Key Performance Lagging and Leading Indicators for Traffic Safety Improvement

Key Performance Lagging and Leading Indicators for Traffic Safety Improvement Gerry Shimko & Stevanus Tjandra City of Edmonton Office of Traffic Safet...
Author: William Hodge
49 downloads 2 Views 6MB Size
Key Performance Lagging and Leading Indicators for Traffic Safety Improvement Gerry Shimko & Stevanus Tjandra City of Edmonton Office of Traffic Safety

TOWARDS ZERO FATALITIES & SERIOUS INJURIES

8th International Conference on Urban Traffic Safety April 25-28, 2016 | EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA

Outline  Introduction  Lagging vs. Leading Indicators

 Choosing the Best Lagging and Leading Indicators  OTS Leading Indicators  Data and Analytics as the Foundation

 Making Lagging and Leading Indicators Come Alive  Work-In-Progress Results  What’s Next

2

Common Practice: Periodic Statistical Report/Dashboard

3

What Are the Typical Reported Statistics?

4

Common Practice: Periodic Statistical Report What can we learn from those statistical reports?  Historical results and their trends  Tell us whether goals were achieved and/or

how far we were from achieving the goals  Provide information on the effectiveness of actions

performed in the past 5

Common Practice: Periodic Statistical Report What we DON’T learn from those statistical reports?  Will not tell us how well they are working toward the goals Ex. This report tells us how many collision happened and people got hurt and how badly,

but not how well the organization is doing at preventing collisions.

 We cannot influence or control them

6

Lagging/Outcome/Result Indicators  Lagging indicators are the traditional metrics used to measure the results of a process (what has already happened), not the steps of a process.  Feedback measures on current performance  They are used to indicate progress toward the preset goals or objectives  Most organization focus on lagging indicators.

7

Traffic Safety Key Lagging Indicator

What does this indicator tell us?

What do we need to do? 8

Follow Up Actions of Lagging Indicators What did the City of Edmonton do to reduce the injury rate?  Created the first municipal Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in Oct 2006  OTS mission is to reduce the prevalence of fatal, injury, and property damage collisions  OTS strategy: implement 5 E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Evaluation and Engagement) by improving  urban traffic safety engineering  speed management and traffic enforcement  road user behaviour  data, business intelligence and analytics  two-way communications  Focus on urban traffic safety through evidence-based approaches by using state of art methodologies.

R E A C T I V E 9

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering

10

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering  Roadway safety design improvement

 Right-turn redesign  Left-turn signal phasing (PROT/PROH)

Are these activities contributing positively to the objectives?

11

Right-Turn Redesign Yellowhead Trail WB RAMP – Victoria Trail NB 27%

12

Right-Turn Redesign Yellowhead Trail WB RAMP – Victoria Trail NB

Before

After

 The project cost: $437,240  The overall reduction in total conflicts was estimated at a statistically significant 92%.  The actual collision reduction is 95% (CMF = 5%); reduction in injuries: 100% 13  The collision reduction resulted in an annual cost saving of $962,053

RTC Redesign

Average Collision Reduction Factor: 82% Average Collision Injury Reduction Factor: 64%

14

Right-Turn Redesign Conclusion:  Right-Turn Redesign contributes positively to the objective of reducing collisions & injuries Conducting this activity will trigger future outcomes meeting the objective and leading toward the goal Implementation of Right-Turn Redesign will drive the performance of City of Edmonton in terms of collision reduction & injuries # of RT Redesign implemented in the City (per year) is an effective indicator that effectively steers performance leading toward the objective/goal

15

Leading Indicator/Performance Driver  Leading indicators are necessary steps to trigger future outcomes leading toward the goals.  They are in-process measures

 They predict the goal achievement Ex. Redesign the right turn will decrease the Followed too closely collisions by 95%.

 They are controllable

 They are considered proactive indicators, measuring performances before problems arise  Leading indicators are enabling us to identify proactive activities to help achieve the goals

16

Proactive Activities to Help Achieve the Goals Right-Turn Design Matrix for Existing Roadways

17

Proactive Activities to Help Achieve the Goals Right-Turn Design Matrix for New Roadways

18

Lagging vs. Leading Indicators PAST

Lagging Indicators

Leading Indicators

FUTURE

Which indicator do we need to focus on? BOTH  Lagging indicators without leading indicators will tell us nothing about how the goals will be achieved nor provide indication as to whether we are on the right track.  With only leading indicators, we will not be able to see the contribution of our work toward the goals. 19

Choosing the Best Lagging and Leading Indicators Lagging Indicators  Refer to goals (Strategic, Tactical and Operational)  City of Edmonton:  Rate of injuries per 1,000 population  Rate of collisions at intersections per 1,000 population

Leading Indicators Leading indicators are more difficult to determine than Lagging indicators:  Leading indicators are predictive and therefore no guarantee of positive contribution  Choosing the best indicators requires careful thought and experimentation: frequently require an investment to implement an initiative prior to a result being seen by a lag indicator

20

Choosing the Best Leading Indicators General criteria:*  Allow you to see small improvements in performance

 Be predictive

 Track action and its impact versus intention

 Make it clear what needs to be done to get better

 There is no such thing as a perfect measure - get started and improve

*Agnew, J. and A. Daniels. “Developing High-Impact Leading Indicators for Safety.” ADI, Atlanta, GA, http://aubreydaniels.com/sites/aubreydaniels.com.pmezine/files/user/6/Developing-High-Impact-Leading-Indicators-for-Safety.pdf (accessed April 23, 2016)

21

Choosing the Best Leading Indicators The Process Requires a champion to lead and drive

Keep refining the process and the chosen indicators throughout the implementation

Get insight from literature and other practices in conjunction with the trial and error

Leading Indicators

Requires knowledge and experience of work area and goals

Start with available data and improve the data throughout the implementation

22

OTS Leading Indicators

23

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering # of Left-turn signal phasing (PROT/PROH) implemented in the City (per year)

Average Collision Reduction Factor: 92% Average Collision Injury Reduction Factor: 95%

24

Tracking Sheet

25

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering Collisions due to Failed To Observe Traffic Signal

What possible countermeasure? Literature: CMF of additional overhead signal fixture = 72%* *Felipe, E., D. Mitic, S.R. Zein. “Safety Benefits of Additional Primary Signal Heads.” Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; G.D. Hamilton Associates, Vancouver, BC: 1998

26

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering # of Overhead signal fixture added in the City (per year) Average Collision Reduction Factor: 34% (CMF=66%)

Average Collision Injury Reduction Factor: TBD (due to small number)

27

Urban Traffic Safety Engineering # of Overhead signal fixture added in the City (per year)

28

Speed Management Driver Feedback Sign (DFS): Alert drivers of their speed

BEFORE Before Speed Limit: 50 km/h Average Speed: 60.86 km/h Compliance to Speed Limit: 8.28%

Estimated Collision Reduction Collision Reduction FactorFactor

AFTER Speed Limit: 50 km/h Average Speed: 49.63 km/h Compliance to Speed Limit: 62.11%

Fatal 57%

Injury 28%

PDO 26%

29

DFS Deployment Tracking Locations and Hours of Deployment

30

DFS Deployment Tracking Hours of Deployment

31

Automated Enforcement Is Enforcement Working?

Stony Plain Road West of 133 ST

Travel Direction

NO ENFORCE MENT

ENFORCEMENT

NO ENFORCEME NT

ENFORCEMENT

Speed Survey: Sep 2011

PR Oct 2011

PR Jul 2012

Speed Survey: Sept 2012

PR Sep 2012

PR Apr 2013

EB

20.3%

58.6%

64.0%

20.7%

61.9%

64.9%

WB

28.2%

59.4%

61.1%

36.3%

55.4%

64.8% 32

Mobile Photo Enforcement  Use the state of the art traffic safety statistical methodology (Empirical Bayes) to conduct Before/After analysis Collision Reduction (%)* Collision Type (2005 – 2012)

Severe Collision

PDO Collision

Total Collision Speed-related Speed-related PDO Collision Collision

All enforcements

20.1

14.3

14.5

17.9

18.5

Continuous Enforcements

32.1

28.7

27.7

27.3

26.7

 Deployment**: Deployment Hours Issued Tickets

+ 1,000 Hours + 10,000 Tickets

Severe Collisions Severe Collisions

- 52 - 68

*Li, R., El-Basyouny, K. and Kim, A. A Before-and-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Automated Mobile Speed Enforcement on Urban Arterial Roads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2516: 44-52, 2015 **Li, R., El-Basyouny, K. and Kim, A. http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/City_Wide_Safety_Analysis_of_Mobile_Speed_Enforcement.pdf

33

Intersection Safety Camera  Use the state of the art traffic safety statistical methodology (Empirical Bayes) to conduct Before/After analysis Collision Reduction (%) Collision Type (2006 – 2013)

Intersection level Approach level

Total Severe Collisions Collisions 25.3 N/A 11.7 28.6

PDO Collisions 6.5

Rear-End Collisions 10.7

Angle Collisions 12.9

11.7

13.1

27.3

PDO Collisions

Rear-End Collisions

Angle Collisions

43/36

37/34

34/25

Example Collision Reduction (#)

Total Severe 34 Av & 91 St (all Collisions Collisions approaches) Average 2006-2009 / Average 20102013

57/45

14/8

Contini, L. and K. El-Basyouny. Before-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Intersection Safety Camera Program in Edmonton. A report submitted to the City of Edmonton Office of Traffic Safety, November, 2015.

34

Deployment of Automated Enforcement  Follow the Province of Alberta Automated Traffic Enforcement Technology Guidelines  Optimize its impact to reduction in collision and injuries  

2009: OTS takes over ISD program oversight; new equipment (digital/wireless) installed April 2012: OTS takes over management of Automated Enforcement Program from EPS (MOU)  OTS directs deployment of PR from EPS (Jul-Dec 2012 increased 30.2% from the previous six months)

 

Aug 2012: Ticket processing (through PETS) Cycle time: target 100% in 6 business days or less

35

Automated Enforcement: Leading Indicators  Strategic Leading Indicators:  # Intersection Safety Cameras installed per year  # Mobile Enforcement Units

 Operational Leading Indicators Weekly Indicators

36

Education & Engagement # of Timely and Effective Traffic Safety Campaigns

68%

37

Education & Engagement # of Timely and Effective Traffic Safety Messages

Blog

38

Education & Engagement  Curb the Danger - EPS OTS Partnership: Highly visible signage for the program

 Create traffic safety smartphone app  Verbal alerts when the user is approaching school zones, speed-limit changes, and high-collision locations.  Push notification messages related to traffic safety

39

Edmonton SmartTravel

40

Critical Requirement Data and Analytics is the Foundation

Tjandra, S.A. and G. Shimko. Key Performance Lagging and Leading Indicators for Traffic Safety Improvement: Case Study of the City of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. ITE Journal, Apr2016, Vol. 86 (4): 40-47

41

Integrated Data Analysis Inner Ring Road  Empirical Bayes analysis led us to identify 170 St - North of 95 Ave as the worst section for traffic collisions  From 2009 to 2011 there were:  55% more collisions than other similar mid-block locations  23 more collisions than expected

West Edmonton Mall

42

Integrated Data Analysis Inner Ring Road Collisions by Cause (09-11) Ran Off Road 2%

Struck Parked Veh 2%

Collisions by Day of Week (09-11) 25

20 15

Chng. Lanes Impr. 18%

10

Fld. Yield R.O.W. 6%

Flwd. Too Closely 72%

Collisions by Driving Lane (2012)

Right Curb 25%

0

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thur

Fri

Sat

 Peak collision periods:  Nov-Dec Christmas shopping  Fri-Sat weekend shopping  Mid afternoon shopping

2nd from Curb 50%

 The 2nd from curb lane is lane #3 (The right curb lane is not a through lane)

3rd from Curb 8%

Average Monthly Speed Tickets Issued Lane 3 (67)

Lane 1 (77)

20%

Average Monthly Red Light Tickets Issued Lane 3 (10)

Lane 1 (6)

23% 36%

57% Lane 2 (195)

Sun

 2012 data has less unknown traffic lanes so it may be a more accurate breakdown of the collisions by lane

Unknown 17%

1 2 3

5

24%

40%

Lane 2 (11)

Violator Registered Owner Postal Code

Outside of Edmonton Within Edmonton

58.74%

41.26%

Study area

 The top 5 violators are all rental and cab companies.

Implementation

CRF: 43%

43

Business Intelligence System BI is an application software designed to retrieve, analyze, transform and report data and summary statistics require to understand and improve business processes and performance.

Automatic Data, Report and Dashboard Update

44

Business Intelligence System BI is an application software designed to retrieve, analyze, transform and report data and summary statistics require to understand and improve business processes and performance.

45

Making Lagging and Leading Indicators Come Alive “What gets measured, gets done” A positive accountability system that holds people accountable for the leading indicators has to be well established

Everybody has to work collaboratively within an integrated leadership toward the common goals 46

Making Lagging and Leading Indicators Come Alive At OTS: Weekly Lagging and Leading Indicator meeting – Thursday 08:30-10:00

47

Work-In-Progress Results The number of collision injuries has decreased 55% from 8,221 in 2006 to 3,660 in 2014

48

Work-In-Progress Results Serious Injuries

Fatalities

49

Work-In-Progress Results

Decrease 20,638 injury & fatal collisions (29,767 injuries and fatalities) Societal Saving $ 1.7 B*

50

*Using 2015 dollar value for collision cost from the collision cost study: http://drivetolive.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Collision_Cost_Study_Final_Report_Feb_2010.pdf

Can We Achieve Safer Roads?

51

What’s next?

Edmonton Road Safety Strategy 2016-2020 BEFORE

NOW

FUTURE

Collisions in Edmonton 2000-2015 Total Collisions # Injuries

28,520

29,072 28,832 28,480

26,066

25,517 24,805 24,627

23,542 22,137 20,992 21,000

23,442 23,243

22,784 20,606

TOWARDS ZERO FATALITIES & SERIOUS INJURIES 11,013 9,805

10,284 9,083 7,686

8,006

8,221 7,445 6,270 5,203

4,910

4,446

4,338

4,123

3,660

3,805

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

53

Summary Lagging Indicators

Lagging Indicators

 Measure the results of a process - what has already happened  Are used to indicate progress toward the preset goals or objectives

Leading Indicators:

Leading Indicators

 Shift organizations to a proactive posture  They encourage continuous improvement and increase integration and collaboration of resources.  Are a catalyst for increases in cross functional team work and working with other road safety stakeholders.  May be difficult to get right and often take time and testing, but once identified they can provide the key to your business drivers

Both Lagging & Leading Indicators are Needed

54

Thank You

8th International Conference on Urban Traffic Safety April 25-28, 2016 | EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA

Suggest Documents