Speed Management Action Plan Implementation – The Oregon Experience

Background

States across the Nation are experiencing increases in speeding-related fatalities. In 2014, Oregon reported 105 speeding-related fatalities, which accounted for nearly 30 percent of total traffic fatalities in the State. In an effort to take a broad look at their speeding-related policies, safety plans, and programs, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), with assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), developed a Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP). The plan integrates opportunities for speed management statewide, suggests guidance for setting effective and appropriate speed limits, and promotes strategies and countermeasures to reduce speeding-related crashes.

Ohio Department of Transportation Data Governance Ohio’s People, Processes, and Technology

This case study documents the institutional advances of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) data governance program. In 2020, ODOT is in the final year of the agency’s Data Governance Plan established in 2017; ODOT’s latest Data Governance Strategic Roadmap plans activities through 2025. While this effort began as an undertaking by the Division of Planning, the agency has since established an independent Data Governance Office (DGO) that oversees ODOT’s Data Governance Committee and Data Governance Framework. The DGO is headed by the newly created Chief Data Officer (CDO) position, and the CDO is responsible for executing data governance policies, strategic planning, and institutional change management. ODOT uses Prosci’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement model for organizational change management related to data governance. ODOT has committed to demonstrating the effectiveness and benefits of data governance to the organization by calculating the return on investment that data governance provides to ODOT’s daily business practices. By incorporating people, processes, and technology into its approach, ODOT continues to successfully implement data governance as part of its overall institutional strategy.

Speed Management Action Plan Implementation – Partnerships Help North Carolina Manage Speed

Background

In 2015, North Carolina was among the States that reported the highest percentage of speeding related fatalities; 40 percent of traffic fatalities in North Carolina involved a speeding vehicle. To tackle this problem, North Carolina safety stakeholders partnered with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop a Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP) for Randolph County. The plan assessed speeding and speed management issues in the county, identified appropriate countermeasures and strategies, and outlined actions steps the State, county, and other partners could take to reduce speeding and prevent speeding-related crashes on Randolph County’s roadways.

New York Department of Transportation Data Integration in CLEAR New York State’s Safety Management Tool

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has a broad-reaching goal to provide safe and efficient roadways throughout the State. This case study presents NYSDOT’s significant advancement in safety data integration and analysis. NYSDOT is developing a State-specific safety management system known as the Crash Location and Engineering Analysis Repository (CLEAR). Funded through State Planning and Research funds, CLEAR will replace three existing legacy systems, meet all safety performance legislation and federal standards for reporting, and support the six-step roadway safety management process outlined in the Highway Safety Manual. A geographic information systems-enabled crash geocoding engine will automate several steps in the geolocation process, as well as support accurate and timely delivery of crash data between the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and NYSDOT. CLEAR will enhance safety analysis workflows, reinforce existing safety analysis standards, and increase user access to advanced analytical tools.

Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras – New York City, NY

Background

Speed is a persistent traffic safety issue; particularly in areas with high pedestrian and/or bike users. One effective enforcement strategy that has been utilized is Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), more recently termed “safety cameras.”

However, agencies have often struggled with implementing safety cameras due to citizen concerns, legislative resistance, speeding not being perceived as a safety issue, and privacy issues. Implementation has also battled the perception that automated enforcement is a “money grab.”

Due to the high number of pedestrians and bicyclists, New York City (NYC) had a particular interest in the use of safety cameras. In 2013, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes accounted for 28 percent of all police reported crashes but made up 65 percent of fatalities in New York City. Additionally, unsafe speed was noted as a contributing factor in 7 percent of all crashes but accounted for 25 percent of fatal crashes.

New York City faced typical oppositions to safety cameras such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They successfully instituted a safety camera program in school zones through several strategies.

Setting Credible Speed Limits – New Hampshire DOT

Background

New Hampshire DOT (NHDOT) is working to promote “reasonable and safe” speed limits for conditions and in a number of instances found that raising the existing speed limit was the appropriate solution.

Establishing and managing credible speed limits impacts safety. Community safety often suffers when we reduce speed limits in reaction to an event without considering the context and operations of the roadway. Educating the public one town or one highway segment at a time takes a lot of effort and it is not always received well. However, when explaining why a speed limit should fit the character of the roadway, the NHDOT has been pleasantly surprised by the number of people that seem to “get it.” (B. Lambert, interview with the author, December 30, 2019).

Consistent Speed Limits for Vulnerable Road Users – Examples from Various Agencies

Background

Speed limits are sometimes inconsistent within a jurisdiction for similar roadways. In some cases, this is because speed limits are applied to roadway sections based on characteristics which may not be obvious to the driver. For instance, speed limits on one roadway classified as a collector are set at 35 mph while another collector with similar characteristics is set at 30 mph due to a higher crash history. Since both appear similar to drivers, they are likely to apply the speed they believe is the most suitable to both roadways.

In other cases, as noted by “Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report,” varying levels of experience, use of different procedures, as well as subjective procedures for determining speed limits can lead to inconsistencies in setting speed limits within or between jurisdictions. In either case, inconsistency violates driver expectancy and can lead to drivers disregarding speed limits.

Data Management & Spatial Integration: Missouri’s Transportation Management

This case study documents how the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT’s) Transportation Planning Division (TPD) coordinates with the Information Systems unit (the agency’s information technology unit) and the State’s Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) to form a leadership group that supports the State’s data management and integration activities. The State’s Transportation Management System (TMS) stores all transportation-related data maintained by the agency. This Oracle-based database, directly managed by TPD, ties all asset data to a single, all public roads base map and linear referencing system (LRS). This provides a tabular LRS location and a spatial location compatible with geographic information systems (GIS) software for all data elements located along Missouri’s public roads network. This spatial orientation supports several data management and integration efforts between different business units within MoDOT, as well as with external partners that manage relevant safety data. The DOT committed to spatial data integration early in the development of the TMS, and it has led to the flexible and expandable repository that exists today.

Acadiana Planning Commission: Data Governance - Louisiana’s Local Government Partnerships

The Acadiana Planning Commission (APC) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) covering the Lafayette, Louisiana urbanized area. Although Lafayette proper is highly urban, the MPO in total covers a seven-parish area in southern Louisiana that also includes low density rural communities. The number and diversity of local partnerships that comprise APC's stakeholder base represent a common challenge for transportation agencies as they collect safety-related data and make data-driven decisions.

As part of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-sponsored data integration and planning projects in Louisiana, APC and the State Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) created a joint data governance group. From this initial effort, APC developed partnerships and processes that help the region manage the data necessary to support APC’s roadway safety goals. The core lesson of APC’s success has been its leadership in bringing local agencies into the regional data governance group. APC forged the inter-agency and inter-departmental partnerships that are a fundamental feature of their data governance programs. The result is better quality safety data tailored to fit the analytic tools and methods APC and DOTD use. As the region’s highway safety lead agency, APC uses the improved data to support comprehensive local road safety planning and efficient project development. The regional data governance benefited State-level partners like DOTD and the Center for Analytics and Research in Transportation Safety (CARTS) at Louisiana State University. Participating in regional data governance gives the State agencies a venue for communicating standards, providing technical assistance, and collecting safety-related data. State practitioners also gain insights into local road safety issues. This regional approach to data collection and maintenance in Acadiana will serve as an example for the rest of the State as Louisiana promotes shared data governance processes and a unified transportation safety mission.

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Kentucky’s Network Screening Process

This purpose of this case study is to describe Kentucky’s network screening methodology for all State-owned roads, as well as local roads classified as a collector street or above. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s (KYTC) Highway Safety Improvement Program requires a data-driven process to identify sites with a potential safety need and prioritize projects. The KYTC partnered with the University of Kentucky’s Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC) to develop a network screening approach to prioritize locations statewide to be targeted for future safety improvement projects. This network screening approach addresses five focus areas: 1) Roadway Departure Corridors, 2) Cable Barrier, 3) High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) Segments, 4) HFST Ramps, and 5) Intersections. The KTC analyzed statewide enterprise road, traffic, and crash data to develop safety performance functions (SPFs) that predict crashes on all facilities encompassed by each focus area. The KTC used cumulative residual (CURE) plots to assess SPF model performance and identify outliers or issues inherent in the dataset that lead to worse model fit. The CURE plot approach also underscores the importance of thoughtful and homogenous site segmentation for improved performance and meaningful network screening results. This network screening methodology applies a State-specific approach to rank locations based on higher-than-expected crashes and associated crash costs.