Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

– Peer Exchange Report –

Safety Conscious Planning Peer Exchange

I. Summary

On May 3-5, 2005, representatives of five Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) gathered in Detroit, Michigan to exchange ideas and best practices on Safety Conscious Planning (SCP) through a Peer Exchange. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), an agency known for its progressive safety programs, hosted the exchange and Dr. Susan Herbel and Dr. Michael Meyer, both of whom have been actively involved in advancing the state of the practice in SCP, facilitated the event. The Peer Exchange was held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The goals of the Peer Exchange were to exchange information in six areas:

• Challenges and Opportunities
• Data Collection, Management and Analysis
• Integrating Safety into the Planning Process
• Safety Initiatives (traffic safety, multimodal, intermodal)
• Implementation Strategies (education and funding)
• Safety Perspectives: Purpose, Mission and Partnerships

Lively discussion in these areas took place over the two-day session. Useful information was exchanged that can be applied immediately, however, the consensus of the group was that more work is necessary to advance the field. The group expressed a desire to meet again in six months and report back on their experience with implementing what they had learned.

To better capture the wide-ranging nature of the discussion, this report is divided into two main sections: an overview of the formal presentations and a summary of the major issues discussed.

II. Background

Traffic accidents are a leading cause of death and serious injury in the United States. In 1997, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which required State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and MPO transportation planners to consider safety as an explicit factor in planning and programming decisions. Eight years later, MPOs are still struggling to define their role in highway safety, and to integrate safety into the planning process.

This Peer Exchange was designed to bring together both national leaders in SCP and agencies that are newer to the field. Participants hoped to exchange ideas and techniques, and set an agenda for making progress in SCP.

III. Agency Presentations

Each participating agency gave a brief presentation on the safety initiatives taking place within their agencies.

Kansas City Region SCP Best Practices
Michael Briggs, MARC
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), one of two bistate MPOs at the exchange, is the MPO and regional planning organization for the Greater Kansas City area. Michael Briggs presented two facets of MARC's safety work: coordinating long-range safety planning and pedestrian and bicycle safety planning.

Coordinating Comprehensive Safety Planning
At the time MARC was preparing to develop the first safety-specific element of the metropolitan Kansas City long-range transportation plan, agency staff found that both the Kansas and Missouri DOTs were in the process of developing Comprehensive Highway Safety Plans. As all three plans are on the same subject and cover the same geographic area, MARC began to coordinate these into one regional effort with the development of a comprehensive transportation safety plan, the Kansas City Regional Transportation Safety Blueprint, which forms the core of the safety element in the long-range transportation plan. The coalition, which consisted of MARC and the Kansas and Missouri DOTs, has also secured funding to implement strategies in the region's four high priority areas: occupant protection, impaired driving, aggressive driving, and pedestrian safety.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
MARC has been taking a "train-the-trainer" approach for raising awareness about safely planning for cyclists and pedestrians. The agency hosts workshops and brings in experts to educate the community in the hope that participants will take the message back and train others. They developed bike facility guidelines in cooperation with the local American Public Works Association chapter that were adopted for the region to use when planning bicycle facilities. Other activities include hosting Walkable Community Workshops and a Safe Routes to School pilot project.

Developing Regional Safety Priorities
Lois Goldman, NJTPA
The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) serves almost 400 townships in 13 New Jersey counties. Finding that the majority of regional crashes happen off of the interstate highway system, NJTPA took a proactive approach to identifying high-priority safety improvements on local and state roads. Working closely with other transportation agencies and communities, especially New Jersey DOT and NJ Transit, NJTPA sponsored the geocoding of crash data, conducted an online survey of community perceptions of safety in the region, and developed a priority list of 23 locations for "quick-fix" safety improvements. Locations were identified through a multi-layered screening process that evaluated the crash history, current projects in the area, public acceptance, funding availability, and other criteria. Multi-disciplinary teams visited each site, met with a wide array of stakeholders, and prepared "hand-off packages" for each community, with short- and long-term recommendations.

While communities are under no obligation to implement the recommendations, some have begun to do so. Funding is available through a new NJTPA Local Safety Program, which will distribute $1 million in Hazard Elimination Program funding each year, however, the community has the responsibility to design and obtain approval for all projects. Of the 22 location specific reports generated, improvements at two locations are being funded through the FY05 Local Safety Program. This necessitated increasing the funding for the program from $1 million to $2.4 million, as one of the projects involved signal upgrades, pedestrian signals, striping, etc. at 10 intersections. The other funded project is limited to striping and signage. NJTPA is considering funding four more locations through the FY06 Local Safety Program, and three locations will be added to current NJDOT studies and projects.

The H-GAC Traffic Safety Program
Ned Levine and Ashby Johnson, H-GAC
The Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (H-GAC) serves 5 million people. The State of Texas generally, and the Houston-Galveston area in particular, has serious traffic safety problems. According to Dr. Levine, the likelihood of crashes resulting in fatalities and injuries in the region is 36% higher than the statewide average and 149% higher than the national average.

H-GAC conducts safety activities in several areas. A major activity is creating safety reports that examine safety in cities, counties, corridors, and small areas throughout the region. Most of these are available on their safety web page (http://www.h-gac.com/safety).

Another major activity is hot spot identification and improvement. H-GAC has identified hundreds of high crash locations or areas (‘hot spots’). These form the basis of safety interventions since they are locations where there are a disproportionate number of crashes. H-GAC has prioritized the hot spots, distinguishing between 243 major hot spots that account for around 20% of all crashes in the region and the thousands of smaller hot spots. Eliminating the major hot spots has been incorporated as a goal into their long-range transportation plan while 10 of these hot spots have been identified for analysis and preliminary engineering in their most recent Transportation Improvement Program. H-GAC has sponsored a number of studies with local governments to analyze some of the hot spots and to provide recommendations for mitigation. The methodology used follows the Federal Hazard Elimination Program framework, approved by the Texas DOT. Dr. Levine expressed that these specific safety projects have had the greatest success to date since they provide both analysis and recommendations for reducing the number and severity of crashes. In these projects, H-GAC works closely with the city, law enforcement, and other stakeholders to carefully analyze the safety conditions at an intersection or small area. This program has only been in place for a short while, so little has been implemented as of yet. Typically these projects are funded on a "50-50" match, the city providing half the funds and H-GAC providing the other half. He noted that asking the city to participate in funding the study has had the effect of creating more interest and follow-through.

In the next year, H-GAC will sponsor safety courses for their cities and counties to provide refresher safety engineering courses for the city traffic engineers and safety policy courses for elected and other public officials. In addition, H-GAC will be launching a Regional Safety Council in the fall that will include representatives from transportation agencies, law enforcement, trauma care, medical treatment, insurance, trucking, and non-profit safety advocacy groups. The aim is to produce a broad safety advocacy group that can frame policy and programmatic safety concerns.

Safety Initiatives at DVRPC
John Coscia and Rosemarie Anderson, DVRPC
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Council (DVRPC) is a bistate MPO serving more than 5.4 million people. DVRPC is in the early stages of integrating safety into transportation planning. Mr. Coscia described DVRPC's current approach to safety projects as "trying to move from asking for projects, to identifying where the projects should take place." The agency is attempting to implement this approach through the Local Federal Safety Program, which will provide $500,000 in FY 2006 to local communities for construction-ready safety projects.

Ms. Anderson discussed DVRPC's Incident Management Programs, which constitute a successful method for bringing disparate groups together on safety-related issues. The three Incident Management Task Forces — one in New Jersey and two in Pennsylvania — include police, fire, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), the Transportation Management Areas (TMAs), and others in quarterly meetings. DVRPC supports all three with mapping assistance, training, website hosting, meeting coordination, and Nextel phones, using Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding. The agency also hosts incident management courses and a conference.

Using Safety Data to Create Connections
Tom Bruff, SEMCOG
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is the Detroit area's regional planning agency and MPO. Mr. Bruff gave an overview of the range of SEMCOG's activities in safety planning. SEMCOG's longstanding work in analyzing and distributing crash data to local communities in the region has created opportunities for SEMCOG to become not just a resource, but to also be called upon to address safety issues both in the region and the state. SEMCOG continues to create tools and online resources for local communities to use and build their own skills when it comes to safety planning. Internally, safety is an explicit goal in their long-range transportation planning process. In recent years, SEMCOG's work has focused on elderly mobility, deer-vehicle crashes, and red-light running crashes.

IV. Guest Presentations

During the second day of the exchange, several public and private Michigan agencies spoke to the group on transportation safety programs and partnerships in the state.

Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning
Mike Prince, Director
The Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) hosts the Governor's Traffic Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) and the Michigan Truck Safety Commission. While its focus has traditionally been on behavioral issues, OHSP is one of the forces behind the Crash Process Redesign effort, which is improving the quality of and access to crash data in the state.

OHSP partnered with the Michigan DOT (MDOT) and many Michigan MPOs to conduct Regional Safety Forums and follow-up safety studies in several communities. The agency invested $250,000 for MPO Safety Studies last year; another $150,000 is earmarked for next year. The safety study areas are developed according to a range of criteria. OHSP holds a kickoff meeting with police, community citizens, schools, and other stakeholders, although ongoing involvement is voluntary. The final report is presented at a public meeting, sometimes with media coverage. Professor Tapan Datta at Wayne State University produces detailed studies with collision diagrams and recommendations, with a focus on low-cost recommendations. The program operates at no cost to the MPO. OHSP has received positive feedback from the MPOs, but there is little information on implementation because the program is new.

The GTSAC, formerly the State Safety Commission, was formed in the 1940s and is a primary mechanism for bringing the stakeholders together. For example, GTSAC co-hosts an annual traffic safety conference with MDOT. The commission has recently completed a strategic highway safety plan and is developing action plans for reducing the number of fatal and serious injury crashes. The commission has formed action teams for its 12 safety emphasis areas, which include elder mobility, young drivers, and child passenger safety.

John Friend, MDOT
Mr. Friend provided an overview of safety issues in the State of Michigan, and the MDOT's response.

• In Michigan, the debate revolves around system expansion versus system preservation. The number one issue for MDOT is to interject safety into the debate and to put it on the same level as preservation and expansion.
• MDOT has developed a plan for improving the crash data system because good data brings the opportunity for making effective decisions.
• Michigan is committed to reducing the fatality rate to less than 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (100MVMT) by 2008, which amounts to a 10.4 percent reduction (1,283 to 1,150) in fatalities and also a reduction in serious injuries (9,531 to 8,540). The state highway system has achieved this goal and MDOT is working to improve safety on arterials, collectors, and local roads. Currently, the state provides technical assistance to county road commissions, MPOs, local jurisdictions, and other organizations lacking staff capability. The assistance includes training on how to access and analyze crash data.
• State demographic changes will elevate the elder mobility issue and MDOT is being responsive. New, more readable fonts have been adopted for street signage and new standards are being put into place. Infrastructure purchasing decisions will also be influenced by the demographic changes in the population.
• MDOT supports and is developing a funding template to analyze demographic information and address elder mobility through transit and engineering plans and programs.

Susan Richardson, MDOT
Ms. Richardson spoke on safety planning in rural Michigan. MDOT has held two rural safety forums but attendance has been disappointing. The goal is to increase or create awareness of safety issues and encourage the formation of cross-discipline safety partnerships at the local level.

MDOT has created a marketing plan and provided it to the regional planning and development agencies as well as MDOT regional planners. This document provides suggestions and guidance in setting up the forum, establishing the agenda, and encouraging attendance.

Suggestions for promoting safety planning in rural areas:

• Use non-technical language and focus on the issues, not on the process.
• Customize materials for the audience and describe agenda items from the recipient's day-to-day perspective.
• Place the local planning and regional development agency in a leadership position, but provide assistance in understanding the data and developing the agenda.
• Focus on low-cost safety solutions.
• Present county-specific crash data and compare it with the statewide averages.
• Enlist local partners to contact their colleagues to recruit additional participants.

Detroit Area Incident Management
Mia Silver, MITS, MDOT
Ms. Silver introduced the group to Detroit's incident management program, which uses cameras and dynamic and variable message signs to alert drivers to changing roadway conditions. The Michigan ITS Center (MITS) is co-located with the Michigan State Police. Safety is a key component in incident management. MITS also operates the Freeway Courtesy Patrol.

AAA Road Improvement Demonstration Program
Richard Miller, Director of Community Services, AAA
American Automobile Association (AAA) Michigan is one of the largest insurers in the state and has the capability to run several safety programs with assistance from a traffic engineer on staff.

In the mid-1990s, there was concern about insurance rates in the city of Detroit. AAA developed the Road Improvement Demonstration Program (RIDP) for the city to reduce the number of crashes. Since then, the program has expanded to Grand Rapids, Michigan and into Wisconsin. Over 185 intersection improvements have been completed with 150 pending in the city of Detroit.

The RIDP funds the front-end work (audits and possibly engineering) and works with the community to identify sources for construction funding. The focus is on low-cost improvements, e.g., backplates, left-turn lanes, larger street name signs, and pedestrian improvements such as zebra striping and countdown signals. AAA is developing a toolbox for communities, aimed at city planners, mayors, and others, to help other communities design and implement a similar program.

Traffic Improvement Association (TIA)
Frank Cardimen
The Traffic Improvement Association (TIA) is a non-profit corporation that seeks to improve traffic safety and reduce congestion in Oakland County, MI. TIA acts as an information broker, providing crash data analysis, and as a buffer between the residents and the transportation agencies. Both public and private funding sources are utilized: 40 percent from communities, 20 percent from corporations, 10 percent from grants, and the rest from other road commissions.

The TIA:

• Provides current and accurate crash data within two weeks of the crash.
• Provides reports to stakeholders ranking intersections by frequency, severity, and volume of crashes. Crash diagrams and location studies are also provided.
• Holds monthly Early Bird Education Meetings from 7-9 a.m. These well-attended breakfast meetings provide networking opportunities for local politicians, engineers, law enforcement officers, and other decisionmakers.
• Conducts planning studies.
• Provides support for road commission project prioritization.
• Conducts mature driver workshops.

The fatality rate in Oakland County is much lower than other Michigan areas and the US generally. Mr. Cardimen attributes this to the many active safety agencies in the county. Regionally, TIA acts in an advisory role as a member of the Transportation Advisory Committee.

V. Data Initiatives Interactive Discussion

After presentations by Ned Levine of H-GAC and Tom Bruff of SEMCOG, Dr. Meyer facilitated a discussion of safety data initiatives and issues.

GIS-based Crash Information System
Ned Levine, H-GAC
In Texas, while each local police department collects crash data for their jurisdiction, the Department of Public Safety compiles crash data for the state. H-GAC has been using these data to construct a GIS for the last 10 years. Dr. Levine feels that the GIS-based system is superior to other database strategies because it is easier to conduct spatial analysis and show decisionmakers and the public where the problems are.

While GIS is used to analyze crash volumes and crash risk, H-GAC's approach focuses on identifying hotspots — locations with a high number of crashes. Through the use of a GIS, they can see the interaction between the different hotspots as a system (e.g., red-light running crash hot spots often occur where a frontage road crosses an arterial). Dr. Levine has developed software to facilitate the identification of hotspots, although he admits it is not an exact science.

An obstacle to using GIS in analysis of crash data is the quality of the crash data provided by other agencies. Dr. Levine warned the group of the huge initial effort required to clean and standardize these data particularly the geographic locations.

Crash Process Redesign (CPR)
Tom Bruff, SEMCOG
SEMCOG has been involved in the analysis and distribution of crash data since the 1970s, when staff began to manually enter and disseminate hardcopy safety data. They worked with MDOT, Michigan State Police, and Wayne State University and others to develop a referencing system for the data, which became the now widely-used Michigan Geographic Framework. The framework data set has been reconciled with the regional model and is updated every year and made available online. SEMCOG joined in a multi-agency project, known as Crash Process Redesign (CPR), to update the technology used to enter and maintain crash data in the state. The data entry and dissemination process has been greatly improved, as has the timeliness of the data. There are fewer barriers between groups than ever before, but concerns over permissions and use of the data remain.

SEMCOG uses the data for planning and to obtain grants from OHSP for engineering services for their customers — especially for communities that don't employ a fulltime traffic engineer. Mr. Bruff's group developed the SEMCOG Traffic Safety Manual, which explains how to collect, analyze and report on crash data and provides information on how to identify high-crash locations, assess the issues that are the cause of the crashes, provide the user with relevant mitigating strategies, and apply a benefit/cost analysis to compare treatments in order to choose the best strategy for a given budget. They developed tables with certain attributes and average crash numbers for these types of locations — users can compare their known locations with these peer groups. High-crash locations are those with a higher-than-average incidence of crashes than their peer groups. The manual also allows agencies to identify locations that are overrepresented by a specific type of crash. The peer groups were created by identifying traffic volumes, the numbers and types of crashes, the area type, functional classification, and signalization of all nodes in the system.

SEMCOG also provides an online mapping tool for crash data, land use, and other community attributes.

VI. Issues

The MPO in Safety
Defining the parameters of safety
Throughout the exchange, there was debate among the attendees about appropriate metrics for safety. Fatality and serious injury are typically used, but some attendees suggested that too narrow a focus on these two metrics may cause agencies to overlook the larger scope of the safety problem. Michael Briggs of MARC stated, "We tend to focus on fatalities and disabling injuries, not the safety of the whole system." Kansas City experiences $212 million in congestion but $1.3 billion in crash costs. Dr. Meyer noted he had found the economic costs of crashes to be higher than the cost of congestion in the Atlanta region as well.

However, participants noted that concentrating on fatalities and serious injury allows agencies to target their limited resources, and practically, they cannot ignore fatalities in favor of property damage in any event. Dr. Herbel said, "The same strategies that reduce fatalities may also reduce injuries and crashes."

The role of the MPO in safety
MPOs are new arrivals on the highway safety scene. Consequently, there are few precedents for MPO involvement in safety planning. The agencies represented at the exchange face different circumstances and take different approaches to the issue. Some of the common issues appear below.

• Is safety data analysis and distribution an appropriate use of MPO resources?
  While it would be ideal for the state DOT to perform this work, participants noted that, in many areas, "if the MPO doesn't do it, no one else will." Also, the state DOT may not collect crash data on local roads.
  
  MDOT representatives stated that improving local roads is critical for improving highway safety statewide. The best method for improving safety at the local level is to provide technical assistance.
• How involved should the MPO be in planning individual projects?
  In many areas, safety planning is relatively new and the MPOs may have to proactively identify safety deficiencies and suggest remedies to demonstrate benefits to other agencies. The MPOs generally feel that a focus on implementation is necessary to strengthen the connection between the long-range plan, the TIP, and the analysis of safety and mobility.
  
  In the case of SEMCOG, safety partnerships and planning work has gone on for many years, and the MPO serves as a resource for proactive planning by the local jurisdictions.
• Should the MPO be involved in creating Comprehensive Highway Safety Plans? If so, how?
  Susan Herbel noted that transportation planners were not involved in the original American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Strategic Highway Safety Plan. While it may take some time for MPOs to become fully integrated into the process, some areas have made progress. For example, MARC sits on the executive committee of the Missouri Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan's Executive Committee.

Incorporating safety into the planning process
Participants unanimously reported that they either currently do, or soon will, include safety as an explicit goal in the planning and programming processes.

MARC is adding a new overarching safety element to its long-range transportation plan, which has traditionally been organized by mode. The safety element is being developed in cooperation with the Kansas and Missouri DOTs' Comprehensive Highway Safety Plans through the work of a regional safety coalition.

Participants expressed concerns about methods for ensuring that investment decisions reflect the commitment to safety articulated at the policy level in the planning process. One strategy suggested was segmenting resources by goal at the outset of the planning process. NJTPA developed a regional capital investment strategy that divided funding among twelve categories, one of which is safety.

Funding Issues
The exchange participants had many questions on applying for and using different categories of funding for safety projects.

Where does maintenance end and safety work begin?
Attendees reported varying answers from different agencies on which activities qualify for safety funding, and which should be considered routine maintenance. Signage and pavement maintenance are two commonly cited examples.

Is it appropriate for MPOs to apply for Section 402 funding?
While all were interested in obtaining more safety funding, there was widespread concern in the group that applying for NHTSA Highway Traffic Safety Funding (Section 402) could take funding away from existing law enforcement programs. Dr. Herbel noted that, "While it's easy for law enforcement to use 402 money, 402 is not a law enforcement program." She added that the intent of the program is to provide seed money, and that competition can only help improve the projects funded.

Problems with the match
Participants noted that local communities were sometimes unable to take advantage of funding and grant opportunities because of staffing issues and a lack of local matching funds. Communities do not always have the resources to apply for and use the grant funding.

Using STP money for safety work
As STP funding is one of the primary funding streams programmed by MPOs, there were several questions about its applicability for safety work.

Steve Schrier of OHSP noted that his office was not able to fund construction work and that it's important for MPOs and state DOTs to have partnerships with local law enforcement and safety offices to create balanced programs.

Data Issues
Accuracy and timeliness
Participants reported widespread difficulties with obtaining accurate data in a timely fashion. (This was particularly difficult for bistate MPOs, who must reconcile two data sets.) Michigan has made considerable progress in this area. At the core of Michigan's success are longstanding partnerships and a commitment to improving safety. Key components include the development of the statewide location referencing system (the Michigan Geographic Framework, MGF) and the combined effort of MDOT and Michigan State Police to improve crash data throughout the CPR project.

Data coverage
Even where accurate information is available, it is often not available for the entire system. Crashes on local roads and arterials that do not result in serious injury or fatalities and accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle (bicycle and pedestrian) may not be captured. One suggestion was to work with local hospitals and trauma centers and tap into the excellent data they capture.

Selecting an appropriate method for data analysis
While there are several common metrics in use for analyzing safety data, there is relatively little guidance for understanding how to choose between them. As Mell Henderson of MARC said, "There are a lot of ways to ‘slice and dice’ the data — we want to know what the most productive method is." All agreed that they would like to see this issue treated in-depth. Some advice from the group:

• Think about the audience when selecting metrics.
• Road Safety Audits are a possible method to approach situations where you know there are problems, but don't have data.

Setting thresholds for hot spots
Setting thresholds for hot spots can be difficult, as many feel there can be no acceptable number of crashes. With National Institute of Justice funding, Ned Levine has developed software that identifies hot spots and which can be downloaded for free from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/crimestat. Dr. Levine noted that the grouping decision is somewhat arbitrary. In his experience he found some of it is tied to workability, i.e., what local governments can actually address.

Transit data
Accurate transit data is difficult to obtain. For example, police reports may not distinguish between transit buses and other buses, and transit agencies may be concerned with the liability implications of releasing accident data. However, crash data should be consulted when planning bus or light rail routes and stops.

• To work around data sensitivity and precision issues, NJTPA turned crash locations over to NJ Transit staff, who compared their information with NJTPA's data and identified priority sites.
• SEMCOG worked with the transit agencies to develop an Access application (the Advance Transit Accident and Crime System, ATACS) for their incident forms. The database captures crime and accident data. They use the information to identify problem drivers, routes and design training
• Ned Levine of H-GAC believes it is critical that MPOs be involved in transit safety. In the Houston-Galveston area, both the new light rail line and bus stops were planned without consulting crash histories which, among other things, led to high numbers of light rail-vehicle and pedestrian-bus accidents. The agencies are now working together and using crash data in transit planning.

Bicycle and pedestrian safety
Lois Goldman of NJTPA suggested the need to consider the impact of land use planning for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Dr. Meyer asked the group for suggestions on gathering exposure and origin-destination data for pedestrians. Ned Levine suggested using high-resolution aerial photos or cameras.

SEMCOG analyzed pedestrian crashes using GIS and referred to the traffic safety manual to identify potential treatments. They also partnered with the MDOT and consultants to conduct walkable community audits for nearly 70 communities in Southeast Michigan.

VII. Best Practices

Educating elected officials and the public
The American public has been surprisingly tolerant of traffic accidents throughout the years. An important first step in establishing a successful SCP program is convincing decisionmakers and the public of the need for a safety focus. Participants suggested various strategies they have found effective:

• Provide the information — numbers of crashes, severity, costs, i.e. the size, locations, etc. of the safety problem; and show the comparatively minor costs of safety improvements.
• Go to the meetings whether they seem productive or not. It's important to show up.
• Release information about the biggest safety problems. Tom Bruff suggested sitting down with the agencies that will be impacted by the report before giving out the information about the top crash locations. "We ask what they're planning to do about it. We then give out that information to the media with the list of locations." He feels that this strategy gets the word out without endangering relationships with other agencies.
• Get the media on your side. Invite them to lunch and give them the background to stimulate their interest in safety.
• Present crash data but also demonstrate success. Safety is a "feel-good" issue. There are huge political battles about accessibility, mobility, and other things, but not about safety. Politicians and the media are supportive when informed and presented with opportunities for addressing safety issues.
• Use demonstration projects to help communities understand the benefits. Publicize the results.
• Get buy-in at the beginning of the planning process.

Bringing diverse stakeholders together
The core of SCP is a multi-disciplinary effort that brings engineering, planning, education, law enforcement, and other stakeholders together to make better decisions about our nation's roadways. Groups that have historically had little interaction may be unaware of MPO work and how it affects them. Participants suggested various tactics for getting everyone to the table.

• Incident response is a great way to get all the parties together and start collaboration.
• Conduct multi-disciplinary Road Safety Audits — it's a concrete way for the different players to understand how they all fit into safety.
• Use non-technical language and focus on the issues, not the process.
• Customize materials for the audience.
• Focus on low-cost solutions.

Keeping diverse stakeholders involved
A common question concerned follow-up activities to the FHWA-sponsored series of regional Safety Conscious Planning forums. Many of the participating agencies had conducted regional forums prior to attending the exchange. While they saw the value of getting the players together, there seemed to be a need for guidance on next steps. As Rosemarie Anderson of DVRPC asked, "Once you've got everyone to the table, how do you keep them there?"

Mike Prince of Michigan's OHSP suggested their program on safety studies as one model for follow-up work on the forums. Other suggestions:

• Don't meet very often — avoid "meeting burnout."
• Do all the work through committees.
• Provide doughnuts and good lunches.
• Ensure that participants can see the impact of their participation.

Combine safety analysis with routine maintenance to get slow, incremental improvement.
The checklist developed by the Iowa DOT to achieve safety through maintenance is one example.

VIII. Lessons Learned

• Partnerships are critical to a successful SCP program.
• "Good data gives you the opportunity to make good decisions." (John Friend)
• Provide safety data as a "hook" to bring in other organizations.
• Promising topics for future exchanges and research include data analysis, applying for and using safety funding, multimodal safety planning, and integrating land use and traffic safety planning.

IX. For More Information

X. List of Participants

Organization	Name	E-Mail Address	Phone
AAA	Jeff Bagdade	JSBagdade@aaamichigan.com	(313) 336-1405
AAA	Richard Miller	rjmiller@aaamichigan.com	(313) 336-1405
Cambridge Systematics	Susan B Herbel, Ph.D.	sherbel@camsys.com	(407) 829-6424
DVRPC	John Coscia, Jr.	jcosciajr@dvrpc.org	(215) 238-2859
DVRPC	Rosemarie Anderson	randerson@dvrpc.org	(215) 238-2832
FHWA — MI Division	Jim Cramer	james.cramer@fhwa.dot.gov	(517) 702-1827
GA Tech School of Civil & Environmental	Michael Meyer, Ph.D.	michael.meyer@ce.gatech.edu	(404) 385-2246
H-GAC	Ashby Johnson, AICP	ashby.johnson@h-gac.com	(713) 993-2474
H-GAC	Ned Levine	Ned.Levine@h-gac.com	(713) 993-2457
MARC	Michael Briggs	mbriggs@marc.org	(816) 474-4240
MARC	Mell Henderson	mellh@marc.org	(816) 474-4240
MDOT	John Friend	FriendJ@michigan.gov	(517) 373-9010
MDOT	Susan Richardson	RichardsonS@michigan.gov	(517) 373-1881
MDOT	Mia Silver	silverma@michigan.gov	(313)256-9800
NJTPA	Lois Goldman, AICP, PP	lgoldman@njtpa.org	(973) 639-8413
OHSP	Mike Prince	princem@michigan.gov	517) 333-5301
OHSP	Steve Schreier	schreies@michigan.gov	(517) 333-5306
SEMCOG	Carmine Palombo	palombo@semcog.org	(313) 961-4266
SEMCOG	Tom Bruff	bruff@semcog.org	(313) 324-3340
SEMCOG	Paul Tait	tait@semcog.org	(313) 961-4266
SEMCOG	Talma Cato	cato@semcog.org
SEMCOG	Christine Urgo de Lozano	Urgo_de_Lozano@semcog.org
TIA	Frank Cardimen	frankc@tia.org	(248) 334-4971
USDOT — Volpe Center	Elizabeth Machek	elizabeth.machek@volpe.dot.gov	(617) 494-3442

XI. Peer Exchange Agenda