NCHRP 17-18(05) [Completed]
Integrated Management Process to Reduce Highway Injuries and Fatalities Statewide
| Project Data
||iTRANS Consulting, Ltd. (affiliate of iTRANS Consulting, Inc.)|
Background: State organizations carry out a number of independent safety initiatives that individually help to reduce injuries and fatalities on highways. However, because highway safety responsibilities are divided among multiple agencies (DOT, motor vehicles, state police, etc.), most states do not have a comprehensive strategic approach. Many initiatives focus only on those strategies that the particular agency is responsible for implementing and do not effectively address the entire safety problem. A further concern is the effective coordination of safety efforts outside of the state highway system. Thus, there is a need to organize a coordinated, comprehensive management approach to integrating engineering, education, and enforcement efforts that more effectively address major crash problems and are likely to result in a greater reduction of overall injuries and deaths.
Currently, NCHRP Project 17-18(3), Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, is developing guidelines to assist state and local agencies in implementing strategies (edgeline rumble strips, access management at intersections, etc.) to reduce crashes and fatalities in targeted areas. The emphasis of Project 17-18(3) is on six areas: aggressive driving, head-on crashes on two-lane roads, run-off-the-road crashes on two-lane roads, drivers with suspended/revoked licenses, hazardous trees, and unsignalized intersections. Additional areas will likely be added to that project. Therefore, an integrated management process is needed to assist in determining the most effective combination of strategies to deploy at the state and local levels.
Objective: The objective of this project was to develop a management process that will address major highway-related crash problems by effectively integrating engineering, education, and enforcement, regardless of where these responsibilities may reside within a governmental organization.
Tasks: The research included the following tasks: (1.) Consult with experts in the field, including practitioners, to identify the best practices that have been or could be successfully used to develop an integrated management process for reducing highway injuries and fatalities. These include: (a) mechanisms to incorporate safety within the mission of the organization and (b) methods for identifying the significant internal and external partners who can impact safety and the means of bringing them into a process that increases the overall safety implementation and effectiveness effort. (2.) Develop a draft management process using the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan as a reference that, as a minimum, includes the following components: (a) a methodology to perform detailed analysis that identifies major crash concerns in the state using available data on the vehicle, person, and infrastructure problem; (b) mechanisms to apply and target strategies (edgeline rumble strips, removal of trees, etc.) for effective statewide deployment, considering geo-spatial crash problem intensities (point, corridor, region, and statewide); (c) methodologies to define the most effective combinations of strategies considering available funds, costs, effectiveness, and other limitations; (d) a method to support the development of jurisdictional goals in terms of reducing injuries and fatalities and relating the goals to the cost and level of deployment of sets of selected strategies; (e) performance-measurement tools to determine the level of deployment and success in meeting the goals of the plan; (f) evaluation tools to define the effectiveness of promising, new, or innovative strategies that have insufficient documentation; (g) identification of institutional implementation issues and a recommendation to effectively address them; and (h) management and tracking systems that can monitor and improve the effective implementation of the integrated planning process. (3.) Submit an interim report documenting the results of Tasks 1 and 2. The interim report shall include the draft management process. (4.) Meet in Washington, D.C., with the NCHRP panel to review the interim report approximately 1 month after its submittal. (5.) Revise the draft management process and material in the interim report using decisions made at the panel meeting. (6.) Conduct workshops in three to five states using the draft management process. The contractor shall meet with representatives of each state to explain the process and conduct the workshop. (7.) Refine the management process using the findings from Task 6. (8.) Develop a detailed implementation plan for implementing the proposed management process. (9.) Submit a final report documenting the entire research effort. The final report shall describe how the project was conducted and include as appendixes the proposed management process and the detailed implementation plan.
Status: The draft final report has been submitted published as NCHRP Report 501.
Product Availability: The final report has been published as NCHRP Report 501.