Chapter 4 – Safety Needs

The Boston Region MPO’s Safety Goals and Objectives

Goal:

Transportation by all modes will be safe.

Objectives:

• Reduce the number and severity of crashes and safety incidents for all modes
• Reduce serious injuries and fatalities from transportation
• Make investments and support initiatives that help protect transportation customers, employees, and the public from safety and security threats

Introduction

Issue Statement

People who travel by car, truck, bus, rail, bicycle, or on foot in the Boston region seek to travel safely, but often these modes compete for space and priority on the roadways. While roadway crashes overall have declined over time, recent increases in bicycle and pedestrian crashes and in serious injuries to pedestrians attest to the challenge of ensuring safety for all modes. Changes to travel patterns, caused in part by increased use of transportation network company (TNC) services (e.g., Uber and Lyft) and deliveries from online retail businesses, add to the many factors that affect safety on the region’s transportation system. Meanwhile, advancements in connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) technology have the potential to generate safety benefits, but this technology may also change travel patterns and influence traveler behavior in ways that introduce new concerns.

Background

Safe travel on the region’s transportation system is a top priority at the federal, state, and regional level. The federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21) established a goal to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, which is also included in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. To support improvements in transportation safety, the US Department of Transportation has required states, transit providers, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to implement a performance-based approach to making investments to improve safety, which includes setting performance targets and monitoring safety outcomes. Similarly, the Massachusetts’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) includes a long-term goal to “Move toward Zero Deaths” by eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the Commonwealth’s roadways.

While the MPO shares the federal and state goals of reducing crash severity for all users of the transportation system, the MPO is also taking steps to reduce the number of crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities at the regional level.

Safety Needs Summary

Reducing the number of transportation-related crashes, safety incidents, injuries, and fatalities as well as related property damage, pain, and suffering, is the Boston Region MPO’s highest priority. This focus is in line with federal and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts goals and Vision Zero policies that are being implemented by municipalities in the region. Potential projects that improve transportation safety in the region will need to account for all modes and employ a variety of strategies. Effective solutions will also require collaboration between the MPO, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), other Commonwealth executive agencies, the region’s transit providers, municipalities, and other stakeholders.

Over the last several decades, the MPO has built a practice of analyzing roadway crash trends and crash locations. The MPO helps address key safety issues by recommending roadway design solutions for specific locations; creating tools and guidance to help municipalities address local safety issues; and investing in capital projects through the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to improve safety.

Going forward, the MPO must continue to enhance practices of analyzing data, collecting public feedback, and applying staff expertise to recommend safety solutions. The MPO must also continue to apply LRTP and TIP evaluation and development processes that help identify and support projects likely to have safety benefits. The MPO should also continue to monitor the potential impacts that CAV technology will have on roadway user behavior and safety.

There are also areas where the MPO can expand activities to address transportation safety. The MPO will need to consider transit safety issues, data requirements, and needs when coordinating with the region’s transit providers to set federally required transit safety performance targets. The MPO should analyze transit safety trends on an ongoing basis, consider the potential safety benefits of projects for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA), MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA), and MassDOT that are programmed in the TIP, and explore opportunities to support transit agencies’ safety initiatives and investments. The MPO should also continue to collaborate with safety practitioners, transportation agency representatives, municipalities, and others to identify both infrastructure and non-infrastructure approaches (such as education and awareness campaigns) to reduce fatalities, injuries, incidents, and other safety outcomes across all transportation modes and systems.

Table 4-1 summarizes key findings about safety needs that MPO staff identified through data analysis and public input. It also includes staff recommendations for addressing each need. A description of the types of recommendations presented in the table includes the following:

• Existing Programs/Existing Initiatives: Investment programs that were included in the MPO’s previous LRTP, Charting Progress to 2040, and TIP to address specific transportation needs. It also includes existing technical assistance programs or initiatives that are in the MPO’s UPWP.
• Proposed Programs: Potential investment and technical assistance programs that were considered for implementation by the MPO in the Destination 2040 LRTP.
• Existing Studies: Existing MPO studies that are currently underway or recently completed in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 UPWP or planned studies, research, and analyses programmed in the FFY 2020 UPWP that address transportation needs identified in the Needs Assessment.
• Proposed Studies: Studies that could be considered by the MPO in future UPWPs. These study ideas were included in the Universe of Studies used for the development of the FFY 2020 UPWP.
• Other Actions: Actions that the MPO could take to address the identified needs in this document.

Chapter 10–Recommendations to Address Transportation Needs in the Region provides more detail on each of the recommendations. The MPO board should consider these findings when prioritizing programs and projects to receive funding in the LRTP and TIP, and when selecting studies and activities for inclusion in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

Table 4-1
Safety Needs in the Boston Region Identified through Data Analysis and Public Outreach and Recommendations to Address Needs

CAV = Connected and Autonomous Vehicles.

EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only.

FFY= federal fiscal year.

LRTP= Long-Range Transportation Plan.

MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

MPO = metropolitan planning organization.

RTA = regional transit authority.

TNC = transportation network company.

UPWP = Unified Planning Work Program.
Source: Boston Region MPO.

Understanding Safety Needs in the Boston Region

This section presents the research and analysis MPO staff conducted to understand transportation safety needs in the Boston region, which have been summarized in the previous section. Supporting information that MPO staff used to understand safety needs is included in the Appendices of this Needs Assessment.

• Appendix A includes key plans and policies
• Appendix B includes MPO studies and reports
• Appendix C includes data resources

This section also includes a summary of input staff gathered from stakeholders and the public about transportation safety needs and proposed solutions to meet those needs. Staff considered this input when developing recommendations to achieve the MPO’s safety goals and objectives.

Research and Analysis on Roadway Safety

Roadway Crash, Fatality, and Injury Trends

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the MPO track traffic crashes using information from the Massachusetts Crash Data System.1 Figure 4-1 shows recent trends in Massachusetts for all motor vehicle crashes, along with those that involve bicyclists, pedestrians, or trucks. In this chart and the other roadway safety charts that follow, data is presented in rolling five-year annual averages for the years 2008 through 2016. As shown in the chart, the average number of total motor vehicle crashes in Massachusetts increased by 7.8 percent over the analysis period, those involving trucks increased by 12.4 percent, and those involving bicycles decreased by less than one percent. Meanwhile, the average number of crashes involving pedestrians increased by 14.2 percent.

Figure 4-1
Motor Vehicle Crashes in Massachusetts

Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System and Boston Region MPO.

Figure 4-2 provides crash data specific to the 97 municipalities in the Boston region. During the analysis period, the average number of total motor vehicle crashes increased by 3.2 percent, while Massachusetts as a whole experienced an increase of 7.8 percent. In the Boston region, the average number of truck-involved crashes increased by 10.4 percent, the average number of bicycle-involved crashes decreased by 1.1 percent, and the average number of pedestrian-involved crashes increased by 10.8 percent. These results indicate that the Boston region is experiencing similar trends in nonmotorized crashes compared to Massachusetts as a whole.

Figure 4-2
Motor Vehicle Crashes in the Boston Region MPO

Sources:  Massachusetts Crash Data System and Boston Region MPO.

Figure 4-3 compares the crash rates per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) for Massachusetts to the crash rate for the Boston region. Over the analysis period, the motor vehicle crash rate in Massachusetts as a whole increased by 3.8 percent, while the rate for the Boston region decreased by less than one percent. 

Figure 4-3
Motor Vehicle Crash Rates per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled

VMT =  vehicle-miles traveled.
Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System and Boston Region MPO.

The Commonwealth and the Boston Region MPO monitor crash outcomes, fatalities, and serious injuries, using information reported to the federal Fatality Analysis and Reporting System (FARS) and the Massachusetts Crash Data System. 2 Several of the charts describing crash outcomes below, including Figures 4-4 through 4-10, show information for federally required roadway safety performance measures, for which states and MPOs are required to set annual performance targets. More information about MPO performance targets is included in Table 4-8. Figure 4-4 shows recent trends in fatalities at the Massachusetts and MPO levels. At both the Massachusetts and Boston region levels, five-year annual rolling averages for fatalities have been relatively stable in recent years, with Massachusetts showing a less than one percent increase and the Boston region showing a 1.1 percent decrease.

Figure 4-4
Fatalities from Motor Vehicle Crashes

Note: States and MPOs monitor this roadway safety measure to meet federal performance requirements.
Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System and MassDOT.

Figure 4-5 shows recent trends in the fatality rate per 100 million VMT for both Massachusetts as a whole and for the Boston region. At the Massachusetts and Boston region levels, average fatality rates have been declining over time, with the state showing a three percent decrease and the Boston region showing a 4.7 percent decrease. These declines may be partially attributed to a slight increase in VMT.

Figure 4-5
Fatality Rate per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled

Note: States and MPOs monitor this roadway safety measure to meet federal performance requirements
VMT = vehicle-miles traveled.
Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System and MassDOT.

Figure 4-6 shows recent trends in serious injuries at the Massachusetts and Boston region levels.3 The number of serious injuries from motor vehicle crashes declined between 2008 and 2016 both statewide and in the Boston region. It decreased by 12.5 percent statewide and by 18.7 percent in the Boston region.

Figure 4-6
Serious Injuries from Motor Vehicle Crashes

Note: States and MPOs monitor this roadway safety measure to meet federal performance requirements
Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System and MassDOT.

Figure 4-7 shows recent trends in the average serious injury rate per 100 million VMT for both Massachusetts as a whole and for the Boston region. These rates have been decreasing over time at both the state and Boston region levels; it decreased by 15.1 percent statewide and by 21.7 percent in the Boston region.

Figure 4-7
Serious Injury Rate per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles Traveled

Note: States and MPOs monitor this roadway safety measure to meet federal performance requirements.
VMT = vehicle-miles traveled.
Sources: Massachusetts Crash Data System and MassDOT.

Figures 4-8 and 4-9 present data about fatalities and serious injuries from bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes. As noted in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, crashes involving pedestrians have been increasing over time at both the Boston region and statewide levels. Figure 4-8 shows that fatalities from bicyclist- or pedestrian-involved crashes have remained relatively stable at the Boston region level, but at the Massachusetts level, fatalities from pedestrian-involved crashes are increasing. Figure 4-9 shows changes in serious injuries from pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved crashes at both the Boston region level (6.8 percent and 7.3 percent, respectively) and Massachusetts level (12.4 percent and 7.6 percent respectively). Similar to pedestrian-involved crashes that resulted in fatalities, pedestrian-involved crashes that resulted in serious injuries are increasing at the state level.

Figure 4-8
Fatalities from Bicyclist- or Pedestrian-involved Crashes

Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, and MassDOT.

Figure 4-9
Serious Injuries from Bicycle- or Pedestrian-involved Crashes

Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, and MassDOT.

Figure 4-10 presents nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries for both Massachusetts and the Boston region. This measure includes fatalities and injuries from bicycle- or pedestrian-involved crashes as well as those from crashes involving other nonmotorized modes, such as skateboards, per federal requirements for highway safety performance measures. During the analysis period, nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries increased by approximately 11.7 percent in Massachusetts as a whole and by approximately 7.6 percent in the Boston region.

Figure 4-10
Nonmotorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Note: States and MPOs monitor this roadway safety measure to meet federal performance requirements.
Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, and MassDOT.

Roadway Crash Factors

When creating its 2013 SHSP, the Commonwealth identified safety emphasis areas by examining the factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes that result in fatalities and serious injuries. The sections below discuss specific safety emphasis areas. In each emphasis area, the percentages of fatalities or injuries involving a particular crash factors are expressed in 2011–15 rolling averages.4 Individual motor vehicle crashes can involve a number of different factors; tracking their prevalence can help inform strategies to improve transportation safety.

Roadway Features

Intersection Crashes

MassDOT reports that 32 percent of fatalities and 40 percent of serious injuries from motor vehicle crashes in the Boston region were related to crashes at intersections. These values are slightly higher than for Massachusetts overall, where 27 percent of fatalities and 39 percent of serious injuries were related to crashes at intersections. The Boston region includes 66 of the Top 200 Intersection Crash Locations identified in MassDOT’s 2015 Top Crash Locations Report.5 ^,6 ^, Corridors with multiple Top 200 Intersection Crash Locations include the following:

• Route 9 in Framingham (four locations)
• Route 18 in Weymouth (three locations)
• Route 107 in Lynn and Salem (six locations)
• Route 16 in Chelsea, Everett, and Medford (seven locations)
• Route 203 (Morton Street/Gallivan Boulevard) in Boston (three locations)
• Routes 2A and 3 in Cambridge (two locations each)
• Route 1 in Lynnfield and Peabody (two locations)
• Route 28 in Milton and Randolph (two locations)
• Route 20 in Waltham and Weston (two locations)
• Route 135 in Framingham and Natick (two locations)
• Route 16 in Milford (two locations)

The section of this chapter titled High Crash Locations discusses other MassDOT-identified high crash locations in detail.

Lane Departure Crashes

MassDOT describes a lane departure crash as one that occurs after a vehicle crosses a roadway edge or centerline or otherwise leaves the travel lane. MassDOT reports that in the Boston region, 50 percent of traffic fatalities occurred in roadway departure crashes, compared to 56 percent for Massachusetts as a whole. In particular, 41 percent of traffic fatalities occurred in roadway departures not near intersections, compared to 47 percent for Massachusetts. MPO staff analyzed the locations with various subtypes of lane departure crashes using 2013–15 crash data, and found that these crashes are prevalent on expressways along I-93 between I-90 and I-95 northbound; I-93 between I-90 and I-95 southbound; and I-90 in Boston, Newton, and Weston. For arterials, MPO staff noted that lane departure crashes were prevalent along Route 3 in Weymouth; Route 1 in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere; Route 16 in Everett; Soldiers Field Road in Boston; and Route 9 in Newton and Wellesley. 

Transportation Modes and Vehicles

Pedestrian- and Bicyclist-Involved Crashes

MassDOT reports that 23 percent of fatalities and 13 percent of incapacitating injuries occurred in pedestrian-involved crashes in the Boston region. These values are higher than Massachusetts-level values (21 percent and 10 percent, respectively). Meanwhile, four percent of fatalities and five percent of serious injuries occurred in bicycle-involved crashes, compared to three percent of fatalities and three percent of incapacitating injuries throughout Massachusetts. These findings for fatalities and serious injuries, like others in the Roadway Crash Factors section, 2011-15 rolling averages.The section of this chapter titled Roadway High Crash Locations discusses MassDOT-identified high crash locations for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Large Vehicle and Motorcycle-Involved Crashes

MassDOT reports that 12 percent of fatalities occurred in crashes involving large vehicles, such as trucks or buses, in the Boston region. By comparison, 10 percent of motor vehicle crash fatalities in Massachusetts involved these vehicles. Six percent of serious injuries occurred in crashes involving large vehicles in both Massachusetts as a whole and in the Boston region specifically. The section of this chapter titled Roadway High Crash Locations discusses MassDOT-identified high-truck-crash locations. Meanwhile, 13 percent of fatalities and nine percent of serious injuries occurred in crashes involving motorcycles in the Boston region.

Other Roadway Safety Factors

The MPO spends federal transportation dollars primarily on capital transportation projects, such as intersection or Complete Streets roadway improvements. As a result, the MPO pays particular attention to the modes and infrastructure involved in crashes to determine how it may support safety improvements. However, other considerations and safety emphasis areas, such as those pertaining to driver characteristics and behaviors, should also be considered when planning to improve highway safety. Table 4-2 shows the percent of fatalities or serious injuries in the Boston region and Massachusetts that involved driver-related crash factors. Table 4-2 also shows that some factors are more prevalent in motor vehicle crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries at the Boston region level than for Massachusetts as a whole, and vice versa. In particular, the involvement of young drivers or older drivers is a factor in a smaller share of Boston region fatalities than for fatalities in Massachusetts overall. Meanwhile, these drivers are involved in larger shares of crashes that result in serious injuries in the Boston region than serious injuries in Massachusetts overall.  

Table 4-2
Share of Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities and Serious Injuries
 Related to Crash Factors

Note: Percentages reflect 2011–15 rolling averages for the Commonwealth and a 101-municipality Boston region that includes four towns that are no longer in the Boston Region MPO’s planning area (Duxbury, Hanover, Pembroke, and Stoughton).
^a Fatalities and serious injuries in this category only reflect those experienced by motorists.
^b Young drivers are defined as those between 15 and 20 years old, while older drivers are defined as those ages 65 and older.
Sources: Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, Massachusetts Crash Data System, and MassDOT.

MassDOT accounts for these factors as well as the roadway characteristic and transportation mode factors (discussed earlier in this section) when it develops safety initiatives and coordinates with municipalities throughout the Commonwealth. Going forward, MassDOT will be putting increased emphasis on other factors, such as driver inattention, to address safety issues on the Commonwealth’s roadways. The MPO can be attentive to these driver characteristics and behaviors when conducting its own safety planning, and can look for opportunities to publicize and otherwise support MassDOT initiatives that address these areas.

Roadway High Crash Locations

To address crashes, fatalities, and injuries on the Boston region’s roadway network, the Boston Region MPO examines MassDOT-identified crash-cluster locations and uses these as indicators of where safety issues may be present. MassDOT creates these crash clusters using a procedure for processing, standardizing, matching, and aggregating crash data from the MassDOT Registry of Motor Vehicles by geographic location.7 Crash severity is measured using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) index, which assigns higher weighted values to crashes involving fatalities or injuries than to those only involving property damage. MassDOT establishes a set of high priority all-mode, bicycle, and pedestrian crash cluster locations by selecting the top five percent of each type of cluster for each regional planning area, using a ranking scheme that accounts for EPDO index values. Projects that aim to address safety needs in areas where these clusters are located are eligible for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) program funding, which supports roadway safety improvements. When evaluating TIP projects, MPO staff notes where projects are located with respect to each of these types of clusters. This information helps the MPO identify whether projects are addressing locations that have relatively high crash incidences and/or high fatality and injury incidences.

The following sections discuss top-ranked crash-cluster locations in the Boston region. The tables in these sections provide details about crash cluster locations; however these locations are best viewed spatially to understand the area encompassed by the crash cluster.  Details on these crash clusters are available in the MPO’s LRTP Needs Assessment application at https://www.ctps.org/maploc/www/apps/lrtpNeedsAssessmentApp/index.html. Details on HSIP-eligible all-mode, bicycle, and pedestrian crash clusters are available using MassDOT’s interactive crash cluster map at https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/topcrashlocations/. Chapter 8, on transportation equity needs, provides more information on where these crash clusters are located with respect to MPO-defined transportation equity zones (TEZs). These TEZs reflect areas where specific populations (including minorities, people with disabilities, youth, the elderly, and people with limited English proficiency) or types of households (including low-income and transit dependent households) exceed regional thresholds. Understanding where these populations are located with respect to high crash locations helps the MPO to address transportation safety needs in equitable ways.

All-Mode Crash Clusters

This chapter discusses MassDOT all-mode HSIP clusters created using 2013–15 crash data. There are 993 crash clusters in the Boston region. Table 4-3 presents all-mode crash clusters with an EPDO index value greater than 150, along with information about the other cluster types these clusters intersect. These top-ranked all-mode clusters are also discussed in Chapter 8, which provides information about whether these all-mode clusters are located in MPO-identified TEZs. Table 4-3 shows that many, but not all, of these locations are on interstate segments or at interchanges. Many of these locations are in Inner Core municipalities, although these all-mode crash cluster locations exist throughout the Boston region.

Table 4-3
Top-Ranked HSIP Eligible All-Mode Crash Clusters

Note: Clusters were selected from Massachusetts 2013–15 HSIP-eligible All-mode Crash Clusters for the Boston region. Expressway and arterial routes are based on designations from the Boston Region’s Congestion Management Process. Massachusetts top crash locations were identified using data in the MassDOT 2015 Top Crash Locations Report, March 2018, available at mass/gov/lists/top-high-crash-locations-by-year.
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only.

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Boston Region MPO.

Bicycle Crash Clusters

MassDOT established a set of HSIP-eligible bicycle clusters using 2006–15 crash data and a 100-meter buffer around the locations of crashes involving bicycles. There are 54 bicycle crash clusters in the Boston region. Table 4-4 presents 10 bicycle crash cluster locations with an EPDO index value greater than 100, along with information about the other cluster types that these clusters intersect.

Table 4-4
Top-Ranked HSIP Eligible Bicycle Crash Clusters

Note: Clusters were selected from Massachusetts 2006-15 HSIP-eligible Bicycle Crash Clusters for the Boston region. Arterial routes are based on designations from the Boston Region’s Congestion Management Process. Massachusetts top crash locations were identified using data in the MassDOT 2015 Top Crash Locations Report, March 2018, available at mass/gov/lists/top-high-crash-locations-by-year.
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only.

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Boston Region MPO.

Pedestrian Crash Clusters

MassDOT established a set of HSIP-eligible pedestrian crash clusters using 2006–15 crash data and a 100-meter buffer around the locations of crashes involving pedestrians. There are 73 pedestrian crash clusters in the Boston region. Table 4-5 presents 22 locations with an EPDO index value of 100 or more, along with information about the other types of clusters that these pedestrian clusters intersect. As shown in the table below, many of these top-ranked crash clusters exist in downtown areas or intersect major arterial routes in the Boston region.

Table 4-5
Top-Ranked HSIP Eligible Pedestrian Crash Clusters

Note: Clusters were selected from Massachusetts 2006-15 HSIP-eligible Pedestrian Crash Clusters for the Boston region. Arterial routes are based on designations from the Boston Region’s Congestion Management Process. Massachusetts top crash locations were identified using data in the MassDOT 2015 Top Crash Locations Report, March 2018, available at mass/gov/lists/top-high-crash-locations-by-year.
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only.

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Boston Region MPO.

Truck Crash Clusters

MassDOT does not specifically identify a set of clusters for truck-involved crashes, but MPO staff followed MassDOT’s methodology for creating all-mode crash clusters to generate a set of truck crash clusters using 2013–15 crash data. Staff identified 329 truck crash clusters that accounted for the top five percent of clusters in the Boston region, ranked by EPDO. Table 4-6 presents locations with an EPDO index value greater than 30, along with information about the other cluster types that these clusters intersect. Many of these high-ranking truck crash clusters exist at expressway-to-expressway interchanges and expressway-to-arterial interchanges. A noteworthy exception is the truck crash cluster at Kosciuszko Circle in Boston, which is located near the JFK/UMASS transit station and also intersects HSIP-eligible bicycle and pedestrian crash clusters.

Table 4-6
Top-Ranked MPO-identified Truck Crash Clusters

Note: Expressway and Arterial routes are based on designations from the Boston Region’s Congestion Management Process.

EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only.

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program.

MPO = metropolitan planning organization.

Sources: Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Boston Region MPO.

Stakeholder and Public Input on Roadway Safety

During fall 2017 and winter 2018, MPO staff collected feedback on transportation issues, needs, and opportunities from municipal planners and officials, transportation advocates, members of the general public, and other stakeholders. During this outreach process, 118 participants commented on transportation safety needs. This section focuses on safety issues related to car, truck, bicycle, and pedestrian travel on the region’s roadways. Public feedback on transit safety is discussed later in this chapter.

Those who participated in the MPO’s outreach process identified a variety of concerns related to roadway safety.

• By a wide margin, the most frequently raised transportation safety concern was related to dangerous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly at intersections, high crash locations, on major roadways and routes people use to commute to work or school, in the Boston region’s urban core. Several participants noted that a lack of safe pedestrian conditions may compel people using wheelchairs or mobility aids to travel in roadway shoulders.
• The advent of smartphones and other mobile devices has increased instances of distracted driving, putting pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists at risk.
• Increased use of ridehailing services and deliveries of online purchases has led to more frequent instances of cars and trucks double-parking or otherwise blocking travel lanes, including bike lanes. This poses safety hazards to other roadway users.
• Participants noted that increased through-traffic and roadway congestion in places experiencing increased residential and commercial development, such as Cambridge and Malden, has negative impacts on roadway safety.
• At least one participant expressed concern about the impact of autonomous vehicles on transportation safety.
• At least one participant expressed concerns about interactions between freight traffic and bicyclists.

Participants in the MPO’s outreach process identified specific needs and solutions to address these and other safety concerns. Many of these needs and solutions may overlap with those mentioned in Chapter 5 through Chapter 8. The ideas are summarized below.

Roadway Design and Operation

• Continue to support roadway reconstruction projects that implement Complete Streets design principles. Participants noted that more of these types of projects are needed. Some participants proposed that Complete Streets design techniques—such as creating physically separated sidewalks, bike paths, or trails—be incorporated into all roadway improvement projects.
• Designate mandatory drop-off areas for TNCs that double as loading zones.Several participants made this suggestion.
• Implement traffic calming practices and design features.Multiple participants recommended lowering posted speed limits. Some suggested setting defacto 25 mile-per-hour speed limits, and others suggested providing municipalities with funds for new speed limit signs. Others recommended narrowing overwide roadways by implementing bike lanes. Other suggestions included incorporating traffic calming measures into bridges and tunnels and in residential areas; and increasing the number of projects completed through the City of Boston’s Slow Streets program each year.
• Improve safety at intersections, particularly for bicyclists and pedestrians.Participants recommended improving pedestrian and bicyclist crossings, particularly at dangerous intersections. Suggestions for improving intersections include the following:
• Installing more pedestrian countdown timers and ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complianceand upgrade to have accessible pedestrian signals at all traffic signals
• Improving signal timing for pedestrian crossings, including audio signals; lengthening crossing times for pedestrians; creating more exclusive pedestrian crossing phases at intersections
• Restriping crosswalks more frequently, and using yellow stripes
• Upgrading curb ramps including adding detectable warning strips
• Increasing the use of no-turn-on-red signs
• Deploying low-probability-of-intercept radars for pedestrian detection 
• Prioritize rights-of-way to avoid conflicts between trucks and bicyclists.
• Create or improve railroad grade crossings.Several participants mentioned improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians at these locations.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

• Build new, safe shared-use paths that are located away from highways and congested arterials. Multiple participants mentioned this solution. These shared-use paths should provide connections to markets, schools, and public transit, and should support radial commutes. Implementing agencies could support these paths by dedicating funds for greenway design and construction, and by making use of abandoned rail rights-of-way.
• Create more protected bike lanes. Multiple participants suggested this solution. These lanes should enable families, children, elderly people, inexperienced riders, and others to feel safe biking.
• Connect bike path segments into a continuous, gap-free network. Multiple participants suggested this solution, with some noting that such a network should be extensive, separated from vehicular traffic, protected, and well-marked. Participants suggested that such a network should serve major roadways, commuter routes, and low-income neighborhoods. Related suggestions include repainting road markings more frequently, designing bicycle facilities consistently across municipal borders, and creating pop-up protected bike lanes.
• Build a safer pedestrian environment with connected and well-maintained sidewalks. Multiple participants suggested this solution, and many highlighted specific ways to create safe sidewalk environments.
• Maintain smooth surfaces; remove sidewalk hazards such as tree roots and potholes; quickly respond to repair requests; and create uniform standards for sidewalk texture.
• Widen sidewalks and decrease curb radii.
• Prevent driveway cuts that cause sidewalks to slope dangerously, which make travel more dangerous in icy conditions.
• Improve sidewalk lighting so that it is low and even, and lights are closely spaced.
• Construct more ADA-compliant sidewalks. Improve sidewalk accessibility, for example, by including more curb cuts, so that people with wheelchairs, scooters, and strollers can travel on sidewalks instead of in the street. Add curb cuts with detectable warnings.
• Quickly clear sidewalks of snow in winter, particularly at bus stops and at tactile strips at curb ramps. This makes travel safer for elderly people and people with disabilities.
• Use of signs to discourage bicycle parking on public right-of-ways and dangerous areas.
• Improve walking routes from neighborhoods to local schools.
• Prioritizing pedestrians. This includes giving pedestrian’s right-of-way priority and creating pedestrian only zones in some locations.  

Travel Education and Enforcement

• Enforce rules of the road for motorists. This includes increasing police enforcement of traffic safety. Such enforcement should protect pedestrians in crosswalks, promote travel at safe speeds, and address parking on sidewalks and in bicycle lanes. 
• Educate motorists and require regular recertification for drivers. One participant made a related suggestion to encourage better driver behavior.
• Enforce rules of the road for bicyclists. This includes enforcement addressing wrong way biking and biking on sidewalks, improper bicycle parking (such as on handrails or in areas too narrow to accommodate this parking), and proper yielding at intersections. One participant suggested licensing bikes.
• Provide education for bicyclists. Such education could address traffic laws, how to ride bicycles, bicyclist responsibilities, and how to interact with others using the roadway. One participation proposed an education campaign for bicyclists to respect the needs of people with disabilities, for example, by parking their bikes in appropriate areas.

Other Safety Supporting Activities

• Continue to expand Vision Zero initiatives.
• Improve the collection of, access to, and use of data. Participants recommended measuring bicycle usage to improve safety analyses, using predictive analytics to prevent pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, and making crash data more available.
• Maintain roadways to improve safety.This includes maintaining roadway striping.
• Discourage driving. This can include limiting car access or excluding cars.
• Ensure safety in the deployment of autonomous vehicles.

Feedback from Other Outreach Processes

MPO staff also reviewed feedback from other public gathering processes, including the 2017 MassMoves public workshops and outreach conducted for the GoBoston 2030 transportation plan. Several interest areas in common with the MPO’s outreach emerged and are included below.

• Design streets to be accessible for ages eight through 80, and for people of all abilities. Participants in the GoBoston 2030 process applied this principle to the transit system as well.
• Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety by installing smarter signals for pedestrians and bicyclists, and adding protected bicycle lanes.
• Connect neighborhoods with better sidewalks and bicycling and walking trails.
• Increase funding for Vision Zero and Complete Streets initiatives.
• Prioritize safety for people accessing transit.

These outreach processes also yielded other valuable themes to consider when planning to improve roadway safety. 

• Reallocate street space to balance the needs of all roadway users.
• Improve roadway safety, including with the use of smart traffic management systems.

Current Strategies and Activities to Address Roadway Safety Needs

Table 4-7
General Safety Improvement Strategies and Current or Potential MPO Roles

LRTP = Long-Range Transportation Plan.

MassDOT = Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

MPO = metropolitan planning organization.

RSAs = Road Safety Audits.

TIP = Transportation Improvement Program.

UPWP =  Unified Planning Work Program
Sources: Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Boston Region MPO.

Federally required roadway safety performance measures and associated targets also help shape approaches to address roadway safety. These performance measures pertain to fatalities and serious injuries from traffic incidents, apply to all public roads, and are expressed as five-year rolling annual averages. The Commonwealth examined historic data and projected five-year rolling average values for these measures and set targets for calendar year (CY) 2019 that represent 2014–19 rolling annual averages. The Boston Region MPO voted to adopt these targets in February 2018 and has agreed to plan and program projects so that they contribute to the Commonwealth’s highway safety targets.

Table 4-8 displays the highway safety targets set by the Commonwealth. For all measures except the nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries measure the Commonwealth considered the general downward trend lines in the historic data when setting its CY 2019 targets. Meanwhile, MassDOT recognizes that its initiatives to increase nonmotorized travel throughout the Commonwealth have posed a challenge to concurrent activities to reduce nonmotorized fatalities and injuries. Rather than adopt a target that reflects an increased amount of nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries, MassDOT has set a CY 2019 target that is approximately equal to the 2011–15 rolling average value for nonmotorized fatalities and serious injuries (see Figure 4-10). The Commonwealth and the Boston Region MPO are required to update these targets on an annual basis.

Table 4-8
2019 Massachusetts Statewide Highway Safety Performance Targets

VMT = vehicle-miles traveled.
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

MassDOT’s five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) plays a key role in implementing the strategies in the SHSP and for addressing the performance targets listed in Table 4-8. The CIP describes how the federal HSIP funds that Massachusetts receives are assigned to programs and projects. The FFYs 2019–23 CIP supported these roadway safety improvement strategies through a variety of different reliability and modernization-oriented programs, including those relating to bridges, intersections, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intelligent transportation systems. In particular, the CIP included a highway-oriented Safety Improvements program, which supports repairs to traffic signals, highway lighting systems, impact attenuators, traffic signs, and pavement markings. Federally funded investments made through the aforementioned programs that affect the Boston region appear in the Boston Region MPO’s TIP.

Transportation projects that address location-specific safety issues and opportunities begin with project designs and later become candidates for safety-related funding programs. Many types of MPO-funded UPWP studies recommend safety improvements for intersections and corridors, as noted in Appendix B, MPO Studies and Reports. Both MassDOT and the Boston Region MPO’s project selection processes include safety-oriented criteria. MassDOT stakeholders also assess safety issues and opportunities by conducting RSAs at candidate project locations. MPO staff typically participate in RSAs conducted in the Boston region. A project becomes eligible for HSIP funding when an RSA is completed, and recommendations from these RSAs, along with those from UPWP studies, can be incorporated into the MassDOT-managed project design process.

Other transportation agencies in the region, including those at the municipal level, support roadway safety through their own activities. In particular, Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville address roadway safety using the same Vision Zero approach that informs the Commonwealth’s “Move Toward Zero” goal. These cities have analyzed and publicized data to better understand safety issues and crash locations, and have or are in the process of developing Vision Zero action plans. Examples of municipal level initiatives to advance Vision Zero include:

• Lowering speed limits and/or establishing slow zones;
• Addressing safety issues related to trucks and other large vehicles; and
• Creating education and engagement campaigns.

The City of Boston has integrated Vision Zero planning with its GoBoston 2030 transportation plan and has created Priority Corridors and Safe Crossings, Walk and Bike Friendly Main Streets, Neighborhood Slow Streets, and Walkable Streets and ADA Improvements programs to support Vision Zero investments. The Boston Region MPO should continue to monitor these efforts and coordinate with these and other municipalities to identify ways that the MPO can support Vision Zero initiatives.

Research and Analysis on Transit Safety

Transit Safety Trends

As with roadway safety, a number of factors affect the safety of the Boston region’s transit systems, including infrastructure and vehicle condition as well as customer, employee, and general public practices and behavior. Likewise, the region’s public transit providers must balance a number of considerations—including safety, operations, expansion needs and opportunities, and asset maintenance—when deciding how to invest in their systems. By understanding transit safety trends as well as system preservation and modernization, capacity management, and mobility considerations discussed later in this Needs Assessment, the MPO can make better decisions about how to improve the Boston region’s transit infrastructure and service.

MBTA

The MBTA is the major transit provider in the Boston region, providing heavy and light rail, commuter rail, bus, ferry, and paratransit service in a complex, wide-reaching transit system. MBTA staff monitors a variety of performance measures to understand, respond to, and proactively plan safety needs on the system. For example, Figure 4-11 displays fatalities for the MBTA’s bus and rail systems for the past six state fiscal years (SFYs). As the figure illustrates, most fatalities occurred on the commuter rail system. The number of fatalities on these MBTA systems more than doubled from SFY 2016 to SFY 2017, an increase attributed to growth in person/train collisions on the commuter rail network. This increase in fatalities on the commuter rail system continued into SFY 2018. MassDOT’s annual Tracker Performance report notes that a committee of federal and MBTA experts has been created to analyze and address emerging trends related to person/train conditions.9 The MBTA has also partnered with Operation Lifesaver to prevent collisions, fatalities, and injuries near railroad tracks and has collaborated with Samaritans, which addresses suicide prevention. 

Figure 4-11
Fatalities as a Result of Transit Incidents by MBTA Line

Note: These figures include intentional and unintentional fatalities.
FY = Fiscal Year

MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
Sources: MBTA Safety and MassDOT Office of Performance Management and Innovation.

Other safety-relevant measures include derailments, which are defined as non-collision incidents in which one or more wheels of a transit vehicle unintentionally leaves the rail. Derailments can take place in rail yards or on mainlines. Figure 4-12 focuses on main line derailments, which have been trending downward over time. MBTA staff continues to work to eliminate derailments on its rail systems, and is specifically focused on eliminating human factor derailments, which were identified as the probable cause of 45 percent of 2017 derailments and 50 percent of 2018 derailments. Common human factor derailment causes include improperly setting switches and violating the red phases of signals.10

Figure 4-12
MBTA Yearly Main Line Derailments 1999-2018 (Light and Heavy Rail)

Note: This chart reflects mainline derailments occurring as part of both revenue (passenger) and nonrevenue service. The safety performance indicator is established by the MBTA’s Chief Safety Officer. Derailment numbers above the safety performance indicator goal signify a need for greater focus on the examination of causal factors and mitigation
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
Source: MBTA Quarterly Safety Report, January 14, 2019.

Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show data pertaining to MBTA bus collisions from mid-2016 through 2018, categorized by factor. Figure 4-13 focuses specifically on total bus collisions, estimates for which are based on incidents where there is a report or alleged contact with an MBTA bus, regardless of severity. These counts are based on MBTA operations logs and incidents reported to MBTA Safety. Figure 4-14 focuses on reportable bus collisions, which are those that involve a person requiring transport to a medical facility, any collision involving three or more transports for medical treatment, or any collision resulting in property damage equal to $50,000 or more. These figures highlight that people or vehicles are often factors in these collisions. Since buses generally share roadways with other vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, many of the roadway safety concerns discussed earlier in this section may affect bus travel as well. MBTA staff notes the agency has formed a Bus Accident Reduction committee to address issues related to collisions.

Figure 4-13
MBTA Total Bus Collisions

Note: These counts of total bus collisions are based on incidents where there is report or alleged contact with an MBTA bus regardless of severity. These counts are based on MBTA operations logs and incidents reported to MBTA Safety.
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Q = Quarter.
Source: MBTA Quarterly Safety Report, January 14, 2019.

Figure 4-14
MBTA Reportable Bus Collisions

Note: Reportable bus collisions are those that involved a person requiring transport to a medical facility, any collision involving three or more transports for medical treatment, or any collision resulting in property damage equal to $50,000 or more.
MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.Q = Quarter.
Source: MBTA Quarterly Safety Report, January 14, 2019.

Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) in the Boston Region

The RTAs in the Boston region similarly monitor safety data. MassDOT’s Office of Performance Management and Innovation reports several RTA safety metrics in its annual Tracker Performance report. The CATA and the MWRTA are of particular interest to the Boston Region MPO, because they report their investments in the Boston Region MPO’s TIP.

Figure 4-15 shows injuries per 100,000 unlinked passenger trips for RTA fixed-route bus or demand response service. These normalized injury values are presented in five-year rolling annual averages. CATA reported no injuries occurring on its fixed-route service during the three periods, and it only reported a positive average number of injuries per 100,000 unlinked person trips for its demand response service for the SFYs 2012–16 period. MWRTA reports declining injury rates for both its fixed route and demand response services. Neither of these transit providers reported fatalities for any of the three analysis periods. 

Figure 4-15
Regional Transit Authority Service: Injuries per 100,000 Unlinked Passenger Trips

Note: Injuries reflect the annual number of injuries that resulted from unintentional contact with transit vehicles or property. An injury is recorded for each person who received medical attention on the premises or was transported away to receive medical care.
CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority.

FY = Fiscal Year.

MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority.
Source: National Transit Database: Safety and Security Time Series Module.

Figure 4-16 shows preventable accidents per 100,000 unlinked passenger trips for RTA fixed-route bus service and demand response service. Preventable accidents are those in which the driver of the transit vehicle is normally deemed responsible or partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident. These normalized preventable accident values are presented in three-year rolling annual averages.

Figure 4-16
Regional Transit Authority Fixed-Route Bus Service: Preventable Accidents per 100,000 Unlinked Passenger Trips

CATA = Cape Ann Transportation Authority.

FY = Fiscal Year.

MWRTA = MetroWest Regional Transit Authority.

UPT = unlinked passenger trips.
Source: MassDOT Rail and Transit National Transit Database: Safety and Security Time Series Module.

Stakeholder and Public Input on Transit Safety

Participants in the MPO’s outreach process noted that there are safety issues at bus stops and stations and identified ways to improve transit safety.

Some of these solutions may overlap with those mentioned in Chapter 5, System Preservation and Modernization Needs, Chapter 6, Capacity Management and Mobility Needs, and Chapter 8, Transportation Equity Needs. Suggestions to improve transit safety included the following:

• Publicize emergency protocols on buses and subways.
• Ensure that transit drivers are experienced and avoid privatizing transit vehicle operations.
• Hold bus drivers accountable for infractions that endanger pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Use consistent bridge plates across transit stations, ensure that plates are strong, and avoid using single, flat plates (such as those used at Back Bay and South Station).
• Reduce the gap between train cars and station platforms, and make the distance consistent across stations.
• Provide warnings about the steep entrances to Green Line cars, and invest in cars that are more accessible. 
• Invest in rapid transit cars with sliding protective doors, such as those used in Paris.
• Widen station platforms and improve station lighting (which includes keeping lights clean) to aid people with low vision.
• Invest in buses with smaller turning radii.
• Consistent transit stop announcements.

Current Strategies and Activities to Address Transit Safety Needs

Activities to improve transit safety may range from data management and capital investment to new protocols and employee training. In its 2017 Strategic Plan, the MBTA highlights several specific needs, mandates, and initiatives pertaining to safety, which include workforce safety planning and programming, and the rail and bus system items outlined below.

• Positive Train Control (PTC) Technology: PTC systems are integrated command, control, communications, and information systems designed to prevent train-to-train collisions and derailments by tracking train movements and triggering brake systems if unsafe situations occur.11 The MBTA is implementing a $459 million PTC program that will be implemented on all of the MBTA’s commuter rail lines (about 394 miles of service), with the goal of having the system fully operational by 2020.
• Green Line Safety: The Green Line faces some unique safety challenges, given its age, signal system, street-running design, and the fact that it relies upon line of sight operation.12 The MBTA also notes that the accessibility-required construction of the low-floor center truck on Green Line vehicles has resulted “in a declining but still significant” number of derailments.13 To improve Green Line safety, the MBTA is continuing preventative maintenance, including vehicle, track, and operating improvements to prevent derailments. It also highlights the need for measures to promote pedestrian and traffic safety and to procure and implement Green Line train protection systems/collision avoidance technology.
• Heavy Rail Maintenance: While the MBTA prepares for the delivery of new Red and Orange Line vehicles, it recognizes the importance of short-term preventative maintenance of existing Red and Orange Line fleets to ensure safe and reliable service. 
• Bus Safety: MBTA priorities in this area include developing a program to reduce collisions and ensure the safety of pedestrian traffic at modal stations and crosswalks. Implementation steps may include vehicle engineering improvements, technology solutions, and continued emphasis on driver training.

The needs of transit agencies pertaining to transportation safety are, and will continue to be, shaped in part by federal mandates established under MAP-21 and continued under the FAST Act. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan (2017) creates a guiding framework for agency-level safety planning by establishing safety performance criteria for public transportation systems, and by recommending minimum safety performance standards for transit operations and the procurement of transit vehicles. Under the proposed Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan rule, public transportation providers receiving federal financial assistance would be required to develop an agency safety plan.14 These plans would include methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks throughout transit systems, strategies to minimize the exposure of people and property to hazards, targets for National Public Transportation Safety Plan performance, and other features.

The MPO will have a more integrated role in transit safety through the monitoring of transit safety performance measures and the development of targets for those measures. The MBTA, CATA, MWRTA, MassDOT, and the MPO will need to coordinate on setting targets for established measures pertaining to transit-related fatalities, serious injuries, safety events, and system reliability. These measures will help transportation agencies decide how to invest in “safety, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of existing assets in order to achieve and maintain a state of good repair.”15   Transit providers will establish targets for their respective systems, and the MPO will be responsible for setting targets for the Boston region.

MassDOT and transit agencies will work towards achieving these targets in part through capital investments, which are captured in MassDOT’s CIP. Federally funded investments made through the aforementioned programs that affect the Boston region appear in the Boston Region MPO’s TIP. Many of the 2019-23 CIP’s reliability and modernization programs, including those pertaining to MBTA and RTA facilities, stations, vehicles, and systems, relate to transit safety because they help to keep transit in a state of good repair. Examples of CIP programs with specific transit safety components include:

• MBTA—Risk Management and Mitigation: Implements risk management initiatives and proactive efforts to improve workplace safety and system security.
• MBTA—Commuter Rail Safety and Resiliency: Supports Positive Train Control and Automatic Train Control implementation, among other activities to support commuter rail safety and resiliency.

Often, transit system investments that address safety also address system preservation considerations. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) notes that transit providers would consider the results of asset condition assessments, which are required for the development of the agency’s Transit Asset Management Plan, when performing safety risk management and safety assurance activities.16 In the future, the combination of transit providers’ Agency Safety Plans and their Transit Asset Management plans (discussed in Chapter 5) will help identify and prioritize initiatives that will improve the safety of the transit systems operating in the MPO region. These plans will provide valuable information to the MPO as it considers transit agencies’ proposed investments for the LRTP and TIP, as well as potential opportunities to provide support with MPO funds.

Future Transportation Safety Issues and Needs

Looking ahead to 2040, advancements in CAV technology will have implications for transportation safety. Connected vehicle technology supports communication from vehicle to vehicle or from vehicles to transportation infrastructure, which may also support the transmission of data about vehicle speed, brake status, and other safety-relevant information. Autonomous vehicle technology transfers the role of monitoring and responding to the travel environment from humans to automated systems. These deployments can range from driver assistance to full automation of the vehicle.

Equipping passenger, freight, and transit vehicles with CAV technology could generate safety benefits. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration analyzed crash data nationwide for 2015 and attributed about 94 percent of the critical reasons for motor vehicle crashes to drivers.17 CAV technologies could address human driving errors, such as those caused by fatigue, distraction, limited situational awareness, or under- or over-reaction to the travel environment.18 These improvements could increase not only driver safety, but the safety of other roadway users, such as bicyclists and pedestrians. CAV technology may also improve the way vehicles operate in hazardous or constrained areas, such as tight parking spots or work zones. Also, real time provision of traffic signal phase and timing (SPaT) information could transmit warnings and advisories to vehicles approaching signalized intersections.19 These types of benefits could result in saved lives, reduced health care costs, improved productivity, and reduced need for emergency response.

However, it is also possible that increased deployment of CAV technology may have neutral or negative effects on transportation safety. An evaluation of crash data by the Casualty Actuarial Society’s Automated Vehicles Task Force found that 49 percent of crashes involved a limiting factor (such as inclement weather, inoperable traffic control devices, vehicle deficiencies, or driver behavior issues) that might reduce the effectiveness of or disable CAV technology.20 Vehicle passengers or other roadway users could be inclined to engage in riskier behaviors, such as not using seatbelts or jaywalking, which may offset the benefits of CAV technology. Questions about how highly automated vehicles (HAV) may account for other roadway users persist, such as whether computing algorithms are likely to perform better than experienced human drivers, as do questions about non-HAV users may perceive or anticipate HAV actions. Planners and regulators will have to be attentive to how safety benefits and costs could vary depending on the market penetration of HAVs in the overall vehicle fleet. 

Response to developments in CAV technology can happen at multiple levels of government. The Commonwealth’s Commission on the Future of Transportation recommends that the Massachusetts governor should “consider proposing legislation to establish statutory and regulatory structures that would enable the safe and reliable deployment of CAVs.”21 In the MPO staff report, Connected and Autonomous Vehicles and the Boston Region MPO—A First Look, staff recommend actions for the MPO to stay current on CAV advancements and to plan for and respond to these technologies. Safety-relevant actions include the following:

• Identifying the potential of CAV technology to collect data for both movement and infrastructure conditions
• Monitoring and supporting CAV testing efforts, and becoming an active stakeholder in these efforts, seeking opportunities to participate in ongoing and upcoming processes related to CAV technology, such as serving on research panels or being involved in deployment efforts
• Conducting periodic assessments of CAV market penetration to keep CAV program costs and strategies up to date
• Fostering research ties with educational institutions to keep current with CAV technology

Security, Emergency Management, and Transportation Safety

The transportation safety issues discussed in this chapter have focused on fatalities, injuries, and other negative outcomes arising from typical travel on the region’s roadways and transit systems. These negative outcomes may result from the design or condition of roadway or transit assets; from unintended consequences of driver, customer, or other behaviors; from weather, or from other factors. However, ensuring a safe transportation system also involves protecting the system from security incidents, such as terrorist attacks, and from natural disasters. These considerations will continue to be important, particularly for new transportation technologies and networks, such as those that may be implemented to support CAV travel.

Preventing and responding to security needs can involve capital investment, such as in new facility designs or in sensing, monitoring, or surveillance equipment. It can also involve operations planning and management to support communication and emergency response. Surface transportation agencies such as MassDOT, the MBTA, and the Massachusetts Port Authority have responsibilities in both capital investment and operations planning and management. MassDOT’s 2019–23 CIP includes programs designed to support security initiatives across MassDOT divisions. Programs in the FFYs 2019–23 CIP include:

• Highway/Intelligent Transportation Systems: Supports innovative and new communication equipment and information technology systems, such as signs, cameras, and sensors, to improve MassDOT’s communication tools to communicate with drivers about travel options.
• Information Technology/Cyber Information and Security: Supports information technology infrastructure and software, in compliance with best practices and security standards, to protect agency and customer data.
• MBTA/Risk Management and Mitigation: Implements risk management initiatives and proactive efforts to improve workplace activity and system security.
• MBTA/System Upgrades: Supports upgrades to MBTA systems, including but not limited to communications, security, and computer technology systems, and rehabilitates nonrevenue vehicles and equipment.

With respect to transportation security, the Boston Region MPO relates most closely to capital investment processes that support security and communications assets. Federally funded investments made through the aforementioned programs that affect the Boston region appear in the Boston Region MPO’s TIP. The MPO can also serve as a forum for transportation agencies and other stakeholders to discuss transportation security concerns and identify ways to incorporate them into the transportation planning process. 

The MPO also expects that climate change may affect transportation safety, specifically through its impacts on transportation infrastructure. More details about this are discussed in Chapter 5, System Preservation and Modernization.

Updates since Charting Progress to 2040 Needs Assessment

Since the MPO last updated its Needs Assessment in 2014, there have been several planning and policy changes that affect the content of this chapter:

• Starting in 2015, the Cities of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville became Vision Zero municipalities. These cities have committed to eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and are implementing strategies to achieve that goal.
• In 2016, The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) finalized rules and requirements for states and MPOs related to roadway safety performance measures (see Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 490 and 494). States and MPOs must monitor and set performance targets related to motor vehicle fatalities and serious injuries, and incorporate this information into their performance-based planning and programming processes.
• In 2016 and 2018, the USDOT finalized rules and requirements for public transportation providers, MPOs, and states, related to transit safety performance measures (see Title 49 CFR Parts 670 and 673). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) also published its National Public Transportation Safety Plan, which defines transit safety performance measures related to fatalities, injuries, safety events, and mechanical failures on transit systems and incorporates these activities into its performance-based planning and programming process.
• In 2017, the MBTA released its Strategic Plan. Both this document and the MBTA’s Focus40 investment plan inform safety initiatives and capital investment for the MBTA system.
• In 2018, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts released an updated Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies safety emphasis areas and strategies to achieve them.

MPO staff have also made several updates to this chapter, based on these planning and policy changes, data availability, and other factors.

• Updated trend data related to motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries in response to new federally required performance measures and new years ofdata.
• Refreshed the rankings of high crash locations in the Boston region.
• Incorporated the MPO’s federally required roadway safety performance targets.
• Added information related to transit safety performance trends.
• Added information about the relationship between transportation safety and CAV technology as well as transportation about security issues.

< Chapter 3 - Travel Patterns in the Boston Region | Chapter 5 - System Preservation and Modernization Needs >

< Back to Table of Contents