Transportation Safety Analysis and Plan

Whereas traditional road safety strives to modify human behavior and prevent all crashes, the Safe System approach refocuses transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives. Though the TSAP continues to utilize the AASHTO emphasis area approach in finding areas of particular safety concern to the region, this edition adopts the Safe System approach to pursue cross-cutting strategies that address multiple emphasis areas (e.g. speed management techniques that address pedestrian and bicyclist safety as well as aggressive driving). Users of this story map are encouraged to rethink safety countermeasures and strategies across emphasis areas in the context of the Safe System framework.

There are six principles and five elements of the Safe System approach. The principles are shown in the graphic to the right, encircling the five Safe System elements. This section of the TSAP describes each of the key Safe System areas and the cross-cutting strategies that should guide crash reduction actions in the region. Strategies were developed by the RSTF at the July 2021 Special Strategies Session event. The final subsection considers Safety Culture as an additional element of the framework for this document.

Crucial to developing a safe transportation system is recognizing that not all roadway users approach the system with the same abilities and assumptions. The Safe System approach prioritizes design that accounts for human error, while also promoting the shared responsibility of all users of the system, including: walkers, bicyclists, drivers, transit riders, and those who use mobility aids.

Safe Road Users strategies address all types of road users, but focus on meeting the needs of road users that lack experience, like young drivers, or those who may have diminished mobility, like older pedestrians. Safe Road Users strategies can also address gaps in service created by environmental injustice, limited English proficiency, or other unique challenges.

The Safe System approach demands that roadway infrastructure anticipate human error with built-in safety redundancies to ensure that if one safety element fails, other elements are there to prevent deaths and serious injuries.

Safe Roads strategies focus on roadway design, as well as maintenance and operations. They also touch on planning and analysis that guide decision-making on where to address crash trends on the network.

Speed is the single most important determinant of both the likelihood and severity of a crash. Many strategies laid out in this story map can ultimately be ascribed to the goal of reducing speeds, from traffic calming roadway designs to education campaigns urging drivers to slow down. This makes Safe Speeds a central source of cross-cutting strategies to address road safety.

Central to Safe Speeds strategies is the concept of target speed, or the highest speed at which vehicles should operate given the surrounding land use and multimodal activity. Posted speed limits are typically set using the 85th percentile speed at which drivers travel, without regard to target speed. Instead of adhering to the design speed of a roadway (the speed at which roadways are engineered to be traveled) and its associated speed limits, roadway owners should consider the context and likelihood of a serious crash when determining target speed and adjust the design speed of a roadway or add traffic calming strategies, if needed.

FHWA’s Safe System approach for vehicles calls for design and regulation that incorporates technological innovation to minimize the occurrence and severity of collisions. This technological innovation includes in-vehicle crash avoidance technology like lane keeping assist, as well as micro-mobility trends like e-bikes and e-scooters. Though advances in roadway design and in-vehicle technology improve safety and decrease rates of collision, it remains imperative that drivers resist tech-related distractions and keep their eyes on the road.

Mitigating injury severity after a crash occurs is critical to reducing and ultimately eliminating death and serious injury from crashes. Emergency first responders must be able to quickly locate, stabilize, and transport crash victims to medical facilities. Post-crash care, however, extends beyond emergency response to include analysis of why a crash occurred, traffic incident management, and even adjudication.

 FHWA  defines safety culture as “the shared values, actions, and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to safety over competing goals and demands.” To eliminate death and serious injuries from crashes on our roadway network, it’s critical to advance a zero deaths safety culture in tandem with the Safe System approach.

Safety culture strategies are divided into two overarching categories: internal and external safety culture. Internal safety culture strategies seek to shift attitudes and priorities with roadway owners and traffic safety agencies to further embrace a Safe System approach to road safety planning. External safety culture strategies seek to shift attitudes and behaviors among the general public with regard to road safety.

The regional safety emphasis area analysis identifies the AASHTO emphasis areas with the greatest impact on KSI in the Greater Philadelphia region. For each emphasis area, the TSAP provides a map of KSI crashes that involve that emphasis area in the region as well as a chart of the incidence of KSI crashes that involve that emphasis area as a proportion of all KSI crashes by county. Finally, key strategies to address the emphasis area are provided, organized by Safe System categories. The strategies for each emphasis area were developed by the RSTF and organized into Safe System categories based on their focus (e.g. a strategy to deploy traffic calming assigned to Safe Roads). A "cross-cutting strategy" icon indicates where a strategy can impact multiple emphasis areas. A few emphasis areas are not mapped, focusing instead on the incidence by county and countermeasure strategies.

The image on the right demonstrates the relative severity and incidence of crashes involving the AASHTO Emphasis Areas. The gray circles indicate the average number of annual crashes of any severity that involved the emphasis area. The location of the circle within the colored bands indicates the average KSI that involved the emphasis area, with the greatest number of KSI in the orange band at the center of the circle. This chart is mapped on the Safe System approach circle graphic from FHWA, intended to remind the viewer that strategies to address these crash trends should be crafted with the Safe System approach in mind.

People 65 years old or older are more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash than younger people due to injury susceptibility and medical complications; older pedestrians, bicyclists, and those who depend on mobility devices are especially vulnerable. As we age reaction time and visual acuity naturally become compromised. 

Older road users accounted for 13.6% of total KSI in the region from 2015 to 2019. Older drivers have higher rates of fatal crashes per mile driven than middle-aged drivers. Fortunately, drivers typically self-regulate as they age by limiting their time on the road, lessening or eliminating nighttime trips, and foregoing long distances.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Older Road User-related crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

Young drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 years old had the highest crash rate of any age group. Crash risk for young pedestrians and bicyclists is disproportionate to average adults, and is similar to older drivers. Young road user-involved crashes accounted for 14.2% of total KSI in the region from 2015 to 2019.

Inexperience behind the wheel, propensity for risky behavior, and peer pressure are symptoms of immaturity and contributing factors that increase crash risk for young people driving, riding, and walking. Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for 16-to-20-year-olds in the U.S. between 2013 and 2015 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Younger Road User-related crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

Intersections, despite making up a very small percentage of the surface mileage of all roads in the United States, are the most dangerous part of the road. As the site where different types and directions of travel must interact, the goal of intersection safety is to reduce potential conflicts and speeds and increase the visibility of all users. Intersection crashes accounted for 38.1% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

This also makes intersection design a great opportunity to help achieve zero deaths on our regional road network. Innovative tools and design concepts like intersection control evaluation (ICE), roundabouts, and protected intersections are key to implementing a Safe System approach to intersection safety.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Intersection crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

This category includes both cross-median and roadway departure crashes. Roadway departure crashes include when a vehicle crosses an edge line, a centerline, or otherwise leaves the travel way. These crashes can be especially deadly; FHWA attributes more than half of roadway fatalities nationwide to roadway departure crashes. Lane departure crashes accounted for 47.2% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Lane departure crashes are disproportionately represented in rural areas and on roads with higher posted speed limits, especially along curves. In addition to roadway improvements that combat lane departure, lane departure warning (LDW) systems are becoming a more common in-vehicle technology that can also help to address this trend.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Lane Departure crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

Pedestrians and bicyclists are the most vulnerable users on the road, and therefore are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a crash than vehicle occupants. Crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians accounted for 22.3% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018. Unfortunately, pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities are increasing nationwide. Providing safe facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel on is critical to addressing this trend.

In the region, Philadelphia is a FHWA-designated Pedestrian-Bicycle Safety Focus City, making it a priority location for resources to address this crash trend. Many other municipalities, county governments and state DOTs in the region are also focusing on this trend, from pedestrian safety studies to pedestrian-focused road safety audits. This is an important step toward rebalancing our road network to support pedestrian and bicyclist safety alongside vehicle mobility.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Bicyclist and Pedestrian-involved crash data for the region and strategies to address these crash trends.

Safe driving requires the operator’s full attention. Distractions have always existed for drivers, but the role of cell phones and other “smart” devices (including in-vehicle features) have compounded this issue. Distracted driving crashes accounted for 16.7% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Data on distracted driving is believed to be underreported in crash reporting forms. In addition, differences in the definition and frequency of citation of distracted driving violations between New Jersey and Pennsylvania make comparison between counties in different states difficult. Improvements in technology to keep vehicles on the road may have the unintended effect of lulling drivers into a false sense of security, potentially further increasing rates of distracted driving.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Distracted Driving crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

Reducing aggressive driving is one of the key goals of a Vision Zero-informed regional safety culture. According to NHTSA, aggressive driving is defined as performing at least two of a number of dangerous and often illegal actions, such as running a stop sign or red light, passing in a no-passing zone, and speeding (this definition is used in Pennsylvania; New Jersey only requires one illegal action). Aggressive driving crashes accounted for 14.4% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018. In the Safe System approach, controlling speed is the key to eliminating severe crashes; modifying behavior to reduce aggressive driving is central to this aim.

Differences in the definition and frequency of citation of aggressive driving violations between New Jersey and Pennsylvania make comparison between counties in different states difficult. Automated enforcement continues to emerge as a valuable strategy to reduce aggressive driving. Automated red light cameras and speed cameras have been deployed in key locations in Pennsylvania and have shown success at decreasing speeds and red light running. Currently, automated enforcement is not permitted in New Jersey.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Aggressive Driving crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

This category includes crashes where the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including both illegal and legal drugs. Nationally, thanks in part to strong messaging campaigns and shifts in safety culture, drunk driving crashes have been on a longtime downward trend. In 2019, NHTSA reported the lowest percentage of drunk driving fatalities since tracking began, though this still led to over 10,000 deaths nationwide. Impaired driving crashes accounted for 17.1% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Drugged driving, on the other hand, is less well understood and data points to increasing rates of this risky behavior. NHTSA reported significant increases in drivers involved in fatal and serious injury crashes testing positive for cannabinoids and opioids in the second half of 2020. This trend underscores the need for better messaging and safety culture strategies to address this trend.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Impaired Driving crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

NHTSA estimates that motorcyclists were 27 times more likely to die in a crash than occupants of other vehicles, because motorcycles afford very little protection in a crash compared to passenger vehicles. Furthermore, NHTSA estimates that only 64 percent of motorcyclists wore DOT-compliant helmets in 2015. Motorcyclist-involved crashes accounted for 13.6% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

New Jersey requires all motorcyclists to wear DOT-compliant helmets, whereas Pennsylvania only requires a DOT-compliant helmet for riders under 21 years of age or for those riders with less than two years of riding experience, or who have not completed a PennDOT-approved motorcycle safety course.

Click the button on the right of the map to scroll through Motorcyclist-involved crash data for the region and strategies to address this crash trend.

A work zone is an area of a roadway that is undergoing construction or maintenance, often resulting in lane closures and detours. These sections of roadway require drivers to slow down for both their own safety and the safety of the people working on the road. Both New Jersey and Pennsylvania have enacted higher penalties for moving violations in work zones than on sections of roadway without a work zone. Pennsylvania enacted a pilot program to use automated speed enforcement in work zones in 2018.

Work zone crashes are not mapped, and focus on the incidence by county and countermeasure strategies instead. Work zone crashes accounted for 1.4% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Click the button on the right of the chart to scroll through Work Zone strategies to address this crash trend.

At-grade crossings and shared right-of-way between vehicles and trolley lines create conflict points between road users and vehicles traveling by rail in the region. While crashes are relatively rare, they can be extremely severe when they do occur. The Philadelphia region is home to a number of rail operators, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), which operates eight trolley lines and thirteen commuter rail branches, and New Jersey Transit, which operates the River Line light rail system in Mercer, Burlington, and Mercer counties. These lines account for most of the conflicts between rail and road users in the region.

Train and trolley crashes are not mapped, and focus on the incidence by county and countermeasure strategies instead. Train and trolley crashes accounted for 0.1% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Click the button on the right of the chart to scroll through Train and Trolley strategies to address this crash trend.

Heavy trucks are defined by NHTSA as any vehicle, except for a bus or a motor home, that weighs more than 10,000 pounds. In recent years, fatalities resulting from heavy truck crashes have been on the rise across the country; between 2009 and 2015, the number of fatalities increased by 20 percent from 3,380 to 4,067. Heavy truck crashes accounted for 7.2% of KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Although heavy truck volumes are comparatively low, crash severity is high, and crash likelihood is also high due to larger blind spots, wider turning radii, and longer stopping distances due to weight. In 2012 Congress mandated electronic logging devices to help enforce legal limits on the number of hours a truck driver may drive per day to combat drowsy driving; the mandate took effect in 2017. Heavy truck crashes are not mapped, and focus on the incidence by county and countermeasure strategies instead.

Click the button on the right of the chart to scroll through Heavy Truck strategies to address this crash trend.

NHTSA estimates that the national seat belt use rate was 90 percent in 2020, continuing a trend of high compliance with a proven safety measure. States in which failure to wear a seat belt is a primary offense, which means that drivers can be pulled over for that offense alone, have a higher rate of seat belt use than states in which it is not. Not wearing a seat belt is a primary offense in 37 states, including New Jersey. In Pennsylvania, not wearing a seat belt is only a primary offense for children under 18.

Unbelted crashes are not mapped, and focus on the incidence by county and countermeasure strategies instead. Unbelted crashes accounted for 25.2% of total KSI in the region from 2016 to 2018.

Click the button on the right of the chart to scroll through Unbelted strategies to address this crash trend.

 DVRPC Safety Page  The homepage for DVRPC's Office of Safe Streets, including links to key programs and recent publications.

 Crash Data Viewer  A webmap of crashes in the DVRPC region with embedded analysis tools and summary statistics.

 Data Navigator  DVRPC's data download tool, including crash tables for the DVRPC region.

 Regional Safety Task Force  The webpage for the task force includes archived meeting summaries and materials dating back to 2005.

 Traffic Safety Culture and the Media Toolkit  A toolkit for media and communications partners to use for guidance in discussing crash safety and related themes.

Methodology Emphasis area analysis for this report is derived from crash data tables made publicly available by PennDOT and NJDOT. These tables include flags and other fields that can be used to identify key attributes and circumstances surrounding a crash. Click the button below to download a list of database queries used to limit PennDOT and NJDOT crash data by AASHTO emphasis areas.

Crash Data by Municipality, 2015-2019 Click the buttons below to download emphasis area crash data summaries by municipality for each county in the DVRPC region.