Guide to Implementation of the Toward Zero Deaths National Strategy on Highway Safety (2022)

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.

1-1 1. Introduction This is the Preliminary Draft Final Report for National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-64: Guide for the Implementation of the Toward Zero Deaths National Strategy on Highway Safety. This report contains the findings from all project tasks comprising Phase 1: Tasks 1.1 through 1.7 and Phase 2: Tasks 2.1 through 2.5, outlined as follows: Phase 1 • Task 1.1: Data Collection for Development of Guide • Task 1.2: Conduct Interviews and Focus Groups • Task 1.3: Development of Tools to Assess Adoption of the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) National Strategy and Stakeholder Engagement • Task 1.4: Develop Guide for Implementing the TZD Communications Plan • Task 1.5: Develop Resources for Communicating and Engaging with Partners and Stakeholders • Task 1.6: Preparation of the Guide Document • Task 1.7: Plan for Dissemination of Guide Phase 2 • Task 2.1: National TZD Strategy: Road Map to Implementation Webinar Series • Task 2.2: National TZD Strategy: Road Map to Implementation Workshop Events • Task 2.3: Train-the-Trainer Delivery • Task 2.4: Marketing Product Templates • Task 2.5: Product Dissemination • Task 2.6: Prepare Preliminary Draft Final Report and Revised Final Report 1.1 Project Purpose In the 1990s, the annual number of traffic fatalities in the United States was stuck in the low 40,000s, and the trend line was essentially flat. The traffic safety community concluded that to achieve significant reductions in fatalities, both substantial changes to ongoing safety programs and entirely new approaches were required. In support of this idea, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published its first Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) in 1997. It was revolutionary—the plan suggested setting a new national safety performance measure using traffic fatalities and introduced many innovative ideas, including: • Shared responsibility—all roads, all levels of road authorities • Identification of safety emphasis areas—using a data-driven analysis to identify safety priorities in each state, typically the most numerous types of crashes that represented the greatest opportunity for reduction • Focus on proven strategies—a short list of effective strategies tied to each emphasis area were identified • Consideration of driver, roadway, and vehicle interactions • Development of state and local SHSPs AASHTO’s initial SHSP also mentioned the importance of implementation and identified three perspectives. First, there would be a shared responsibility for implementation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) providing national leadership and direction in support of state and local agencies deploying new programs and strategies. Second, additional safety funding would be needed to implement

1-2 safety strategies along roadways that had not previously been part of a state department of transportation’s (DOT) safety planning efforts. And finally, to achieve the goal of a steep reduction in the number of traffic fatalities, a majority of states would need to implement a comprehensive set of strategies. A number of states incorporated some of these ideas into their safety planning efforts, and yet the trend line remained flat. Then, in the mid-2000s, traffic safety’s level of importance rose when federal transportation legislation (SAFETEA-LU) made safety a separate and distinct program and the level of funding dedicated to safety was substantially increased. The legislation required individual states to prepare their own SHSPs with their DOT as the accountable agency. Legislation required the SHSP to be data-driven, address safety on all public roads, identify emphasis areas and high-priority safety strategies, and adopt a goal for the reduction of traffic fatalities. All states prepared the required safety plans, and some made changes in the management and programming of their safety programs to address severe crashes. These changes included aligning implementation with their plan’s priorities by dedicating some Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to support implementation on the local road system and by focusing their investments on proven effective strategies tied to their identified emphasis areas. A sharp drop in the annual number of fatalities occurred—from more than 43,000 in 2005 to just less than 33,000 in 2010. Since then, the trend line has again flattened out. In June 2014, eight associations that represent government agencies involved in highway safety released the document Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. This national strategy describes a long-term vision of zero traffic-related deaths and outlines the current challenges that need to be tackled. Some of these challenges include the size of the nation’s road network, the variety of road users, and the complexity of the driving task. It is similar to previous national safety plan efforts in its discussion of key safety areas and associated strategies to address them. Safety areas listed in the document deal with drivers (impaired driving, speeding, belt usage, and distraction), roadways (roadway departure and intersections), vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists), and vehicles (motorcycles and large trucks). The national strategy calls for committed and sustained collaboration among all highway safety stakeholders, as well as for reaching out to new partners who have not previously engaged in these efforts. In addition, this strategy places emphasis on promoting a positive traffic safety culture for organizations and society that supports the TZD vision. As in previous plans, the discussion of implementation in the TZD national strategy document stays at a high level, with a focus on national leadership and direction, and leaves the details of implementation to the states. The data (the nearly steady number of traffic fatalities over the past five years) suggest that states may be finding it difficult to do what needs to be done to drive the numbers down and help move them Toward Zero Deaths. This may be caused in part by there not being enough specific guide on how states can implement new TZD programs, tools, and techniques. The objective of this project is to provide that guide to states and other highway safety stakeholders in order to advance the implementation of the TZD national strategy. Note: An effort was made in the report to use generic terminology when referring to zero-fatality programs. However, there are locations in the report where specific program names are referenced (in particular in sections 3 and 7). In these instances, both TZD and Vision Zero are used to respect the individual program name and branding.