Preparing for the Update of Vermont's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
January 2011

Proceedings from the Federal Highway Administration's Peer-to-Peer Exchange Program

Print-friendly PDF version (325kB)

1. Introduction

This report provides a summary of a peer exchange sponsored by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). The peer exchange convened Vermont's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Core Group to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Vermont's current SHSP and to identity the opportunities and next steps for updating Vermont's plan. Vermont's safety team's goal is to create a plan that will engage leadership and provide guidance for programs and policies to reduce serious injury crashes and fatalities on Vermont's roadways.

The event focused on sharing knowledge and noteworthy practices for developing and implementing an effective SHSP. Selected peers included the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Criteria for selecting peers included states with a record of creating effective SHSPs, developing strategies for recording and tracking data, and using performance measures to track progress.

The action plan developed from the peer exchange will ultimately identify champions for each action item as well as a timeline for deliverables. The Core Group will continuously monitor the SHSP's performance and recommend changes, as needed.

2. Background

Vermont's objectives in holding the peer exchange were to:

• Learn about effective strategies to:
  • Streamline the SHSP to reduce the number of emphasis areas and strategies;
  • Develop tools for recording and tracking data;
  • Use performance measures to measure progress;
• Initiate the process for Vermont's SHSP update; and
• Create an ongoing dialogue about highway safety among Vermont's SHSP stakeholders.

The ultimate goal of the event was to prepare the Core Group to work together in identifying the next steps for creating an updated plan targeted to reduce serious injuries and traffic fatalities caused by specific highway safety issues.

Forty professionals representing three of the “E's” (engineering, enforcement, and education) attended the workshop, including representatives from Vermont's only metropolitan planning organization (MPO) (Chittenden County MPO); the Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP); Vermont State Police; and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Safety professionals from neighboring states New Hampshire and Maine, including representatives from both states' departments of transportation and FHWA division offices, also participated. (See Appendix A for a complete list of event planners, presenters, and attendees).

The peer exchange began with a brief overview of Vermont's current SHSP, including its critical emphasis areas and strategies followed by presentations by the peer agencies (see Appendix B for the agenda). Each peer agency described the approaches and techniques used to successfully create and implement strategies for its SHSP. Following the peer presentations, breakout groups discussed the strengths and weaknesses of Vermont's current plan and identified next steps for the update. Breakout groups were designed to elicit different perspectives on Vermont's program.

Back to Top

3. Preparing for Vermont's Peer Exchange Event

The success of a peer event is due in part to comprehensive planning efforts. Key staff from VTrans, along with the FHWA Office of Safety and the VT Division Office, spent approximately three months preparing for the peer exchange. Organizers followed the key steps outlined below:

• Engage State DOT safety staff as champions – Key individuals from VTrans initiated the peer exchange and have remained engaged as champions for implementing actions following the event. The ongoing involvement of VTrans safety staff before and after the event is vital to ensuring that proposed actions are implemented in cooperation with Vermont's SHSP Core Group.
• Select and invite peers – Event organizers identified and invited three peer agencies (ITD, ODOT, and PennDOT) that have demonstrated success in creating model SHSPs. Selecting peers that effectively addressed the host agency's program gaps was critical to successfully meeting the goals of the peer exchange.
• Recruit participants – Members of the SHSP Core Group were encouraged to attend the event, as were safety specialists from local agencies. Convening this group provided an opportunity for Vermont's safety specialists, who are responsible for the SHSP update, to network and learn from each other.
• Develop a list of questions summarizing the desired feedback from the peers – Prior to the event, the SHSP Core Group developed a list of questions they wanted the peers to address in their presentations. Pre-event preparation provided both peers and attendees the opportunity to better understand Vermont's goals for the event.
• Host the peer event – FHWA Office of Safety staff and the Vermont planning team created an agenda for the peer exchange that addressed Vermont's needs. The agenda was designed to provide Vermont with an opportunity to learn about peer states' experiences and to identify opportunities to improve its processes through an open exchange of ideas and knowledge. Discussion worksheets were designed for the workshop portion of the event. These worksheets provided a simple way to capture feedback on developing the next steps for Vermont's SHSP update.

Back to Top

4. Proceedings of the Vermont Peer Exchange

Welcome

Kevin Marshia, VTrans Program Manager, welcomed attendees to Vermont's SHSP Update Workshop. He introduced Sue Minter, Vermont's Deputy Secretary of Transportation, and Richard Tetreault, VTrans Director of Program Development, to present the opening remarks.

Ms. Minter commented that she was excited to see collaboration between states and, in particular, between Vermont agencies, as coordination across transportation silos is a goal of the new administration. Ms. Minter also emphasized the importance of safety in transportation; as a mother of a new driver, Ms. Minter is aware of the dangers of driving and the need to determine the proper respective roles of government and individuals in taking responsibility for preventable actions. She urged the group to look for opportunities to improve Vermont's highway safety program in order to overcome the challenges created by our dependence on the automobile.

Mr. Tetreault acknowledged the transition underway with Vermont's new administration and encouraged participants to think about how to use the information gained through the workshop to engage new leadership within their respective agencies.

Workshop Overview and Expected Outcomes

Mr. Marshia provided the background and overview of Vermont's SHSP. Over the past year, the SHSP Core Group has wrestled with the idea of streamlining and implementing its plan. A peer exchange was requested to learn how other states have addressed the evolution of issues within highway safety, including measuring performance of strategies and substrategies. Vermont is also interested in pursuing improvements in data. Although the State has advanced its data collection capabilities in the past few years with the implementation of electronic reporting, data analysis remains fragmented. Many individuals and agencies use Vermont's crash data, but there is little sharing or reporting of those analyses. Mr. Marshia concluded that the goals of the event were to listen to and learn from other states in order to walk away with a definition of next steps for updating and implementing Vermont's SHSP. All safety partners are dedicated to the SHSP, but as it is a collateral duty, it is important to have a prioritized list of manageable action items in order to address safety issues efficiently and effectively.

Tamiko Burnell from the FHWA Office of Safety provided an overview of FHWA's role, and emphasized the importance of representation from the four E's (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services) in the SHSP process. Ms. Burnell encouraged the Vermont team to consider all resources available from State and Federal partners, including the FHWA Resource Center, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Finally, Ms. Burnell suggested using FHWA's SHSP Implementation Process Model to identify strategies to integrate the activities of the four E's into the SHSP process.

Peer Presentations

Prior to the event, the SHSP Core Group compiled a list of questions related to areas where gaps in Vermont's program had been identified. The three participating peer agencies tailored their discussions to respond to these questions. The following section provides an overview of their presentations.

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Michelle May, Highway Safety Program Manager at ODOT, discussed Ohio's program. Ms. May noted that Ohio presents a challenging environment to address highway safety, with almost 1,000 cities and villages in 88 counties and over 1,100 law enforcement agencies reporting on crashes. Despite this fact, Ohio has experienced a 25 percent drop in crashes since 2002. Ms. May discussed several principles that Ohio has followed to revitalize its SHSP:

• Build on existing plans, programs, and committees. By involving its partners, Ohio was able to enhance the efforts behind the SHSP. In producing its SHSP, Ohio recognized that many safety agencies have their own strategic plans. ODOT took the major strategies from its partners' safety plans and incorporated them into the SHSP. Because each plan relied on the same injury and fatality data to establish its respective goals, incorporating them into the SHSP was seamless. In addition, the SHSP incorporated elements from Ohio's Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP), Highway Safety Plan (HSP), and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP).
• Support multi-agency collaboration. Ohio maintains a team charter, which is signed by the directors of major state safety agencies, signaling their commitment to the SHSP. Ohio ensures engagement in the SHSP through mutual benefits—everyone involved participates because they get something out of the process that supports their agency's/organization's safety goals. As a result of the SHSP, Ohio has implemented dozens of projects using shared expertise, data, and funding. For instance, ODOT provides variable message signs to the Department of Public Safety to display messages about impaired driving education and enforcement campaigns. The DOT also provides assistance to local law enforcement agencies to set up and tear down DUI checkpoints.
• Get the data right, then share it widely. Ohio has found data to be an effective tool to justify funding, and as a result, agencies throughout the state are working together on data improvement efforts. Recently, Ohio's funding for safety doubled as a result of newly developed data systems and data-sharing methods. ODOT and the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) meet (through the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee) monthly with representatives from rail, motor carrier, planning, and engineering organizations to discuss data improvements. ODPS collects crash data for the State and maintains a public website for crash data, which houses crash reports, statistics, and datasets for five years of crashes and is searchable by date, location, report number, and reporting agency. ODPS also provides the data to ODOT, which takes the lead in analyzing the data and developing standard queries and user-friendly reports for other State and local agencies to use in making safety investments. ODOT also maintains a geographic information system (GIS)-based crash analysis tool, which allows MPO, county, and DOT engineers to run data and create reports by location and crash attribute.
• Empower people at the lowest level. Although many states engage a high-level champion, such as the governor or an agency director to lead the SHSP, Ohio has found it more effective to empower those at the staff level who have a stake in the SHSP. Those at the staff level are less likely to leave their positions due to a change in administration.
• Measure the success of SHSP activities. Ohio tracks the status of all strategies that affect its emphasis areas and reports on progress during each quarterly statewide SHSP meeting. Ohio also tracks its crash trends quarterly, and monitors its heat maps and automated reporting systems to assess whether or not trends in emphasis areas are improving.

Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
Mary Hunter, Highway Safety Manager at ITD's Office of Highway Safety, discussed Idaho's safety program. Idaho's ultimate highway safety goal is Toward Zero Deaths, with an interim goal of 200 deaths by 2012. This goal was established by accelerating Idaho's already downward fatality trend to set an aggressive target that is also easy to communicate to the public. Ms. Hunter described several key elements that have contributed to the agency's success:

• Make safety a number one priority in the state. Ms. Hunter identified this as the greatest accomplishment of Idaho's SHSP activities. Safety has not always been ITD's highest priority, but last year its director promoted safety as the agency's number-one priority. Ms. Hunter believes that this visibility will save lives and improve ITD's image.
• Use data to justify safety investment decisions. Idaho developed its emphasis areas by analyzing five years of crash data and the economic cost of crashes. Idaho used the economic cost of crashes as its main indicator because it takes the frequency of crashes into account and helps educate politicians on the value of safety initiatives.
• Use analysis tools to identify infrastructure safety needs. Examples of the different approaches Idaho employs include:
  • Road Safety Audits (RSA): Idaho recently started an RSA program and released a draft RSA manual.
  • Black Spot Treatments and Safety Corridors: Idaho has historically addressed high-crash locations, or black spots, but is looking to expand those efforts to identify 2- to 10-mile safety corridors.
  • Systematic Approach: Idaho is looking to adopt a system-wide approach to implementing low-cost projects.
• Educate stakeholders. Idaho uses marketing strategies to make its Toward Zero Deaths message visible to the public. Ms. Hunter distributes a “Quick Notes” email to 850 subscribers on a weekly basis, and ITD invites its partners to use the Towards Zero Deaths logo in any safety campaign or material.
• Develop and monitor action steps. Idaho developed an action steps tracking document, which includes information about the responsible party, funding, and activity status. An ITD grants officer or research analyst is assigned to each emphasis area team. This individual is responsible for facilitating progress on the initiative and identifying problems when they arise. In addition, each emphasis area team has defined performance measures, which were either agreed on by the SHSP oversight team or adopted from other relevant plans.
• Engage the team on a regular basis. Idaho holds quarterly meetings with its SHSP oversight team and emphasis area team leaders. The Idaho State Police, Trauma Registry, Association of Counties, FHWA, and NHTSA are all represented on the oversight team. Meetings, which are well attended, generate meaningful discussion about how SHSP implementation is progressing. During each quarterly meeting, half of the emphasis team leaders report on their team's activities.

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)
Gary Modi, Safety Management Division Chief, and Jeff Roecker, Transportation Planning Specialist at PennDOT, provided an overview of the development of Pennsylvania's SHSP. Mr. Modi noted that PennDOT is decentralized with eleven districts, each of which develops its own HSIP. Behavioral safety program grants are managed from PennDOT's central office. Keys to PennDOT's success include:

• Select emphasis areas using a multifaceted approach. The main criteria for selecting emphasis areas for Pennsylvania's SHSP is the five-year average of fatalities. Other considerations include the availability of resources, the potential for reduction in crashes, cost-benefit analysis, and the existence of effective strategies and countermeasures. If an emphasis area was identified based on data but lacked any of the additional criteria, it was considered a lower priority. For example, Pennsylvania's seatbelt usage rate has ranged from 85 to 87 percent over the last five years. As such, the agency determined that it would not be cost-effective to introduce additional program funding; however, the data are used to promote the need for a primary seat belt law. PennDOT also recommends minimizing the number of emphasis areas in the SHSP—having too many makes it difficult to implement strategies.
• Create a formal process for implementing strategies. Developing the SHSP can be the simplest part of the process; sustaining and measuring the effectiveness of efforts once the plan is complete may be more difficult. Identifying various partners or committees to be responsible for implementing strategies and action items is critical. Pennsylvania has a SMART team for each of its vital highest emphasis areas. The remaining emphasis areas also have dedicated teams, and have at least five strategies and associated action items devoted to it. In addition, Pennsylvania has a high-level committee—the Multi-Agency Safety Team (MAST) —that oversees the emphasis area SMART teams. MAST meets quarterly to review emphasis area reports and to discuss activities that are not on track.
• Create goals and measures to track performance for the SHSP. PennDOT created goals for each emphasis area. In addition, each PennDOT district has a specific goal which, when combined, equals the overall statewide goal. For each goal area, PennDOT developed proven strategies and time-bound action items, which also serve as performance measures. Each emphasis area team tracks its progress toward reaching the goals. Performance is presented via tracking dials, which are updated on a quarterly basis. During quarterly MAST meetings, red tracking dials (indicating lack of progress) are addressed to determine how to improve efforts. If an emphasis area team has difficulty making progress on a particular action item, MAST considers revising the goal of removing the metric. Pennsylvania's philosophy is to identify activities that are not being completed, discuss why they are not being completed, and if they cannot be completed, identify additional resources that it will take or revise the goal before abandoning the activity altogether.
• Engage as many partners as possible. Significant improvements in highway safety depend on a collective effort from all agencies and organizations that have a hand in working in this discipline. Achieving the best results for reducing fatalities and crashes must go beyond any single organization. One of the first steps in successfully developing and implementing an SHSP is to establish stakeholders and partners to aid in this process. These stakeholders and partners make up a high-level group known as the SHSP Steering Committee. The main goal of the Steering Committee is to establish ownership for all of the strategies and objectives identified in the SHSP. Through its Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), PennDOT identifies high-crash municipalities and locations on local roads and makes recommendations for low-cost improvements. The improvements can be funded locally or through fines collected by Pennsylvania's red light camera program.
• Integrate related safety plans with the SHSP. Pennsylvania maintains its HSIP and HSP with the mindset of linking to SHSP goals and integrating all plans. In addition, the Pennsylvania's CVSP and strategic plans from the Department of Health, Department of Education, and LTAP are also developed with the SHSP in mind.
• Use data to justify safety investments. Pennsylvania uses data to justify investments in safety, charting countermeasure deployment against fatalities and crashes. Pennsylvania's Crash Data Analysis Retrieval Tool (CDART) is the primary source of safety data. CDART has 350 users from PennDOT, the Pennsylvania State Police, and numerous MPOs and rural planning organizations. Users can query crashes based on location, primary indicators (including crash types and outcomes), and time period. Information can be exported into eleven various reports and six different maps. Queries are titled and can be saved for future use.

Opportunities for Improvement

Breakout groups discussed ideas to improve Vermont's SHSP

Following the peer presentations, participants were divided into four breakout groups. Each breakout group reviewed the existing strengths and weaknesses of Vermont's SHSP and identified opportunities for improving the plan. The groups discussed the strategies, resources, and champions necessary to achieve success in Vermont's SHSP program. Planning worksheets were supplied for groups to document their work and a facilitator moderated each of the sessions. Recommendations developed by the groups to improve Vermont's SHSP are summarized below by topic.

Streamlining the SHSP

• Simplify the SHSP by creating a summary document. Vermont's current SHSP is long and contains an overwhelming amount of information. Groups suggested developing a summary document to highlight the high-level strategies and provide information on the plan's partners, mission, and goals. A second document could serve as an implementation plan and includes details for each strategy, including related action items, responsible parties, and performance measures. This task could be accomplished by a consultant with the Core Group as the champion.
• Create a subcommittee for each critical emphasis area led by a Core Group member whose job relates to the topic. For the Core Group, participating in the development and implementation of the SHSP is a collateral duty. However, most members are engaged in similar activities through their jobs, such as the Highway Safety Program and the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Vermont should examine this overlap and appoint those individuals whose “day job” is relevant to the critical emphasis area as the subcommittee chair.

Recording and Tracking Data for the SHSP

• Create a monthly or quarterly performance report. Vermont currently publishes annual performance reports. Increasing the frequency of reporting could improve coordination among the State Police, VTrans, and the GHSP—the three largest “customers” for crash data.
• Designate data as a critical emphasis area. The Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) could serve as the champion for improving data. If implemented using NHTSA 408 funds, the TRCC would be required to report on progress. Close coordination with all stakeholders would be required to ensure that this effort provides useful output for all partners.
• Create and implement a one-stop shop for data that all stakeholders can access. The one-stop shop should initially focus on providing crash data, but could be expanded to include roadway data, traffic data, crash reports, hospital data, police data, etc. Federal HSIP and NHTSA 408 funding are potential resources for this initiative.
• Hire an additional staff member or add staff hours to address data analysis and distribution capacity at VTrans. Vermont is currently inefficient in its data activities. The state would benefit from centralized data extraction, analysis, and quality assurance.

Performance Measures

Jennifer Warren of the FHWA Office of Safety and Kevin Marshia
of VTrans discuss setting realistic goals.

• Improve interagency coordination in tracking performance measures. Opportunities exist to take advantage of overlaps with other agency plans and performance measure requirements. For example, the HSP contains fourteen behavioral performance measures that are required by NHTSA and the GHSP tracks additional performance measures related to the SHSP. The SHSP Core Group should work with other organizations that are creating performance measure reports, including the GHSP, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), VTrans, and the State Police.
• Use a phased approach to introduce performance measures. The SHSP Core Group should initially adopt broad performance measures, including the five-year fatality rate average, number of fatalities, and number of serious injuries. Phase two would include developing infrastructure-based performance measures for each critical emphasis area including using the behavior-based performance measures from the GHSP's plan. The Core Group should establish benchmarks in order to demonstrate improvement from the current trend. Performance measures developed for the SHSP need to be valid and include a variety of output and outcome measures.
• Establish realistic goals and timeframes and utilize existing tools and resources where possible. An evaluation cycle should be established in order to report on successes captured by performance measures. Participants observed that both NTHSA and FHWA have reporting requirements on performance measures which are often intertwined. This overlap in requirements might present opportunities to streamline efforts.

The group also discussed other general recommendations, including:

• Create a dedicated SHSP coordinator position to manage the SHSP. Currently, Core Group members agree to action items but often attend the next meeting without having completed their assignments. A dedicated staff person could coordinate activities and ensure that action items are implemented.
• Identify all relevant partner plans during the next Core Group meeting in order to identify overlaps and improve efficiency.
• Restructure SHSP Core Group meetings so that only interested and relevant members are present for each discussion topic.
• Identify lists of action items for critical emphasis area groups to track accomplishments and progress.
• Re-engage the executive committee by using economic data to demonstrate success. Vermont should establish new critical emphasis area teams, including an executive-level team.

Recommendations for Next Steps

On day two of the Vermont peer exchange, the SHSP Core Group and the peers convened to discuss specific recommendations for Vermont to pursue for the SHSP update. The following items were identified as immediate priorities for Vermont's Core Group to consider:

• Identify all available funding sources for safety.
• Identify all partners and their relevant plans.
• Host a joint meeting with the TRCC to determine who is using data and how they are using it.
• Develop action plans and goals for each SHSP partner to enhance accountability.
• Convene a meeting with Vermont's TRCC and/or VTrans' data staff and Ohio's crash data staff to discuss the details of their respective crash data systems
• Hold a joint meeting with Vermont's SHSP Core Group and the TRCC to discuss crash data needs throughout the state.

Finally, the Core Group created a plan consisting of actions to accomplish before its next meeting. The intent of the plan was to ensure that all Core Group members left the workshop with clear expectations for their role in moving forward in the SHSP update process. Staff were assigned to the following action items:

• Create a document that summarizes the organizational structure of the SHSP Core Group.
• Develop buy-in from VTrans' new executive leadership.
• Create an SHSP briefing document for leadership.
• Summarize all agencies' relevant plans for the SHSP.
• Draft a calendar with goals and associated timelines for the SHSP update.
• Hold a joint TRCC/Core Group meeting to define data needs.

Back to Top

5. Key Findings and Lessons Learned

Through the peer exchange and workshop, SHSP Core Group accomplished its goals, which were to engage stakeholders, including executive staff at VTrans, and identify action items for its SHSP update effort. In addition, participants learned how ITD, ODOT, and PennDOT work with their safety partners to create effective SHSPs that leverage resources and ensure agency engagement and accountability. Noteworthy practices learned from the event included:

“I would tell others considering an HSIP peer
event that it is well worth the time spent...the key
is to match yourself up with states that have
considerable success in the areas that are
most challenging to you as a state.”

Kevin Marshia, VTrans Program Manager

• Safety partners benefit from working together and using resources that are in place. One of the greatest benefits of Vermont's peer exchange was the realization that the Core Group members all bring resources to the table that contribute to the SHSP. Vermont can take its SHSP to the next level of implementation by utilizing existing statewide plans (e.g., the HSP, HSIP, and CVSP) and sharing the data, resources, and expertise of all partners.
• Accurate crash data are essential for identifying critical emphasis areas and tracking progress. All three peer agencies stressed the importance of ensuring that crash data are accurate and using data analysis effectively to identify projects, justify safety investments, and track performance. The peer exchange helped Vermont's Core Group understand how essential the role of the TRCC is for the SHSP; as a result, coordination between these two groups should increase. However, in order to accomplish this goal, additional resources need to be allocated to the TRCC. Vermont will also consider making data a critical emphasis area.
• An SHSP coordinator position facilitates and improves the SHSP process. In Vermont, the Core Group members are participating in the SHSP update as a collateral duty. Having a full-time employee dedicated to managing the SHSP would result in a more effective process.
• Fewer emphasis areas and strategies facilitate implementation and tracking progress. Vermont has struggled with managing and tracking its SHSP's seven emphasis areas and 35 corresponding strategies. As a result, the SHSP Core Group cannot identify the impact of individual initiatives. Based on peer feedback, Vermont will strive to prioritize and reduce the number of emphasis areas and strategies in the SHSP update, and improve coordination with partner agencies to better align expertise for each activity.
• Marketing safety is important to keep partners and leadership engaged in the process. The peer states have done a good job of communicating their success stories. Maintaining a high profile for safety helps to sustain leadership engagement, which is important for funding programs and projects.

Back to Top

6. Feedback and Suggestions

Feedback from the Vermont peer exchange was very positive. Participants indicated that the exchange of information and ideas will help Vermont move forward in updating the SHSP and in managing its safety program. Others indicated the value of learning about the organizational structure that other states use to manage their SHSPs and track progress. Advance preparation for the event was a key element to its success. In his post-event evaluation, Josh Schultz, VTrans Project Manager, stated, “Part of the success with the peer event was the fact that Vermont put a lot of time into preparation (for example, asking specific questions and choosing sessions that specifically catered to our needs). The peer states, in turn, put a lot of time into answering those specific questions and lining their presentations up with Vermont's needs.”

Back to Top

Appendix A: Presenters, Planners and Attendees

Back to Top

Appendix B: Agenda

Vermont's Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Workshop Agenda

VTrans, National Life Building
One National Life Drive — Montpelier, VT
January 11 — 12, 2011

Back to Top