Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector: Special Report 289 (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2 The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role The dimensions of the road safety problem in the United States are described in this chapter. The magnitude and persistence of the problem explain why road safety is a concern for nearly all Americans and a major challenge for government at all jurisdictional levels. The many kinds of federal, state, and local agencies with a meaningful role in road safety are identified. Although a detailed description of their roles and responsi- bilities is not possible, the key legislation, programs, and policies that have come to shape the public sector’s influence on road safety are discussed. DIMENSIONS OF THE ROAD SAFETY PROBLEM In 2005, 43,443 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. Another 2.7 million were injured (NHTSA 2006b). Motor vehi- cle crashes are the leading cause of injuries and the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. They are the single largest cause of death, by a wide margin, for people aged 4 to 33. Two of every five deaths among teenagers result from motor vehicle crashes (CDC 2004). The number of lives lost in motor vehicle crashes over long periods is staggering. Since 1980, more than 1.1 million people have died in motor vehicle crashes in the United States. Half of those killed were under the age of 35. If current rates continue, more than 100,000 adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 24 will die in crashes during the next decade (Winston and Senserrick 2006). Given the current scope and scale of the road safety problem, it is almost unimaginable that 40 years ago many more people died on the nation’s roadways—about 10,000 more per year. In 1966, when there were half as many licensed drivers as today and 60 percent fewer registered 15 

16 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector Annual Fatalities Fatalities per 100 Million VMT 60,000 8.00 7.00 50,000 Fatalities 6.00 40,000 5.00 30,000 4.00 3.00 20,000 Fatality Rate 2.00 10,000 1.00 0 0.00 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 2-1 U.S. motor vehicle crash fatality trends, 1950 to 2005 (VMT = vehicle miles traveled). (Source: FHWA Highway Statistics annual publications.) vehicles, the number of fatalities per mile traveled was three to four times higher (FHWA 1976). During the 1960s, the number of people killed in motor vehicle crashes rose from 36,000 to 55,000 per year, an increase of 50 percent (Figure 2-1). As the 1960s proceeded, concern over the death toll sparked major changes in the roles and relationships of the federal, state, and local gov- ernments with respect to road safety. For the first 50 years of motor vehi- cle use in the United States, the public sector concerned itself mainly with providing orderly and accessible roads and regulating driver skills and compliance with traffic rules. State and local governments took the lead through the setting and enforcing of traffic laws, driver licensing standards, and vehicle safety inspection requirements. By the end of the 1960s, however, the federal government had assumed a much more prominent and comprehensive role. It had established dozens of new regulations governing the safety features of new vehicles, sponsored multi- 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 17 year research projects to improve highway safety designs and features, and provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to support state and local safety programs in such areas as pedestrian safety, driver training, and the provision of emergency medical services. The fatality rate declined faster than growth in motor vehicle travel, and the annual number of fatalities dropped below 50,000 for the first time in 10 years by the middle of the 1970s (FHWA 1976). The improve- ments were rightly viewed as indicative of the important role that pub- lic policy could play in mitigating the safety problem. During the next three decades, many additional actions were taken at the federal, state, and local levels to improve safety. As a prerequisite for receiving federal highway aid, states raised their minimum drinking ages to 21 and began to adopt stricter standards for impaired driving and tougher sanctions on violators. Improvements in detecting the use of alcohol by drivers and a more objective testing-based system of traffic laws followed suit (TRB 1987). Alcohol use, estimated to be responsible for 54 percent of motor vehicle deaths in 1982, accounted for 39 percent in 2005 (NHTSA 2006b). Evans (2004, 251) estimates that a reduction in drunk driving has led to 15,000 fewer deaths per year than would have occurred if measures to discourage this behavior had not been taken. Through the combined efforts of the automotive industry and the federal government, motor vehicles became more survivable and for- giving to occupants in a crash. Citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) studies and data, Evans (2004, 144) calculates that the five most effective vehicle safety features required by NHTSA (apart from the requirements governing safety belt installation) have reduced occupant fatality risk by about 10 percent.1 He further esti- mates that the combined effect of all of the NHTSA motor vehicle safety standards has been to reduce occupant fatality risk by 15 to 20 percent (Evans 2004, 117). NHTSA estimates that wearing a safety belt reduces a driver’s risk of being killed in a crash by 45 percent (NHTSA 2006a). Since the early 1970s, passenger safety belt use has increased from less than 25 percent to more than 80 percent, after campaigns to promote safety belt use and 1 The five features are energy-absorbing steering columns, more forgiving and better-located instru- ment panels, side door beams, door locks, and roof crush resistance. 

18 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector the enactment of laws mandating their use in many states starting in the mid-1980s (NHTSA 2006a). According to Evans (2004, 295–304), states that have passed safety belt laws increased driver and passenger usage lev- els by a median of 33 percent, resulting in a 9 percent median reduction in fatalities. NHTSA estimates that safety belts and child safety seats have saved more than 220,000 lives since 1975 (NHTSA 2006b). Over the past 40 years, the highway environment itself has undergone changes benefiting safety. In 1966, half of all driving took place on rural roads (FHWA 1976). Today, rural roads account for only 37 percent, while urban roads account for 63 percent. In part this is because some roads were reclassified as urban, but the main reason is the growth in metropolitan populations (FHWA 2005a). For a number of reasons, including slower travel speeds, the fatality rate per mile driven on urban roads is 60 percent lower than on rural roads (FHWA 2005a). Hence, the changing pattern of travel from rural to urban roads has accounted for a significant portion (about 10 percent) of the decline in the fatality rate. Much of the growth in urban travel has occurred on Interstate highways, which are designed to the highest safety standards and have the lowest fatality rate per mile of travel. Today, the nation’s urban Interstates account for 15 percent of all miles traveled, compared with only 6 percent 40 years ago (FHWA 1976; FHWA 2005a). Finally, many improvements have taken place in emergency response and medical services, which have undoubtedly contributed to a decline in the crash fatality rate. Among the important response capabilities and services introduced during the past 30 years are the “jaws of life” extrac- tion tool, regional trauma care centers, air ambulance services, and 911 coverage, which has been made even more effective by the proliferation of cell phones. THE ONGOING SAFETY CHALLENGE Many of the improvements in road safety over the past 30 to 40 years were spurred by an array of government programs and policies. The num- ber of people killed in motor vehicle crashes peaked at 55,704 in 1972 (FHWA 1976). That year there were 4.4 fatalities for every 100 million vehicle miles traveled, which is nearly three times higher than the current rate. Today’s fatality rate is 1.47 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 19 traveled (NHTSA 2006b). Had the fatality rate not fallen so sharply— in part because of the many actions taken by government—one would expect hundreds of thousands of additional lives to have been lost during this period. Despite the impressive safety gains that have been made over time, motor vehicle crashes remain a main cause of death and injury in the United States and the leading cause of death among children (CDC 2005). Furthermore, the crash fatality rate has changed very little during the past decade. Evans maintains that safety gains made in many other developed countries during the past three decades have exceeded those in the United States by a wide margin. He estimates that during the 23 years from 1979 to 2002, the United States would have experienced about 200,000 fewer fatalities if its vehicle fatality rate had declined each year by the same percentage that it did in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia (Evans 2004, 387). Unless the vehicle fatality rate can be lowered fur- ther, total fatalities will again begin to trend upward as motor vehicle travel rises. Both the federal government [NHTSA, the Federal Highway Admin- istration (FHWA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)] and state officials [the American Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO), the American Association of Motor Vehi- cle Administrators, and the Governors Highway Safety Association] have established the goal of reducing the fatality rate to less than 1 death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2010 (AASHTO 2005). Whether this safety goal can be achieved during the envisioned time frame, or even over a less ambitious period of time, will depend on a number of factors. Among them are • Social, economic, and demographic trends, including the safety impacts arising from an increasing population of older drivers and the ability to make timely changes in highway signing and lighting, driver licensing standards, and vehicle crash avoidance and protection capabilities; • Changes in the mix of motor vehicle sizes and types (e.g., trucks, SUVs, motorcycles), which will be influenced by many factors, including changing consumer preferences, fluctuating energy prices, freight traffic, and the development and mass introduction of new vehicle technologies; 

20 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector • The uncertain social, legislative, and judicial responses to future safety measures aimed at curbing risky driver behaviors, as evidenced by the difficulties experienced over the years in implementing driver-oriented safety measures such as primary safety belt laws, automated (photo) enforcement aimed at speeding and red-light running, and sobriety checkpoints; • The continued influx of personal and in-vehicle technologies that affect (positively and negatively) driver attentiveness, awareness, and driving capabilities; and • The progression toward a safety “culture” as indicated by the public’s demand for and willingness to accept more concerted measures to bring about safe driving behavior. The experience of the past 40 years suggests the need for a multi- pronged approach to improving highway safety—one that is systematic in addressing the array of factors affecting crash incidence and severity. Evans (2004, 381) notes that the United States was once the world leader in highway safety. In 1960, it had the lowest fatality rate per mile of travel in the industrialized world. Today, many industrialized countries have lower rates, including Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Japan, and Great Britain (Evans 2004, 382). Evans considers some of the rea- sons for this loss in status. He concludes that an unbalanced emphasis in the United States on crash protection and a reluctance to adopt laws that require safety belt use, curb drunk driving, and dissuade other risky driving behaviors were major causes. He acknowledges the critical importance of the public sector in ensuring safety, maintaining that pub- lic policies have failed to address the main behavioral factors influencing safety performance. The cause of the safety improvements in other industrialized nations is often attributed to the adoption of a more comprehensive “safe sys- tem” approach to road safety. These nations have set clear performance goals for safety improvements and pursued them through combinations of means that target the driver, the vehicle, and the roadway and that are implemented by multidisciplinary teams (FHWA 2005b). Such an approach has implications for the quality of the road safety workforce. For example, it would require greater expertise in a wider array of disci- plines. It can affect the composition and size of the workforce over the 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 21 long term in other ways, depending on how effective it is in bringing about the desired safety improvements. The safe system approach is an important concept with implications for the education and training requirements of road safety professionals. ROAD SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENT In comparing U.S. motor vehicle safety experience and policies with those of other countries, the differences in the political and institutional settings of the countries stand out. One obvious difference between the United States and Great Britain, for example, is the structure of gover- nance. In Great Britain, nearly all government functions pertaining to road safety are handled at the national level. The federal system in the United States has led to a much more decentralized set of decision- making bodies and implementing institutions, spanning several branches and agencies of the federal government; the 50 states and the District of Columbia; and thousands of counties, municipalities, townships, and other local governmental bodies. Not only are road safety functions scat- tered across jurisdictional levels, they are further dispersed among mul- tiple institutions with safety responsibilities at each level of government, as described below. Federal Government The U.S. Congress passes laws and appropriates funds for programs that have major impacts on highway safety. The laws and programs are admin- istered by several federal agencies, often in the form of regulations, grants to states and local authorities, and technical information and advice. Although highway legislation directed at safety is discussed in this report, even congressional actions that are not directed at highway safety per se can have important safety implications. One example is the enactment and subsequent repeal of the national 55-mph speed limit. That law was enacted for energy conservation but had major safety benefits. Further- more, Congress is a frequently changing body and is organized into dozens of committees and subcommittees having jurisdiction over differ- ent aspects of road safety. Indeed, many of the federal agencies and pro- grams discussed below are overseen and funded by different congressional 

22 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector committees and authorized by legislation enacted by different Con- gresses. Developing a consistent and coherent national road safety pol- icy and strategy is difficult under these circumstances. The main federal transportation agencies with responsibilities for administering road safety programs are NHTSA, FHWA, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). All three are all housed in USDOT. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, works with these and other federal agencies, especially NHTSA, in identifying, eval- uating, and promoting actions to prevent injuries incurred in motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA Created by Congress in 1966 (as the National Highway Safety Bureau), NHTSA’s mission is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. Its main area of focus is promoting safe vehicles and driving, as well as occupant and pedestrian protection. To fulfill this mission, NHTSA sets and enforces standards for new motor vehicles and equipment; provides highway safety grants to state and local governments for data collection, safety education, emergency medical services, and traffic enforcement activities; and promotes the use of safety devices such as safety belts and child safety seats. NHTSA has a supporting program of research that includes collecting and analyzing crash data, assessing the safety impacts of new technologies, assessing injury causation and mitigation measures, examining crash avoidance and severity reduction measures, and studying driver behavior. FHWA FHWA’s main mission is to provide financial and technical support to state and local governments for constructing, improving, and preserving the nation’s highway system—a system almost entirely owned and oper- ated by state and local governments. The emphasis of the federal-aid high- way program, which the agency administers, is on the National Highway System, a 160,000-mile network that carries 40 percent of the nation’s traf- fic. The federal-aid highway program also provides resources for 1 million additional miles of urban and rural roads. FHWA has an Office of Safety, 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 23 which focuses on highway planning, design, operations, and construction issues related to safety. The Office of Safety provides state and local high- way agencies with safety training tools, statistics, and technology infor- mation. In addition, highway safety research is conducted at FHWA’s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. FMCSA FMCSA was established as a separate agency within USDOT in 2000, after having been a bureau of FHWA. FMCSA’s main responsibility is to pro- mulgate and administer federal regulations governing commercial truck and bus operations, including truck size and weight limits and driver qual- ifications and hours of service. The agency collects and analyzes truck safety data, including inspection, violation, and crash data submitted by states. It also has an education and technical assistance program that offers motor carriers advice on developing safety management programs, employing preventive maintenance, and training truck operators in defensive driving. CDC CDC is one of the 13 major operating components of the Department of Health and Human Services. One of the CDC’s main centers, established in 1992, is the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). As the lead federal agency for injury prevention, NCIPC works closely with other federal agencies, state and local entities, and research institutions. NCIPC’s Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Team works closely with NHTSA on developing and evaluating behavioral and engi- neering solutions to prevent motor vehicle crash injuries and deaths. Center scientists, for example, have conducted reviews of government programs and community-based efforts to increase the use of safety belts and to decrease alcohol-impaired driving. State Government The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico each has its own governmental structure for administering highway systems, driver licens- ing, injury prevention programs, traffic law enforcement, and other road safety activities. Some house all or most of these activities in two or three government agencies, while others have them spread among many more 

24 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector agencies and offices, including cabinet-level transportation, public health, public safety, and state police departments. State Departments of Transportation and Highway Agencies Most states have established a cabinet-level department of transporta- tion that administers state programs in all modes of transportation, including highways. In most instances, the highway divisions are the largest single units in the department. Typically, the state highway agen- cies are responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and oper- ations of all Interstate highways and most primary highways, with the exception of highways operated by toll authorities. In a few states, such as Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina, the state highway agency also administers, maintains, and operates secondary roads and local streets. While a few state highway agencies have a separate highway safety office, most house safety functions in the traffic engineering office. Departments of Motor Vehicles In many states, the department of motor vehicles (DMV) is housed within the department of transportation or within the department of public safety, which may also house the state police (or highway patrol). A few states, such as Virginia, have a cabinet-level DMV. These agencies administer state programs for driver licensing, motor carrier safety, and automobile inspection and registration. Accordingly, they are responsi- ble for keeping records of and identifying at-risk drivers, monitoring graduated licensing programs, establishing driver licensing standards, setting requirements for driver education, and collecting crash data. Most of these responsibilities are safety related. At the same time, many DMVs have functions not related to safety, such as tax collection, vehi- cle emissions inspection, and voter registration. State Police and Departments of Public Safety State police (sometimes called highway patrols) operate in every state except Hawaii. One of their main responsibilities is to patrol highways and enforce motor vehicle laws and regulations, including laws governing commercial truck and bus safety. At the scene of crashes, state police also direct traffic, give first aid, and call for emergency equipment. State police 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 25 agencies are often housed within cabinet-level departments of public safety, and some are even responsible for administering their state’s DMV. State police work with state highway safety representatives to identify high-priority enforcement areas and to develop and implement pro- grams to deter drunk driving and encourage safety belt use. They also investigate motor vehicle crashes and are an important source of state and federal crash data. Departments of Health and Education State health departments have a number of roles relating to road safety. They administer state injury prevention programs that maintain trauma and injury databases and coordinate with other public agencies and com- munity groups to promote child passenger safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and young-driver safety. Such programs are often funded with federal grants administered by the governor’s highway safety office. Health departments are also usually responsible for statewide planning of trauma centers and for providing training, certification, and technical assistance for emergency medical service providers, especially in rural areas. In some states, such as Texas, Montana, and Wisconsin, state edu- cation departments develop alcohol and traffic safety education materials, model driver training curricula, and standards for school driver educa- tion instructors. These responsibilities may also be carried out by other state agencies such as public safety agencies, DMVs, and departments of transportation. Governor’s Highway Safety Representative The Highway Safety Act of 1966 established the State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program, commonly known as the 402 program. The 402 program calls for the governor of each state to appoint a high- way safety representative to administer the 402 grants. About half of gov- ernor’s highway safety representatives (GRs) reside in state departments of transportation and DMVs, while most of the rest reside in public safety and state police agencies. In a few states, the GR heads a separate office in the executive branch. The GR and 402 funds focus mainly on the behavioral aspects of high- way safety rather than on highway engineering. For example, they may 

26 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector develop safety programs to improve the skills of young and elderly drivers, encourage safety belt and helmet use, and discourage drunk driving. Appointed by the governor, the GR has an important leadership role in promoting safety initiatives in the state legislature, coordinating safety activities among state and local agencies, and working with local com- munities to implement traffic safety programs. Appointees with safety expertise and strong communications and management skills are there- fore desirable, along with a highly competent staff of road safety profes- sionals to develop and implement the programs. Because federal 402 funds are sometimes suballocated to counties and other local jurisdictions by formula prescribed in state legislation, the role of the GR can be greatly diminished in practice. Local Government More than 75 percent of public road mileage in the United States is owned and operated by local jurisdictions (FHWA 2005a). In most states, counties, cities, and towns own, operate, and maintain most local streets and many collectors and minor arterials. There are more than 3,000 counties and many more municipalities, towns, townships, vil- lages, and other general-purpose local governments in the United States. Counties alone operate twice as much road mileage as states. Local entities differ in how they administer their road systems. In New England and a few other states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Delaware), all local (nonstate) roads are administered by municipalities, towns, or town- ships rather than counties. Large municipalities often administer their systems through a public road agency or department of public works; however, many smaller jurisdictions operate their limited road networks through the general unit of government. Counties typically have road commissions or departments of transportation and public works. Most county and municipal governments also establish traffic laws in their jurisdictions and apply sanctions for noncompliance. Many local police work with the state police in implementing DUI, heavy truck, safety belt, and work zone safety education and enforcement programs. Local police also have an important role in investigating crashes and sub- mitting crash data to state and federal agencies. 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 27 Most emergency medical services are also provided by local govern- ments, and city and county health departments are often a focal point for state safety programs, such as child safety seat distributions. In some localities, public school systems play an important role in instructing stu- dent drivers and teaching pedestrian safety to pupils of all ages. In these localities, high school driver education programs teach students the rules of the road, basic vehicle control skills, and safe driving skills. In general, high school driver education classes are taught by teachers employed by the school system or through contracts with private driver education services. Schools and school-related organizations also educate young students on pedestrian and bicycle safety and teenagers on the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Regional Planning Agencies Although regional (e.g., metropolitanwide) governance is rare in the United States, regional transportation planning agencies are common. There are nearly 400 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the country covering all urbanized areas. Federal law requires that all transportation projects in urbanized areas of 50,000 people or more be prioritized within the framework of a comprehensive urban transporta- tion plan developed cooperatively by the state and local governments. MPOs are thus responsible for approving significant expenditures of transportation funds. As discussed later in this report, MPOs are increas- ingly expected to give direct consideration to safety as one of their plan- ning goals and to include safety performance in their data collection programs and measures of system performance. KEY POLICIES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC-SECTOR SAFETY ROLE Before the 1960s, the government’s role in ensuring highway safety rested largely with the individual states and local governments, which established and enforced traffic laws and oversaw driver education courses, vehicle inspection, and driver testing and licensing programs. For the most part, the federal government limited its involvement to 

28 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector conducting research and providing technical advice for the design and construction of safe highways. Landmark legislation enacted by Con- gress in 1966 redefined and elevated the federal role. The two major pieces of legislation enacted were the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The former act gave NHTSA responsibility for establishing and enforcing regulations aimed at making motor vehicles safer to operate and more crashworthy. The Highway Safety Act focused on the human (driver, pedestrian) and highway-related aspects of the road safety problem. Both acts have had major safety implications. The Highway Safety Act is dis- cussed in greater detail below because it has had more impact on the safety responsibilities and resources of state and local governments. Highway Safety Act The Highway Safety Act created a federal highway safety grant program and required governors of states to be responsible for the administration of the program. As mentioned earlier, Section 402 established national standards to guide state and local highway safety programs and autho- rized federal grants to support their implementation. NHTSA and FHWA were given responsibility for jointly administering the grants and other provisions of the act, but state and local governments remained the focal point of implementation. The 402 grant program remains in effect today, although it has been modified over the years. The funds can be used by states for a variety of safety initiatives including data analyses, safety education programs, and communitywide pedestrian safety campaigns. The program was most recently modified in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transporta- tion Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU). The act dou- bled the amount of 402 funds apportioned for safety. It also expanded the types of projects eligible for safety funding, including safety con- scious planning, public safety awareness campaigns, traffic education and enforcement, and collection and analysis of crash data. SAFETEA-LU emphasizes the adoption by states of a data-supported and strategic approach to highway safety improvements. States are required to develop and implement a strategic highway safety plan and establish a program of projects or strategies to implement the plan. Projects must 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 29 be selected on the basis of sound data analyses that allow locations with the greatest safety need to be targeted. States are required to submit an annual report to USDOT assessing the effectiveness of the funded improvements in reducing crashes. The report must describe at least 5 percent of locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs and assess potential remedies, their costs, and other impediments to addressing the needs. In developing and implementing the strategic safety plan, states are expected to work closely with local governments and MPOs and to ensure that all public agencies with safety roles are involved in sharing data and resources and in establishing common goals and priorities. The plan must explain how such cooperation will be brought about, and the annual evaluations must demonstrate the safety impacts of these collab- orative efforts. State Initiatives AASHTO published its first national Strategic Highway Safety Plan in 1998 (AASHTO 2005). It was developed by state representatives on the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety with help from national safety experts in driver, vehicle, and highway issues. After the plan was released, a number of states developed their own strategic safety plans modeled on the AASHTO plan, including Maryland, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. AASHTO’s strategic safety plan, updated in 2005, focuses on 22 spe- cific highway safety challenges or “emphasis areas.” Safety strategies are outlined for each emphasis area. For example, the plan calls for a comprehensive and integrated approach to reducing the incidence and severity of crashes in which vehicles run off the roadway, including bet- ter pavement markings for driver guidance, enhanced compatibility of vehicle designs and roadside features such as side slopes and culverts, and driver education and training programs that teach proper use of antilock brakes. AASHTO charged the National Cooperative Highway Research Pro- gram (NCHRP) with developing a series of guidebooks to assist state and local agencies in responding to each of the emphasis areas identified in the strategic safety plan. The resultant NCHRP Report Series 500 consists 

30 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector of 22 volumes that correspond to each emphasis area (TRB 2003–2006). Most of the volumes have been completed and are being distributed to state and local governments. Each guide includes strategies and counter- measures to address specific safety problems and model processes for implementation. The strategies range from those having well-documented safety benefits to those remaining experimental but exhibiting promise. In addition, the companion NCHRP Report 501: Integrated Safety Man- agement Process provides a framework for coordinating a safety program (Bahar et al. 2003). It presents various ideas for integrating and coordi- nating engineering, enforcement, emergency response, and education efforts within a jurisdiction and determining the most effective combi- nation of strategies to deploy. AASHTO has also tasked NCHRP with developing a Highway Safety Manual that will quantify and predict the safety effects of changes in spe- cific elements of roadway design, maintenance, construction, and oper- ation. The goal is to produce a manual that is widely accepted within the field of transportation engineering and that presents state-of-the-art, quantitative information on safety measures. It is expected to be science based and regularly updated to reflect the results of research. The first edition of the manual is scheduled for release in 2008. Other commonly used manuals in the field of highway engineering, such as TRB’s Access Management Manual, have been updated to reflect a growing body of research on related safety impacts and benefits. Local Initiatives Most fatal crashes occur on locally owned and maintained roads. Local governments, acting through national associations such as the National Association of County Engineers, the American Public Works Associa- tion, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have therefore periodically focused attention on the traffic safety problems of local highways and streets. In 1993, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, whose membership includes many municipal and county transportation engi- neers, published the first edition of the Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety (ITE 1993). The Toolbox, which was last updated in 1999 (ITE 1999), was developed for use primarily by transportation officials from local jurisdictions. 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 31 In the Overview chapter of the Toolbox, Professor Ezra Hauer remarks that the challenge is to ensure that each edition “be based on more sound, empirical, and defensible knowledge.” Indeed, local governments, like states, are increasingly expected to take a more rigorous and scientific approach to managing safety on their road systems. Congress has required states to ensure that 40 percent of Section 402 funds be used to meet local traffic safety needs and that local safety initiatives be integrated into each state’s strategic highway safety plan and program. SUMMARY The road safety problem is large and complex, but much progress has been made over the past 40 years in controlling it. Continued progress will require scientific rigor in monitoring and understanding safety needs and in devising, implementing, and evaluating solutions that work together to improve safety on a systems level. There is little question that the pub- lic sector must have a prominent role in managing road safety; the more relevant question is how best to use and coordinate the capabilities and resources of federal, state, and local governments for this purpose. The diversity of institutions with road safety responsibility, encompassing fed- eral, state, and local governments and many disciplines, creates signifi- cant challenges with respect to communications, terminology, perspective, and capabilities. As the remainder of this report indicates, meeting these challenges is critical in building a road safety workforce. The efforts of federal, state, and local governments to improve road safety have become better coordinated over the years, but a significant challenge lies ahead in building a more comprehensive, systems approach to safety management. The enactment of federal legislation such as the Highway Safety Act of 1966 has prompted more coordinated and ratio- nal public-sector efforts to address the safety problem. New initiatives such as evidence-based safety planning in some states are intended to further this harmonization of public safety programs. The institutions with safety responsibility and influence, however, remain widely dispersed both within and across jurisdictional levels. Fostering a systems-level approach to safety management presents many political and institutional challenges that are beyond the scope of 

32 Building the Road Safety Profession in the Public Sector this study. However, building a highway safety profession that tran- scends jurisdictional and institutional boundaries and shares a common body of knowledge and skills is a critical step in meeting these chal- lenges. The focus of the remainder of this report is on achieving this outcome. REFERENCES Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention FHWA Federal Highway Administration ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration TRB Transportation Research Board AASHTO. 2005. AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan: A Comprehensive Plan to Sub- stantially Reduce Vehicle-Related Fatalities and Injuries on the Nation’s Highways. Washington, D.C. Bahar, G., M. Masliah, C. Mollett, and B. Persaud. 2003. NCHRP Report 501: Integrated Safety Management Process. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. CDC. 2004. Teen Drivers Fact Sheet. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/teenmvh.htm. CDC. 2005. Child Passenger Safety Fact Sheet. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm. Evans, L. 2004. Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society, Bloomfield Hills, Mich. FHWA. 1976. Highway Statistics: Summary to 1975. Report FHWA-HP-HS-S75. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. FHWA. 2005a. Highway Statistics 2004. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing- ton, D.C. FHWA. 2005b. Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe. http:// international.fhwa.dot.gov/humanfactors/index.htm. ITE. 1993. The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety. Washington, D.C. ITE. 1999. The Traffic Safety Toolbox: A Primer on Traffic Safety (revised second edition). Washington, D.C. NHTSA. 2006a. Traffic Safety Facts—2005 Data: Occupant Protection. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 

The Safety Challenge and the Public-Sector Role 33 NHTSA. 2006b. Traffic Safety Facts—2005 Data: Overview. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. TRB. 1987. Special Report 216: Zero Alcohol and Other Options: Limits for Truck and Bus Drivers. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TRB. 2003–2006. NCHRP Report Series 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. National Academies, Washington, D.C. Winston, F. K., and T. M. Senserrick. 2006. Competent Independent Driving as an Archetypal Task of Adolescence. Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, Supplement 1, pp. i1–i3.