Reading the toolkit
- Source and data. Each chart's (i) button lists its source, sample, and method, and offers the data as CSV.
- ± Survey shares are weighted to national benchmarks; ± is the 95% margin of error.
- Odds ratios below 1 mean less likely to drive; the line is the 95% confidence interval.
- Maroon marks the key item in a chart; gray is for comparison.
- ≈ Model results show associations, not causal effects. The simulator reflects stated choices in hypothetical scenarios.
Potential Last-Leg Crashes in Ten States
Per 1,000 substance-impaired crashes · select a state
Four screens: weekend night · near a transfer point · residential area · not a freeway
- 5 PM to 3 AM, Friday to Sunday nights and holiday weekends
- Within 2 miles of a park-and-ride lot, station, or airport
- 80% or more residential land in the block group or a neighbor
- Not on an interstate or freeway
Places for closer review, not confirmed last-leg trips. 2020 excluded.
State Summary
Select a state on the map.
—
All crashes
—
Study period
Substance-impaired crashes
—
Potential last-leg crashes
—
Passed all four screens
Per 1,000 impaired crashes
—
Share by hour
—
Per 1,000 impaired crashes
Ten-state rate
Not a study state. See Details for the regional community models; confirm results with local crash records.
Ten-State Comparison
Screening results, not a ranking of risk
| State | Region | Impaired crashes | Potential last-leg | Per 1,000 impaired crashes |
|---|
—
—
Screening steps
Crashes remaining after each step · % kept from the previous step
What the screening shows
Rates use impaired crashes as the base because impairment coding varies by state (2.2% of crashes in Florida, 9.5% in Pennsylvania).
Share of potential last-leg crashes by hour
State All ten statesBar chart of the hourly share of potential last-leg crashes for the selected state and for all ten states.
—
Share by night of the week
Monday: holiday weekends only
Block groups near transfer points
Community characteristics associated with potential last-leg crashes
Regional models, 40,000 block groups · occurrence: 1 or more crashes · concentration: 3 or more
| Characteristic | Occurrence | Concentration |
|---|
Average block group characteristics in the study states
Check that a state's block groups fall in this range before applying the models
How well the community models classify block groups
Correct classification vs. a share-only benchmark · best used to rank areas for review
| Measure | Internal validation: benchmark | Models | Holdout states: benchmark | Models |
|---|
Seven Strategies
Practitioner ratings (n = 78) and traveler support (n = 1,388)
Barriers Practitioners Report
Mean severity, 1 to 5 · n = 78
Combined Evidence and Recommended Use
Stakeholders, travelers, and behavioral models
| Strategy | Stakeholders | Travelers | Behavioral models | Recommended use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Traveler Segments and Emphasis
| Segment | Evidence | Main barrier | Emphasis |
|---|---|---|---|
Key gap: travelers rank overnight parking second (54.8%), but only 2.0% of agencies use it.
Strategies Side by Side
Select a column to sort · practitioners n = 78 · travelers n = 1,388
| Strategy | |
|---|---|
Impact and Feasibility
Practitioner mean ratings, 1 to 5 · dot size = agency use
Feasibility →
Impact →
National traveler survey • 1,395 respondents • weighted
What Travelers Say and What Changes Their Choice
What Would Travelers Do?
Would drive, by scenario
How Risky Is Driving After Drinking?
say very or extremely risky, yet would drive.
What Is Associated with Choosing to Drive
Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals · below 1 = less likely to drive
Beliefs and Concerns
Share who agree or are concerned · n ≈ 1,395 · ±3.1 pts
Station Simulator
Probability that a traveler chooses to drive, from the final choice model
Station conditions
Probability of choosing to drive
points vs. an unimproved station ()
What changes the probability
Probability of driving by waiting time
Solid line: current station
What to consider at this station
- ▸
Barriers to Using Alternatives
Conditions for a Comfortable Wait
Strategies Travelers Chose
Messages Rated Most Likely to Influence
Share rating 4 or 5 of 5 · mean rating
Cannabis Compared with Alcohol
Awareness of Existing Programs
Layers of Protection
A traveler drives only when every layer has a gap
Plan Inputs
Action Plan Report
Updates when you change the settings or the state
Your report will appear here
Choose the settings on the left, then select Generate report. Select a state on the map to add its crash results.
Implementation Pathways by Capacity
| Capacity | Start with | Data needed | Key partners | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Measures
| Type | Measure | Source | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
Evaluation Designs
| Design | When to use | Strengths and limits |
|---|---|---|
Lessons from Campaigns and Safe-Ride Programs
Approach, reported result, and lesson for each program in the guidance. Results are as reported by each program.
About This Toolkit
Evidence and tools to reduce substance-impaired driving on the last leg of a trip: the drive home from a park-and-ride lot or station after an evening out.
Evidence
How to Use It
Research Team
Texas State University, Portland State University, and Exponent.