1. MPO Support of HIGHWAY SAFETY
Activities of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB)
Eric Randall
TPB Transportation Engineer
2017 Maryland Strategic Highway Safety Summit
April 26, 2017

2. Overview Organizational Structure of COG/TPB
TPB and MWCOG Safety Activities
StreetSmart
Transportation Safety Subcommittee
TIP and LRP
Performance Based Planning & Programming
MPO response to MAP-21/FAST regulations
Federal requirements and MPO responsibilities
Interaction: PBPP, TIP, MD SHSP
Upcoming Board Actions
Board action date, consequences, HSIP funds -> TIP
MPOs can meet the target setting requirement by either:
Agree to plan and program projects (3 separate agreements in our case)
Set our own regional target for each PM
Required to coordinate with state DOTs
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

3. TPB
The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the metropolitan Washington region
Regional forum for transportation planning
Fulfill federal requirements of MPOs
The TPB is a regional body, made up of:
Representatives of local governments
State transportation agencies
State legislative bodies (MD, VA, DC)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA)
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

4. TPB and MWCOG Safety Activities
TPB is staffed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). MWCOG supports the region’s activities in the environment, community planning, and public safety
Safety Activities of TPB and MWCOG:
StreetSmart program
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
Safe Routes to School projects
Transportation Safety Subcommittee
Police Chiefs Committee
Transportation Plans and Programs
Performance Based Planning and Programming
MPOs can meet the target setting requirement by either:
Agree to plan and program projects (3 separate agreements in our case)
Set our own regional target for each PM
Required to coordinate with state DOTs
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

5. StreetSmart Street Smart focuses on Education through Mass Media
One media campaign for one media market
Multi-year “Tired Faces” Creative
Concentrated waves of Radio, Television, Gas Station, Transit, and Internet advertising designed to change driver, pedestrian, and cyclist behavior
Fall and Spring Waves
Since Fall 2002
Supported by concurrent law enforcement
Annual budget is $760,000
Funded by:
Federal Funds administered by DC, MD, and VA
WMATA
TPB Member Governments FY 2017 Budget
MPOs can meet the target setting requirement by either:
Agree to plan and program projects (3 separate agreements in our case)
Set our own regional target for each PM
Required to coordinate with state DOTs
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

6. Transportation Safety Subcommittee
Forum for collaboration on safety issues
Provides safety expertise to the Transportation Planning Board
Ensures that safety is considered in regional transportation planning processes and included in the TIP and the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Typically meets five to six times per year
Target setting – starting with state DOTs
Required to set statewide targets for each of the 5 PMs
Must now be consistent with SHSO targets
All public roadways
Once reported, cannot change
States can also establish targets for sub areas:
As many urbanized areas as desired
One for all non-urbanized areas
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

7. Transportation Plans and Programs
Federal regulations require that MPOs must prepare plans and programs in order for federal-aid transportation funds to flow to the region
TPB’s long-range plan is the Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP)
Goes out to 2040
All regionally significant projects and programs
Hundreds of road and transit projects
Must meet air quality standards
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Covers at least a 4-year period and programs federal, state, local, and other funds for every project and program by fiscal year.
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

8. Performance-Based Planning and Programming (PBPP)
New federal requirement for MPOs and DOTs – MAP-21 and FAST Acts
Application of performance management within the planning and programming process to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation system
PBPP to be included in a range of activities and products
Development of long range transportation plans
Federally-required plans and processes -- such as Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs), Asset Management Plans, the Congestion Management Process (CMP), Transit Agency Asset Management Plans, and Transit Agency Safety Plans
Programming documents, including State and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs and TIPs)
Target setting – starting with state DOTs
Required to set statewide targets for each of the 5 PMs
Must now be consistent with SHSO targets
All public roadways
Once reported, cannot change
States can also establish targets for sub areas:
As many urbanized areas as desired
One for all non-urbanized areas
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

9. Why a PBPP approach Improved Outcomes
Improved investment decision-making
Improved return on investments and resource allocation
Improved system performance
Increased accountability and transparency
Demonstrates link between funding and performance
Common themes within a PBPP Process:
Cooperation and coordination
Data and tools
Linkages across performance-based planning activities
Feedback mechanisms
Public and stakeholder involvement
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

10. Safety Performance Measure Final Rule
Final rulemaking National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program published March 15, 2016
Provision
State DOT
MPO
Establishes Safety Performance Measures 
Establishes a target setting process
Describes how progress will be reported
Describes how the FHWA will assess whether or not sufficient progress has been made
Describes the consequences for neither meeting the targets nor making significant progress
5 major provisions
Tells us what the performance measures are and what data to use
Tells state dots and MPOs about how targets should be set
Defines how state DOTs and MPOs have to report on their targets
For state DOTs – tells us how the FHWA will assess whether sufficient progress has been made
And also only for state DOTs – it lays out what happens is significant progress is not met
We will go through each of these provisions in turn
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

11. Highway Safety Performance Measures and Data Sources
Description
Data Source
Number of Fatalities
(5 year rolling average)
Total number of fatalities during a calendar year
FARS1
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT
Ratio of total fatalities to VMT
FARS and HPMS2
(or MPO estimate)
Number of Serious Injuries
Total number of serious injuries during a calendar year
State reported serious injury data3
Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT
Ratio of total serious injuries to VMT
State reported serious injury data3 and HPMS
Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
Total number of fatalities and serious injuries during a calendar year
FARS and State serious injury data3
So here are the official highway safety PMs
Number of fatalities – FARS
Fatality Rate – FARS and HPMS
Number of serious injuries – sate reported data (KABCO “A”)
Serious injury rate – state reported data and HMPS
Total number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries – FARS and state reported serious injury data
5 year rolling average – not single year results
1 FARS: Fatality Analysis Reporting System
2 HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System
3 for the first 36 months – after that States must adopt the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) definition of serious injury
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

12. Highway Safety Performance Measures: MPO Target Setting
MPOs shall establish performance targets in coordination with State DOTs.
For each performance measure (PM), the MPO will either:
Agree to plan and program projects so they contribute toward accomplishing the state DOT safety target for that PM, or
Commit to a quantifiable target for that PM for the metropolitan planning area
Each target shall represent anticipated performance outcome for all public roadways in the metropolitan planning area, regardless of ownership
MPOs shall coordinate with the state DOT(s) to ensure consistency
MPOs can meet the target setting requirement by either:
Agree to plan and program projects (3 separate agreements in our case)
Set our own regional target for each PM
Required to coordinate with state DOTs
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

13. Coordination of Performance Targets with Metropolitan Planning
MPOs will annually report targets to respective state DOTs in a manner that is documented and mutually agreed upon
Targets will begin to be reported no more than 180 days after state DOTs have set their targets
Long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan shall include:
a description of the performance measures and targets; and
a report evaluating the condition of the system(s) with respect to the MPOs performance measures and targets, including progress achieved.
TIPs must include a discussion of the anticipated effects of the TIP toward achieving the performance targets by linking investment priorities to those performance targets.
A few key points:
MPOs must coordinate with the State DOTs
We have to include a description of the PMs and targets in our Metropolitan Transportation Plan and report on how we are doing with respect to the PMs; and
We have to include a discussion in our TIP that links it to the achievement of those targets.
I mentioned in a previous slide that the FHWA does not check to see if MPOs achieve their targets – or are making significant progress – but this is where the FHWA will review our efforts in their periodic review and certification of our transportation planning process.
During these reviews they will no doubt be looking into how we are incorporated safety performance measures and target setting into our long range plan and tip – as well as what we are doing to achieve those targets
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

14. TPB Safety Target - Fatalities
National Capital Region
Maryland Portion
Virginia Portion ?
DC Portion ?
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

15. Highway Safety Performance Measures: Expected Outcomes
The amount and quality of safety data will be improved – particularly with respect to serious injuries
Greater transparency will be achieved by requiring fatality and serious injury data to be reported through a public reporting system
Aggregation of targets and progress at the national level will be possible through improved data consistency
State DOTs will meet or make significant progress toward their safety targets
Furthermore:
State DOTs and MPOs are expected to use the information generated by these regulations to make investment decisions that will result in the greatest possible reductions in fatalities and serious injuries
This is what the USDOT expects from the implementation of this rule:
Better data
Improved transparency – where states are required to publicly report fatality and serious injury data as well as how they are doing toward meeting goals
Because the rule lays out a national standard for what constitutes a serious injury, aggregation of serious injury data at the national level will become possible
They also expect that states will make progress toward reducing fatalities and serious injuries
They want states and MPOs to use this more robust safety data to make investment decisions that result in the greatest possible reductions in fatalities and serious injuries
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

16. TPB Coordination Activities
Continuing collaboration with key Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia partners
Compiling regional performance measure data consistent with state data
Ongoing coordination with Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia officials as they develop their respective target setting methodologies
Ongoing engagement with the Transportation Safety Subcommittee, the Technical Committee, and the TPB
Will develop a staff-recommended regional safety target setting methodology - and corresponding targets - based on coordination with our member states and this committee
TPB policy board, including local elected officials, will take target- setting action annually
Now that the final rule is out – how is the TPB moving forward?
Last year we identified, in partnership with each of our state partners, representatives from Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and TPB staff – and started the collaboration process with a webinar last September.
One concrete result from the effort so far is the regional serious injury data that we now have. We also confirmed that MD and VA are taking very different approaches to setting fatality targets.
Now that the final rule is out, we are planning a follow up webinar.
(review rest of slide)
Questions?
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

17. mwcog.org/tpb Eric Randall Jon Schermann TPB Transportation Engineer
(202)
Jon Schermann
TPB Transportation Planner
(202)
mwcog.org/tpb
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002

18. TPB Regional Safety Data - Fatalities
Maryland Portion
Virginia Portion
District of Columbia
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

19. Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Hypothetical Washington Region Targets
Overall Fatality Goals
Total of 4 Counties
Montgomery
Prince George’s Frederick & Charles
Interim yearly goals
Toward Zero Deaths
½ of 2008 (216) by (108)

20. Highway Safety Performance Measures: FHWA Determination of Significant Progress
State DOTs
FHWA will only evaluate progress on the 5 statewide performance targets – not on any of the additional targets states might set for urbanized and non-urbanized areas
A state is determined to have met or made significant progress toward meeting its targets when at least 4 of the targets are either:
Met; or
The outcome of a performance measure is less than the 5 year rolling average for that performance measure for the year prior to the establishment of the state target
MPOs – not applicable
FHWA will evaluate the state DOTs on their performance relative to the 5 statewide targets
they will not make any evaluation on any of the optional targets states may set for various urbanized or non- urbanized areas
The key thing is that the FHWA will determine whether or not the state has made significant progress
States do not have to meet all (or even any) of their targets to demonstrate that they have made significant progress – as long as they are deemed to have made significant progress on 4 of the 5 measures they will have made significant progress – and avoid the sanctions (which will be covered later)
FHWA will not evaluate MPO targets…
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

21. Highway Safety Performance Measures: Example
2011 – 2015
(baseline)
2018 Target
Target Met?
Better than Baseline?
Number of Fatalities
476.0
474.0
473.0
472.4
468.0 No
Yes
Fatality Rate
0.994
0.988
0.990
0.980
Number of Serious Injuries
2,447.8
2,310.4
2,219.2
2,185.6
2,160.0
Serious Injury Rate
5.116
4.822
4.644
4.584
4.572
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
115.2
113.2
110.0
109.4
N/A
So we will go over a hypothetical example here….
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

22. HSIP Final Rule
Final rulemaking National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program published March 15, 2016
Requires states to develop, implement, and evaluate annually an HSIP that reduces fatalities and serious injuries
Describes the components of a state’s HSIP program
A Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
A Railway-Highway Crossing Program
A program of highway safety improvement projects (to be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Process)
Requires states to:
Collect, maintain, and analyze safety data on all public roads
Periodically update their SHSPs
Regularly assess the results achieved by their program of safety improvement projects and evaluate their SHSPs
MIRE data elements
Non-local paved roads
Roadway Segments
18 data elements including things such as:
median type, # thru lanes, AADT, surface type
Intersections
20 data elements including things such as:
intersection geometry, intersection traffic control, ramp length, AADT, etc
Local Paved Roads
9 data elements including things such as:
surface type, functional class, urban/rural designation, # thru lanes, AADT, etc
Unpaved roads – 3 data elements – type of ownership, begin point segment, end point segment
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

23. Highway Safety Performance Measures: Reporting
States
Targets for fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries will be reported to NHTSA in the State’s HSP (due July 1 each year)
All 5 targets will be reported to the FHWA in the State’s HSIP annual report (due August 31 each year)
Targets will begin to be reported in the 2017 HSP and the 2017 HSIP annual report and each year thereafter
The rule also specifies how states and MPOs report on their targets:
States will report to the FHWA within their annual HSP (first 3 performance measures – due July 1 of each year) and within their HSIP annual reports (all 5 measures – due at the end of August each year)
The first set of such reports will be due in the 2017 HSP and HSIP annual report
MPOs do not report directly to the FHWA, but rather to the DOT – process needs to be documented
MPOs will also report on their progress toward the targets within the System Performance report as part of the Transportation Plan
MPOs need to set and report on their targets 180 days after the states (Feb 2018)
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

24. Highway Safety Performance Measures: Target Setting
State DOTs
Required to set statewide targets for each of the five performance measures
Each of these targets must be identical to those set by the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO)
Each target shall represent anticipated performance outcome for all public roadways in the State, regardless of ownership
Targets cannot be changed after they are reported
In addition, state DOTs may establish additional targets for portions of the state as follows
Any number and combination of urbanized area boundaries wholly contained within the state, and/or
A single non-urbanized area target for all on the non-urbanized areas of the state
Target setting – starting with state DOTs
Required to set statewide targets for each of the 5 PMs
Must now be consistent with SHSO targets
All public roadways
Once reported, cannot change
States can also establish targets for sub areas:
As many urbanized areas as desired
One for all non-urbanized areas
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017

25. Highway Safety Performance Measures: Consequences for Failing to Meet Targets or Making Significant Progress
State DOTs
State DOTs that have not or made significant progress toward meeting safety performance targets must:
Use a portion of their obligation only for HSIP projects, and;
Submit an annual implementation plan that describes actions the DOT will take to meet their targets
MPOs – none explicitly stated, however…
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) must consider programming of projects in each area and how they affect performance.
Describe progress toward achieving targets in each update
If the FHWA determines that a state has not made significant progress – two things happen, and will be in effect only for the subsequent fiscal year
they lose flexibility on how they may spend a portion of their HSIP funds; and
The state must submit an implementation plan describing how they will meet their safety targets based on a detailed analysis
TPB and Highway Safety
April 26, 2017