| |
Keith Knapp, Ph.D., P.E.*
Assistant Professor
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Engineering Professional Development
432 North Lake Street #713
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-263-6314
Fax: 608-263-3160
knapp@epd.engr.wisc.edu
Donald Walker
Professor Emeritus
Director – Wisconsin LTAP
Transportation Information Center
432 N. Lake Street #721
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-262-7988
Fax: 608-263-3160
donald@engr.wisc.edu
Eugene Wilson, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE
Professor Emeritus
Director – Wyoming T2/LTAP
Wyoming Technology Transportation Center
University of Wyoming
P.O. Box 3295
Laramie, WY 82071-3295
Phone: 307-766-6743
Fax: 307-766-6784
wilsonem@uwyo.edu
Submitted on June 14, 2002
Word Count: 3,874 + 1 figure/table = 4,124
A significant increase in the safety of transportation networks within the United States and throughout the world will require the direct involvement of local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, townships, villages, and cities). In 1998, approximately 4 out 10 fatalities in the United States occurred on collector and local roadways. Local road agencies need to have the skills to identify, evaluate, and mitigate safety concerns. Effective local road safety training, technology transfer, and resources are essential. A number of challenges need to be met to complete these tasks, but current local road safety training and technology transfer programs and strategies also offer opportunities. This paper identifies and discusses some of these challenges, and also describes several current and potential programs and strategies for local road safety training and technology transfer. Relevant results from a recent FHWA/AASHTO international scan tour on the management and organization of comprehensive highway safety programs are also presented, and used to support the suggestions provided. A synopsis of the relevant discussions from a recent FHWA/AASHTO/TRB/ITE workshop on highway safety workforce development is also offered. The objective of this paper is to initiate discussion about the need and development of a comprehensive and cost effective local safety training and technology transfer program.
KEYWORDS: safety training, safety technology transfer, local technical assistance program, and safety programmingRoadway safety is a specific program area for the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The USDOT, AASHTO, and many individual State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have strategic safety plans that include specific highway fatality reduction goals. These types of plans, in one form or another, also exist in many countries throughout the world.
The increased focus on roadway safety by Federal and State transportation organizations is to be commended, but in 1998 approximately 39 percent (or 16,010) of all the fatalities that occurred in the United States were along roadways classified as collector or local streets (1). About 77 percent of the roadway mileage in the United States that year was classified as being locally maintained (1). In 1998 a similar percentage (approximately 42 percent) of the fatalities in Wisconsin also occurred on county and local roadways (2). These types of low-volume roadways are not typically under the jurisdiction of either Federal or State governments, and safety along them needs to be addressed at the local level. Fatalities along local roadways are a concern within the United States and globally.
Ultimately, any significant reductions in roadway fatalities and crashes will require the mitigation of safety concerns along roadways under the jurisdiction of local governmental entities (e.g., cities, towns, counties, and villages). Effective local road safety training, technology transfer, and the resources necessary to complete these safety improvements are essential. To properly implement the reduction of roadway fatalities and injuries local roadway managers and/or staff need to be able to:
Training local staff in these skills offers a number of challenges. Several organizations and program strategies already exist that will be helpful. One objective of this paper is to introduce some of these challenges related to effective safety training and technology transfer. Another objective is to highlight strategies and/or existing programs that address these challenges. Relevant local safety information from a March 2002 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/AASHTO international scan tour on managing and organizing highway safety is also provided. In addition, a short summary of key points for local safety training and technology transfer presented at an April 2002 FHWA/AASHTO/Transportation Research Board (TRB) /Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) workshop on highway safety workforce planning will be offered.
There are also at least two other challenges that should be addressed to effectively motivate local authorities to spend their limited resources on safety-related training. There needs to first be an acknowledgement of their current workload and limits on staffing, and training funding. The size and knowledge of the staffing at a local public works or transportation agency is often primarily directed toward the general pavement and bridge maintenance of existing roadways. There is a general belief that the time and staff simply aren’t available to address roadway safety concerns in addition to “normal duties”. This situation needs to be addressed before any safety improvements can occur.
The funding amounts and/or sources for safety-oriented projects present a second challenge in some local jurisdictions. Many low-volume road capital improvement programs are focused on the maintenance of existing roadways. Limited funding, staff time, and public support often result in few, if any, road projects directed solely on properly evaluated safety improvements. Of course, funding for any type of local training is also usually very limited. The source, amount, and programming of funding for local roadway network safety improvements and training are key challenges that need to be addressed.
The need for safety training and technology transfer is based on the authors’ observations that many local road agencies do not currently have the level of technical knowledge necessary to complete the safety evaluation tasks listed in the first section of this paper (i.e., the proper identification, evaluation, and improvement of local road safety problems). The ability of local road staff in each State or region needs to be assessed. There should be a determination of whether their experience or knowledge allows them to understand the availability and use/analysis of safety data in the jurisdiction, the identification and prioritization of locations of safety concerns, the wide range of successful solutions that might be available, and the evaluation processes to determine the expected impact of those solutions. Proper and effective safety training needs to be developed and presented to address the gaps in current knowledge.
There are a number of agencies, organizations, and individuals that actively train or assist local public works and transportation professionals. For example, in the United States a focal point for this type of activity is the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). Overall, there are 57 LTAP centers (one in each State, Puerto Rico and 6 tribal areas) (3). These centers are partially funded by the FHWA (3). Globally, the World Interchange Network (WIN) was developed in 1994 (see http://www.piarc.lcpc.fr/rme/menu-e.htm), and is currently under the umbrella of the World Road Association (PIARC). It was organized to improve access to worldwide road expertise, and help connect people with questions to transportation experts. The LTAP community was an active participant in the WIN organization. The strategies and programs used by these existing organizations provide an opportunity to effectively meet the expected challenges to local road safety training and technology transfer. LTAP centers publish quarterly newsletters, serve as clearinghouses for transportation information, conduct training courses, and provide information on new and existing technologies.
Effective local road safety training and technology transfer needs to reach its intended audience. A significant challenge will be to increase the road safety awareness of local staff, and motivate them to do some training in road safety. Meeting this challenge will require the collection and transfer of safety or crash information. LTAP center newsletters could be used to show what crash data is available and how it can be acquired, and also provide some example summaries of crash data for a specific area. Stories of successful safety improvements from their peers and recent safety research findings are also important. Sharing this type of information with local roadway agencies through LTAP newsletters can raise their safety awareness and increase their motivation for safety improvements.
Crash data and safety information is important for a number of reasons. It can be used to increase local awareness and motivation, but it is also a necessary component to identify and solve safety concerns and fund safety improvements. A different amount of effort is needed in different States to acquire crash information. However, in many cases it is easier than expected, and can be accomplished in a very short period of time. For example, in Iowa a Traffic Safety Data Service has been developed that can assist local agencies (and many others) with the collection and analyses of crash data. In Wisconsin, specific crash data can be acquired form the Wisconsin DOT with a phone call. Local governments need to know what crash information is available and how to acquire it. The procedures followed in the use of crash data are a large component of local road safety training and technology transfer. Unfortunately, on many occasions the crash occurring on a local rural road goes unreported unless there is an injury, fatality, or major property damage. In addition, most States continue to raise their threshold to report property damage crashes, and some States no longer inventory information about property damage crashes for future use.
As previously discussed, many local agencies have gaps in their road safety knowledge. To address those knowledge gaps, workshops and technical documents in the road safety area need to be developed and disseminated. Existing programs may be used to a large extent. Example bulletins from the Wisconsin LTAP have the safety impacts and design applications of signing, markings, work zones, guardrail, mailboxes and speed limits. In addition, a Safety Evaluation for Roadways (SAFER) manual has been created (4). This document includes photographs of potential safety hazards and suggests (often low-cost) approaches to solving the problem. A simple method of rating safety concerns for improvements is also offered, as well as a list of safety references and resources. The intent of the manual is to increase the safety/hazard awareness of local road staff and to show them that safety improvements can be done within their current system.
New workshops or technical documents could also be offered to address the gaps in road safety knowledge. Some typical safety-related workshops at the Wisconsin LTAP and Wyoming T2/LTAP centers have focused on signing and roadside hazards, work zones, and flagging. These activities include examples of evaluation, identification, and mitigation of safety concerns, and the information is presented in a practical and easy to apply format (for example, see the SAFER manual discussion above). Videos for local agency use can also be very helpful. The amount of work to accomplish safety improvements should be minimized, and methods to consider improving the safety of roadways during typical resurfacing or maintenance projects encouraged. Some specific safety subjects that might be included in a local safety training and technology transfer program (once the awareness and motivation of local transportation agencies has been raised) are listed below.
The RSAR safety tool, for example, is beginning to be used by local agencies in several States. The concepts developed in England, Australia, and New Zealand have been modified for application in the United States at local rural agencies. A training program for RSARs has been developed in Wyoming and presented in that there, and in Arizona, South Dakota, and Alaska. The workshop presents a practical approach for local rural agencies to develop a proactive safety program. Several agencies in these States have begun to develop a local program based upon the training that is an essential component for using the RSAR tool.
The local need and audience for each of the subjects should be individually determined. The identification of the proper audience is necessary for a new workshop to be effective. The inclusion of safety training courses in existing LTAP Road Scholars programs (a program in which participants receive awards and statewide recognition for the completion of a set of LTAP workshops) and/or as professional development hours used to maintain professional engineering status is also suggested.
Two other existing strategies that could be applied to assist local authorities with questions related to road safety include the creation of an expert panel or commissions, and the creation of traffic/safety informational series or listserv. Local traffic and safety commissions (similar to those in Wisconsin and those found in Germany) could be created to institutionalize the process of identifying, analyzing, and then recommending improvements at safety problem locations. The members of the panels or commissions should be trained in these safety evaluation activities, and include engineers, enforcement personnel, educators, and administrators. Local traffic and safety informational series (created by an expert in the field) can also be useful (two examples at www.ite.org and www.ctre.iastate.edu). The series should address the most commonly asked questions in the area of transportation and allow a quicker public response by local officials.
Another challenge to the effective application of local road safety training and technology transfer is related to funding. Funding (or the lack thereof) for safety training and safety improvement projects has a dramatic impact on course offerings, attendance, and the extent of the safety projects. For example, some State DOTs have designated funds specifically for safety improvements. This type of funding is a strong motivation for local awareness and training in the area of road safety. It may also cause them to consider safety concerns during their existing or proposed projects and maintenance. Federal and State funds specifically set aside for local safety improvements will most likely be needed for an effective reduction in the national fatality or injury levels. The effective use of this type of fund would also likely require the creation of a local safety plans, and the proper analysis of the location to be improved. Local road safety training would be needed to accomplish these tasks.
In March 2002, two of the authors had the opportunity to visit four European countries on an international scan tour sponsored by the FHWA and AASHTO. The subject area for the tour was the organization and management of comprehensive highway safety. The four countries visited were Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, and Great Britain. The final report, findings, and recommendations for the scan tour have not been published, but several of the discussions may be relevant to increasing local safety training and technology transfer in the United States and globally.
All of the countries visited on the tour have an international reputation in the area of highway safety, and certain characteristics of their safety programs were relevant to local road safety training and technology transfer. For example, Germany has accident commissions in each of its cities and counties. These groups have seven to eight members, and identify and review locations of safety concern in the jurisdiction. The members include engineers and enforcement personnel with safety expertise. The existence of these groups has institutionalized the identification and analysis of safety concerns, and includes the input of enforcement. They have also raised the awareness of safety at the local level and encourage local involvement. A training program was recently created for the members of the commissions.
All of the countries visited also had national strategic highway safety plans (like the United States) and for the most part these plans contained quantitative fatality reduction goals. They also recognized that many safety improvements could be more effectively programmed and implemented at the local level of government. Overall, local governments were represented and involved with the creation of national safety plans and quantification of their crash reduction goals. Strategic safety plans at the “State” and local levels were then based on those national plans. In The Netherlands, the method used is the “Polder Model”, and involves consultation and agreement of all interested parties before a policy is advanced.
In Great Britain the existence of local safety improvement funding initiatives also appeared to have had an impact on crash reduction. Local governments applied their safety plans and their performance was measured against their local safety improvement goals. A financial incentive was then provided by the national government if the locality met their safety goals. The existence of safety plans and reduction goals improved the awareness of safety problems at the local level, and the financial incentives provided a motivation to meet those goals. Competition between neighboring jurisdictions in the area of roadway safety was observed.
Overall, all of the countries visited had direct cooperation and coordination in the safety area between the national, “State”, and local governments. Significant funding also appeared to exist for safety improvements, research, training and analysis. Documents have been created in several of the countries that address before and after safety improvement examples, and discuss a series of proposed examples that might work at one location. Safety measures that were in all the safety programs included speed management, significant seatbelt usage, vehicle testing, low drunk driving tolerances, and automated enforcement.
Two of the authors also attended an April 2002 workshop on highway safety workforce planning. This meeting was sponsored by FHWA, TRB, ITE, and AASHTO. The official minutes and findings of this workshop have not yet been published. The authors can provide the following summary.
In general, most of the workshop discussions and conclusions related to safety training and technology transfer appeared to be related to its supply and demand. Similar to the discussions in this paper, there is a need to understand the current demand for any type of road safety training and the methods that might be used to increase that demand. Some of the previous discussions in this paper have addressed this subject. The training demand discussion at the highway safety workforce planning workshop was more general in nature, however, and included a description of how we might motivate an undergraduate college student or a professional engineer to acquire more safety training. The challenges connected to this type of audience are similar to but not always the same as those connected to local transportation staff.
The supply of safety training in the United States was also discussed. It was suggested that it should be investigated in more depth. For example, all LTAP centers do transportation-related training, but not all of them do safety training. In addition, there are other national safety courses that may be relevant. It was suggested that a list be created of the type of training and technology transfer documents that are available in the road safety arena. The quality of these activities should also be rated, and would require the content of documents and the qualifications of instructors to be reviewed.
Significant reductions in road fatalities and injuries within the United States and throughout the world will require safety improvements along roadways under the jurisdiction of local governmental entities. Training and technology transfer in the safety area are needed to accomplish these tasks. Helping local staff identify, evaluate, and mitigate safety problems is needed. The LTAP centers are an effective location for this assistance within the United States, and a similar type of program is recommended globally.
This paper describes some of the challenges and opportunities connected to the effective application of local road safety training and technology transfer. In general, it is assumed that the ability and knowledge of local transportation staff will need to be increased, or that they will need to be assisted with local safety tasks. A significant challenge, however, will be encouraging local staff to attend safety courses or read safety-related documents. In most cases these people have many tasks and a limited amount of time. They need to be made aware of the problem and convinced or motivated that they can do something about it. The motivation of local transportation staff is also be directly related to the available funding for safety training and safety improvements. Funding amounts and sources, combined with typical transportation capital improvement programming mechanisms represent another challenge to effective local safety training and technology transfer. Overall, a number of challenges (sometimes significant) will need to be overcome for effective local road safety training and technology transfer to occur.
Opportunities in the area of local road safety training and technology transfer also abound, however, in the programs and strategies that currently exist. The LTAP program is already a focal point throughout the United States for this type of technology transfer. The newsletters, documents/manuals, and training courses these existing centers provide can include safety subjects and information. Awareness of the problem can be improved with safety articles and newsletters, and motivation can be increased by sharing information about successful safety projects. Technical knowledge in the safety area might be disseminated through existing or proposed training courses, manuals, and/or informational packages. Some subjects for courses in safety evaluation, identification, analysis, and mitigation are suggested in this paper. Assistance with tasks in the safety area might also be increased with the creation of local traffic and safety commissions that consider and suggest improvements for areas of safety concern in the local jurisdiction. Globally, WIN has also been created in 2000 and is based on the concept of internationally connecting transportation experts with people that have questions.
The relevant discussion from two federally funded activities was also summarized in this paper. First, information from the FHWA/AASHTO international scan tour on the management and organization of comprehensive highway safety programs was described. Overall, most of the countries directly involved local government in the creation and application of national and “State” safety plans. Many of the localities also had their own plan, and Great Britain offered financial incentives for meeting the goals in these plans. Germany also had local accident commissions that reviewed and suggested improvements for locations with safety concerns. Relevant information from a workshop on the development of the highway safety workforce was also summarized. This workshop was more general in nature, and did not focus on the development of local safety staff. However, there were suggestions that the actual demand for road safety training and technology transfer be determined and encouraged, and that the supply of safety training and technology transfer documents be cataloged and rated.
Overall, this paper primarily suggests that safety training and technology transfer subjects be added to existing programs. Providing safety information that indicates its local significance in newsletters and the inclusion of annual safety course is proposed. In addition, there are some other activities suggested. Other more significant activities that are suggested include the creation of local traffic and safety commissions (or support for an expert to assist local governments); local mechanisms that allow the incorporation of safety improvements and/or safety projects to be funded; federal, state, and/or local funding that focuses solely on local safety improvements; and the involvement, cooperation, and coordination of local governments with the creation of federal, state, and local strategic safety plans.
FIGURE 1 Safety improvement process and potential training areas.
FIGURE 1 Safety improvement process and potential training areas.
