1

National Performance Measures: Safety NPRM Overview and Assessment

Rudy Malfabon May 14, 2014

2

• Schedule Update • AASHTO Review Process • National-level Safety Measure Comments • HSIP Comments • Next Steps

Overview

3

Schedule Update (4/2014)

Rule Responsible Expected

Highway Safety Program Grants SCOHTS COMPLETE

FTA ANPRM* (Rule 60) SCOPT COMPLETE

CMAQ Program Interim Guidance SCOE/SCOP COMPLETE

Safety Performance Measure (Rule 26) SCOPM Comments Due 6/9/2014

Highway Safety Improvement Program (Rule 30)* *60 day comment period.

SCOHTS Comments Due 5/27/2014

FHWA/FTA Metropolitan and Statewide Planning (Rule 26 and 60)

SCOP Week of May 12, 2014

CMAQ Weighting Factors (Rule 33) SCOE/SCOP July 25, 2014

Pavement/Bridge Performance Measure (Rule 28) SCOPM August 1, 2014

Asset Management Plan (Rule 32)* *60 day comment period.

SCOP-TAM August 1, 2014

System Performance Measure (Rule 29) SCOPM August 25, 2014

4

• Joint Workgroup of SCOPM and SCOHTS – SCOPM: Dave Kuhn (NJ), Sue Scribner (VT), Mark Van Port Fleet (MI), Lynn Zanto

(MT) – SCOHTS: Tim Barnett, Troy Costales, Leanna Depue, Robert Hull, John Milton,

Terry Pence, Priscilla Tobias, Fred Zwonechek – Others: James Ballinger (KY—AASHTO President), Charles Meyer (CO—

Operations)

• Two Phase Approach – Phase 1—Develop AASHTO comments by Day 45

• States have the opportunity to provide initial thoughts and comments on first draft.

– Phase 2—States finalize their comments by Day 90 (Safety Measures) or Day 60 (HSIP)

• AASHTO encourages ALL State DOTs to submit comments

AASHTO Review Process

5

1. Target Setting Authority 2. Methodology for Determining Significant Progress 3. Delay in Getting the Data 4. Transition to MMUCC and Linking Medical Records to Crash

Reports 5. Coordination of Planning Documents 6. Coordination with MPOs and SHSOs 7. Implication If a State DOT Does Not Meet Targets

National-level Safety Measures FHWA-2013-0020

6

• AASHTO is concerned about making the targets for the common measures between the HSIP and State HSP identical – State HSPs must be “approved” by NHTSA

• This requires indirect approval of targets by US DOT. • MAP-21 clearly states targets are to be established by State DOTs without approval

from US DOT.

– Differences in approach between NHTSA and FHWA • There are now consequences if a State DOT does not meet its targets

• Suggested Changes 1. Ensure State and local discretion in target setting, in accord with MAP-21 2. Have FHWA build additional capacity within State DOTs to collect, and analyze

safety data and set safety targets

Target Setting Authority

7

• Generally support the two-step approach – Step 1: If a State DOT meets 50% of the targets set for safety, they have

made significant progress and no penalties apply – Step 2: If a State DOT does not meet 50% of the targets, a more

complicated assessment of progress towards target achievement is proposed

• AASHTO is concerned about Step 2 – Need to include language to account for unforeseen circumstances

(extreme weather events, Acts of God) – Consider a less complicated approach that does not rely strictly on

historical data – Include additional types of line fits besides the straight-line methodology

Methodology for Determining Significant Progress

8

Michigan DOT Example

9

• Suggested Changes – Include additional language to account for unforeseen events. – Adopt additional non-linear models for evaluation.

• Exponential, Straight-line, Logarithmic, Other

– Evaluate only the four required statewide targets • A State DOT may elect to develop up to 12 targets (4 statewide, 4 urban, 4 non-

urban). • Only the 4 statewide targets should be used determine if significant progress is being

made since all States have to set these 4 targets.

– Adopt a flat-line approach for States with increasing trend lines – Allow flexibility in determining if a State is achieving significant progress. – Allow flexibility in imposing penalties on a State that is not achieving significant

progress.

Significant Progress (cont.)

10

• The delay created by using FARS and HPMS data creates a significant delay in FHWA determining if significant progress is being made. – FHWA will assess 2017 data in 2020 and penalize a State in 2021 if a State

DOT had not made progress. – The delay is unacceptable and detrimental to the effective use of safety

data in the performance-based planning process.

• Suggested Changes – Allow States to self-certify FARS and Serious Injury data – Base all measures on the most recent HPMS data available.

Delay in Getting the Data

11

• Generally supportive of transitioning to using MMUCC definitions and using CODES – FHWA needs to specify a specific edition of MMUCC in the rule and not

leave it as “latest edition” – More planning and research to using CODES is needed

• Suggested Changes – Replace MMUCC, latest edition, with MMUCC, 4th Edition – Give States 36 months to transition to MMUCC, 4th Edition – Postpone the transition to CODES until further research can be

conducted.

Transition to MMUCC

12

• US DOT needs to ensure that all safety plans are coordinated such that a single, comprehensive state-wide safety plan can be established – HSP: Annual (July 1) – HSP Report: Annual (December 31) – HSIP Progress Report: Annual (August 31) – SHSP: No longer than every 5 years – Others: LRTP, S/TIP, CVSP

• Suggested Changes – Ensure that FHWA and NHTSA have common expectations for performance time

frames. – Provide waiver or delay in planning document deadlines – Provide flexibility to establish a coordination structure

Coordination of Planning Documents

13

• MPO Coordination – AASHTO supports the flexibility provided to MPOs to establish separate

targets within their boundary – MPOs can set separate targets or support the State DOT targets

• SHSO Coordination – Concern about making the targets for the common measures between

the HSIP (State DOT) and State HSP (SHSO) identical

• Suggest Changes – Ensure safety targets do not have to be identical between the State DOT

and SHSO

Coordination with MPOs and SHSOs

14

• Consistency in applying penalties among the State DOTs by FHWA Division Offices – Penalties could lead to redundant and onerous reporting that adds no

value to improving safety

• Uncertainty about MAP-21 language applying to programming or obligation

• Suggested Changes – Allow states to use obligation authority equal to prior year

apportionment over the full apportionment availability period. – Allow states to balance programs for optimum success across all

performance targets based upon funding levels.

Implication If a State DOT Does Not Meet Targets

15

1. Implementation of the MIRE FDE Requirements 2. Flexibility in Using the HSIP Funding 3. Safety Programming and Project Selection 4. Online Reporting of the HSIP 5. Serious Injury Definition 6. Use of the Term “Hazard” 7. Evaluating and Reporting Safety Projects and Programs 8. Coordination Between NHTSA and FHWA

HSIP (DRAFT COMMENTS) FHWA-2013-0019

16

• Major issue areas: 1. Data Requirements—They are too much! 2. Cost to Collect, Analyze and Manage the Data—The States do not have the

money given the data requirements that FHWA proposed! 3. Timeframe for Implementation—The States cannot complete the required work

in the proposed five-year timeframe. 4. Impact on All Public Roads—The States don’t have the data or means to collect

the data on All Public Roads

• Suggested Changes (selected) – Limit which local/rural roads need to have data reported – Allow a minimum of ten years for State DOTs to collect MIRE FDE on all public

roads – Allow States to prioritize THEIR data needs

1. Implementation of the MIRE FDE Requirements

17

• AASHTO supports the elimination of a 10 percent flex funds cap • AASHTO does not support the requirement that all other

funding for non-infrastructure projects be used prior to using HSIP – If a project is eligible for HSIP funding, no limitations should be applied.

• Suggested Changes – Maximize use of limited funding to improve safety outcomes (rather than

collect more data) – Remove the requirement that all other eligible funding for non-

infrastructure projects must be used prior to using HSIP funds

2. Flexibility in Using the HSIP Funding

18

3. Safety Programming and Project Selection – Strong language concerning selecting projects that maximize safety

benefits, highest “rate of return”, etc. that is concerning.

4. Online Reporting of the HSIP – Generally supportive, but the HSIP online reporting tool is clunky and

needs to be improved with input from users (e.g., State DOTs)

5. Serious Injury Definition – Concern about using the MMUCC, latest edition, versus MMUCC, 4th

Edition.

Other Issue Areas

19

6. Use of the Term “Hazard” – Stop using the term “hazard” which creates a liability for many State

DOTs

7. Evaluating and Reporting Safety Projects and Programs – Ensure that safety evaluation includes a long-term focus and not solely

year-by-year target achievement.

8. Coordination Between NHTSA and FHWA – Clarify and/or better define the relationship between NHTSA and

FHWA to ensure safety innovation, encourage setting aggressive targets, adopt evidence-based best practices and implement innovative safety projects.

Other Issue Areas

20

3. Safety Programming and Project Selection – Issue: Some States want to propose eliminating the language talking about “Rate

of Return” and NOT replace with “economic analysis” • NPRM Language: 924.9(a)(3)(vii), regarding updates to SHSP, appears to be calling for

the SHSP to focus on areas that “... possess the greatest potential for a high rate of return on safety investments.”

• AASHTO proposes to replace “high rate of return analysis with “economic analysis”.

– Concern: Economic analysis will be just as burdensome, if not more, than rate of return, especially if FHWA carries it out to the extent that “economic analysis” has been required on the TIGER grant applications.

– Question: Should AASHTO recommend modifying Rate or Return with Economic Analysis or recommend removing the language altogether?

Discussion Item #1

21

8. Coordination Between NHTSA and FHWA – Issue: Should the concern of AASHTO that the perceived manner in which

NHTSA and FHWA operate be raised as a principal comment or include it in the comment letter or elsewhere?

– Concern: Worried that the current language pertaining to setting “aggressive targets” may lead to unanticipated outcomes for states.

– Question 1: Should this remain as Principal Comment #8? • Summary of AASHTO proposed language (see comment letter for exact wording):

Clarify and/or better define the relationship between NHTSA and FHWA to ensure safety innovation, encourage setting aggressive targets, adopt evidence-based best practices and implement innovative safety projects.

– Question 2a: If yes, should we incorporate the proposed modifications from WY/ID/SD/ND/MT?

– Question 2b: If no, should incorporate the discussion in the cover letter?

Discussion Item #2

22

• National-level Safety Measure Rule – State DOTs PLEASE submit your comments! – Comments are due June 9, 2014 – Docket Number: FHWA-2013-0020

• HSIP Rule – Send comments on AASHTO first draft to Kelly Hardy at AASHTO ASAP! – Comments are due to FHWA by May 27, 2014 – Docket Number: FHWA-2013-0019

Next Steps