the incident. The first vehicle on the scene, whether it is a tow truck, ambulance, service patrol, fire truck, or police car, will stop 100 meters from the incident, and park in a “fend off” position using the vehicle’s highly reflective arrow-like side markings to point oncoming traffic in the direction where passing vehicles should go. In the Netherlands, each discipline’s presenter reiterated these priorities, associated philosophies, and techniques, which clearly exhibited that these practices are in fact in place. The Dutch have completed secondary accident research and have produced a simulation to guide placement of personnel and vehicles to minimize the consequence of secondary crashes to the incident responders. Some of the resulting practices include providing reflective vests to accident victims and disabled motorists, placement of vehicle occupants behind a guide rail, and minimizing the confusion to approaching traffic by requiring that only the rearmost vehicle operate its emergency flashing lights once all responders have arrived and are in place. At the National Institute for Fire Service and Disaster Management (NIBRA) in Arnhem, Netherlands, fire services were also being trained in the above practices. At this center, a critical issue related to responder safety was presented regarding the dangers fire and rescue personnel face with newer, high-technology vehicles. Front and side airbags, high voltage hybrid batteries, and reinforced steel cages are collectively posing an increased risk to rescue personnel while simultaneously hampering the recovery efforts. A program was discussed in which vehicle blueprints could be made available to rescue service via wireless tablet computers Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
linked to vehicle databases. This proposed system indicates in detail the location of reinforcing steel, carbon dioxide canisters for airbags, high voltage batteries, cables, and liquid propane canisters for hybrid vehicles. For the Towing and Recovery industry, the Dutch have legislated requirements for color and reflective striping of tow vehicles and have mandatory requirements for personal safety attire and on-scene safety procedure training. While emergency responder attire varied from country to country regarding color or discipline designation, it was consistently observed that there were no emergency responders of any discipline in any of the four countries visited that did not wear highly reflective, brightly colored outer garments when working on the highway. In Sweden, it was noted that modifying driver behavior is a major initiative toward making Stockholm’s streets and highways safer. The Swedes have a “zero fatality” goal for their highway safety program. They noted that a considerable number (1 in 5) of their highway fatalities was alcohol-related. They also considered speed to be a major contributing factor. Speed enforcement cameras have been tested on two occasions, yielding a total of 560 traffic summonses. A product that has been tested is soon to be mandatory equipment on new vehicles sold in Sweden; this device attaches to the vehicle’s accelerator pedal, and either vibrates or creates resistance when the vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. The vehicle is connected to a GPS system, which monitors the vehicle’s location and is linked to a highway speed limit database. SERVICE PATROLS In England, Germany, and the Netherlands, the service patrol programs were provided by automobile clubs. Membership in an auto club tends to cost about $70$100 U.S. annually, which is a fraction of what an ordinary tow charge would be. The auto clubs provide road patrols, which have similar penetration and response time expectations as service patrols in the United States. In England, the Royal Auto Club (RAC) operates 1500 patrols across England, and these patrols are dispatched from a state of the art call center in Bescot. This center boasts a call volume of 700 calls per hour at peak periods, 4.5 million calls annually, 85 percent of incoming telephone calls are answered within 10 seconds. In addition to the 1500 patrols, there are 100 “branded” patrols serving specific vehicle brands through contracts with individual automobile manufacturers. Each patrol is equipped with a mobile data terminal, with automatic vehicle identification transmitters, linked to a computer aided dispatch system at the dispatch center. The vehicles are also equipped with computer diagnostic equipment which can plug into and diagnose the disabled vehicle’s malfunction. They have an average response time of 40 minutes. RAC maintains contracts with 350 towing contractors, and has agreements with 500 additional tow vendors for back up. RAC Operators work closely with Highway Authority Traffic Officers, and have developed best Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
practices for providing their service through cooperative training with their competitors and the police. Although safety practices are trained upon hiring, and in ongoing in service training, the RAC experiences approximately two to three driver fatalities annually, with six recorded in 1998. In Germany, the ADAC Automobile Club operates 1700 vehicles nationally, employing certified mechanics in all of its vehicles. They claim to have 50 million members and have affiliations with over 1100 towing and recovery contractors. ADAC drivers strive for a 35 minute response time, and have an actual average response rate of 38 minutes. They claim that of the 3.6 million “jobs” they respond to annually, 86 percent are fixed on the spot. ADAC also provides several other services for its members, including air ambulance, auto inspections, traffic information services, and in-vehicle “mayday” telematics systems. Despite highly reflective vehicles and brightly colored uniforms, the ADAC staff experience one to two fatalities annually. The Royal Dutch Touring Organization (ANWB) operates 1100 road patrols from a modern facility in Wolfheze. While similar to the German and English programs, the Dutch program appears to integrate the overall interdisciplinary incident response protocols. Their core business is responding to vehicle breakdowns, and their computer aided dispatch system has a unique bar graph method for tracking incoming calls, calls waiting to be dispatched, and dispatched calls pending arrival. These graphs were compared with a graph showing status of on duty road patrols (available, en route, on scene). ANWB employees undergo the same training that other Dutch emergency responders have regarding vehicle positioning and incident scene safety. The ANWB offers its members a trauma helicopter service, and it also owns several towing and recovery companies throughout the Netherlands. The Swedish program was funded and operated by the Highway Authority. The program appeared to function primarily to respond to incidents within the tunnel system. They have the services of a private towing contractor integrated into their response plans, and claim a five minute average response time to disabled motorists or incidents. Program vehicles, by legislation, have been declared emergency vehicles. In addition to being dispatched via a mobile data computer, they also monitor the highway police radio system. The road assistance program has a heavy incident response vehicle in its fleet, equipped with a crash attenuator, arrow board, changeable message sign, and a light crane. Another unique practice of the Highway Authority motorist assistance program was the utilization of a motorcycle with a collapsible trailer for the purpose of cutting through stopped traffic to reach disabled motorists. Upon arrival, the trailer unfolds, and is capable of towing motor vehicles from the travel lane thereby opening lanes of traffic. It was pointed out that oftentimes tow vehicles are dispatched to a scene but can’t reach their destination due to the congestion that results from the need for a tow.
Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety into Transportation Planning
Summary of Potential Action Items for the I-95 Corridor Coalition and the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition: 1- Identifying emergency vehicle response procedures best practices (coordination and appropriate response levels, vehicle markings, vehicle positioning, lane closure protocol, and emergency lighting discipline) and recommend a process for standardization. This would require a consensus from each discipline, and the development of an implementation plan utilizing a “field operational test” format. The NTIMC should consider investigating the potential for legislative changes or leveraging NIMS mandates. Guidelines for state legislative changes should be considered. 2- Conduct interdisciplinary incident scene safety training. 3- Develop a “Safety Order of Priorities” similar to the Netherlands model. 4- Recommend requirements and identify a process for certification of private incident responders – towing, service patrols, and private ambulance organizations. 5- Develop a business case for automobile club ownership and management of service patrol programs. 6- Standardize responder apparel and develop an integration plan to facilitate use by public safety personnel. SITE VISITS England Royal Auto Club (RAC) Control Centre, Bescot National Traffic Control Centre, Quinton Germany German Academy for Crisis Management (AKNZ), Ahrweiler German Research Institute (BAST), Bergisch-Gladbach, Central Fire Dept Headquarter, Cologne Netherlands Offices of Traffic Management Center, Delft ANWB Dispatch Centre – Wolfheze Netherlands Institute for Fire Service and Disaster Management (NIBRA), Arnhem Sweden South Link Underground Motorway Trafik Stockholm Center
Planning It Safe
