Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
Moderate cost share
or
Lower cost share locals allowed to Higher cost share
with locals compete with locals
Arkansas Colorado California
Iowa Hawaii Kansas
Kentucky Massachusetts Louisiana
Missouri Montana Michigan
New York New Hampshire Minnesota
Oregon New Mexico South Carolina
Pennsylvania North Carolina South Dakota
North Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Figure 7 Relative levels of cost sharing with local jurisdictions.
approximately 25% of fatal and serious-injury Rural versus Urban Funding
crashes occur on local roads and because of that
Approximately 90% of HSIP funds are spent on
25% of the state's safety budget is allocated to
rural roads. In addition, Iowa makes significant sys-
local roads. South Dakota stated, "Our crash
tematic improvements through the use of non-safety
search is done on all public roads. The money is
funding. With funding from the 3R program, paved
used where the problems are located."
shoulders and shoulder rumble strips are being added
· The High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) program
to rural state highways with average daily traffic
is a popular means of cost sharing for several
(ADT) greater than 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD).
states. Three states indicated that 100% of these
This work is done in conjunction with resurfacing or
funds are allocated to local agencies. Another
other pavement rehabilitation projects.
state indicated an allocation of $3.1 million.
State versus Local Funding
CASE STUDIES
HSIP funds are available for projects developed
To gain a better understanding of how states are by local agencies for implementation on local sys-
striving to find the proper balance between black spot tems. However, few local agencies avail themselves
and systematic methods, four states were contacted of this opportunity due to a dislike for federal report-
for more detailed information. The following case ing requirements and the fact that Iowa has a separate
study summaries from Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, state-funded safety program with less paperwork.
and North Carolina illustrate a range of practices for This program is funded through 0.5% of the State
how HSIP and other funds are being allocated to Road Use Tax Fund, and 70% of this amount is
improve highway safety in each of the states. directed to safety projects developed by local agen-
cies for implementation on local roads. Iowa's over-
all safety budget, including both federal funds and
Iowa Case Study
state funds, directs approximately 18% of safety funds
Black Spot versus Systematic Methods toward projects on local roads.
Iowa reported an approach that combines sys-
SHSP Considerations
tematic and black spot methods in terms of allocat-
ing HSIP funds. The high-priority strategies, which Iowa's SHSP identifies lane departure, rural
are rural road edges and cable median barriers, were expressway (four-lane divided) intersections, and
selected through a systemwide analysis. When spe- safety corridors as the infrastructure-based emphasis
cific projects are selected and prioritized for imple- areas. These selections influenced the current focus
mentation of these strategies, crash data are used to on systematic improvements on rural roads.
identify roadway segments that have historically had The driver behavior strategies identified in the
the greatest problems. SHSP are seat belt enforcement (including at night
10
OCR for page 11
and on rural gravel roads) and targeted DUI and speed · Lack of a consistent, systematic method
enforcement (in safety corridors identified in the 5% for identifying potential sites for safety
process). Iowa is investigating flexing HSIP to fund improvement.
additional enforcement activities--potentially five · Underfunding of safety investment on the
new State Patrol officers and vehicles. local system. Between HSIP and state-funded
safety programs, about 82% of available
Organizational Structure, Funding Mechanisms, funds are spent on the state system, but almost
and Evaluation 50% of the fatal crashes occur on the local
In terms of allocating HSIP funds, Iowa has a cen- system.
tralized organization. The central office's traffic and Improvements to the current HSIP approach that
safety staff is responsible for both program and proj- are being considered are developing a process for
ect development. The safety program and proposed identifying sites with potential for safety investment
projects are reviewed with district staff, but final deci- and continuing to work toward a more systematic
sions relative to implementation rest with the central
deployment of safety strategies.
office.
The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)
prepares a safety program evaluation as required by Minnesota Case Study
FHWA. Individual projects are assessed as part of this
evaluation. In addition, the Iowa DOT is working Black Spot versus Systematic Methods
with Iowa State University on evaluation of several Minnesota reported an approach with HSIP
systematic strategies--shoulder paving and enhanced funds that is predominantly based on black spots in
curve delineation and warning. the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, where
The distribution of funds is not based on a for- crash densities are higher, and predominantly sys-
mula. The actual allocation is subjective--based tematic in the rest of the state, where crash densities
on need, the specific strategy selected, and the 5% are lower. Ninety percent of fatal crashes occur on
process. Projects are prioritized by benefit-cost analy-
rural roads, a circumstance that supports the strong
sis consistent with requirements for reporting project
systematic component of Minnesota's program.
evaluations to FHWA.
In addition to the $20 million per year in HSIP
HSIP Approach: Strengths, Weaknesses, funds, Minnesota has two other safety programs.
and Potential Improvements The Central Safety Fund (incentive dollars from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The strengths of the current HSIP approach were [NHTSA]) has previously invested $5 million to
identified as the following: $10 million per year in projects including cable
median barriers, shoulder rumble strips, and targeted
· Multidisciplinary approach. speed enforcement. Several Minnesota Department
· Consideration of driver behavior issues.
of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Districts have also
· Good return on safety investments as a result of
invested $1 million to $5 million per year in non-
the data-driven effort to connect crash causa-
safety construction funds to add safety features to
tion, safety emphasis areas, priority strategies,
larger construction projects.
and specific projects.
· Good data. Reasonably accurate crash data
are available for all roads. This allows strate- Rural versus Urban Funding
gic safety investments in the local system. Forty percent of safety funds go to the Metro
The weaknesses of the current HSIP approach District, where 90% are spent on urban highways.
were identified as the following: Sixty percent of safety funds go to the seven districts
that make up the rest of the state. Of these funds, 80
· Concerns about statistical reliability due to the to 90% are spent on rural roads. A typical rural
small number of severe crashes. The Iowa DOT safety project includes systematically enhancing the
is using 8 to 10 years of data in an effort to delineation at high-priority horizontal curves (see
address sample size. Figure 8).
11
OCR for page 12
program and selects projects submitted by the dis-
tricts for inclusion in the program. The districts iden-
tify and develop the projects.
Mn/DOT prepares an annual program review, as
required by FHWA. Specific projects are evaluated
using simple before-after analysis. Mn/DOT is also
preparing to conduct systemwide analysis of system-
atic strategies.
The distribution of funds is based on a formula--
each district receives funds based on its fraction of
fatal and A-injury crashes. Within each district,
funds are split again based on the fraction of fatal and
A-injury crashes that occur on the state system ver-
sus the local system. Benefit-cost analysis is used to
rank improvements based on black spots (primarily
Figure 8 Chevrons enhance curve delineation on a in the Metro District). Benefit-cost analysis is not
rural Minnesota highway. used for the systematic-based improvements that are
predominantly implemented on the rural system.
State versus Local Funding HSIP Approach: Strengths, Weaknesses,
Minnesota has one of the strongest programs in and Potential Improvements
the nation, in terms of sharing safety funds with The strengths of the current HSIP approach were
local units of government. Safety funds distributed identified as the following:
to each district are split between the state and local
· Local system participation--dedicating safety
systems based on the fraction of fatal and A-injury
funds for projects on the local system of high-
crashes. Statewide, 40 to 50% of the state's safety
ways. Local highways have almost as many
funds support projects on the local system. fatal crashes as rural state highways and a 30%
higher fatal crash rate.
SHSP Considerations · Good data and a good crash analysis system for
Minnesota's SHSP identified road-departure state highways. Mn/DOT has the ability to
crashes in rural Minnesota and intersection-related merge crash data, and the system design fea-
crashes in the metro area as the top priorities. The tures data sets.
road-departure crashes tend to be widely dispersed · Good data and a good crash analysis system for
across many miles of the rural system and are best local highways. MnCMAT, a GIS-based crash
addressed with systematic approaches. The intersec- analysis tool, has been distributed to all local
tion crashes in the metro area are concentrated at highway agencies.
signalized intersections along urban arterials and are · Effective distribution of safety funds.
best addressed using a black spot approach. · The focus of the safety program in Minnesota
Emphasis areas based on driver behavior include is on deploying stand-alone projects on a
seat belt usage, impaired driving, speeding, and systemwide basis and, when supported by
young drivers. Mn/DOT is preparing to request per- crash data, cost-effective spot safety improve-
mission from FHWA to flex a portion of its safety ments. All projects selected for safety funding
funds to pay for targeted speed enforcement. are the result of a data-driven analysis.
The weaknesses of the current HSIP approach
Organizational Structure, Funding Mechanisms, were identified as the following:
and Evaluation
· Challenges in moving the safety program from
Mn/DOT is a decentralized organization, and all 100% black spot to a more balanced approach.
project definition and development is the responsibil- · Lack of buy-in by designers in some districts
ity of the eight districts. However, the safety program to the idea that adding low-cost safety features
is more collaborative. The central office manages the (paved shoulders, shoulder rumble strips, etc.)
12
OCR for page 13
to larger construction projects is worth the
additional investment.
· Lack of safety expertise in local agencies has
resulted in few "good" projects being submit-
ted in response to the HSIP solicitation.
The following improvements to the current
HSIP approach are being considered:
· Mn/DOT is in the process of initiating a safety
planning effort in all 87 counties in Minnesota
to address county engineers' lack of experience
conducting systemwide safety analyses and
safety project development and to provide tech-
nical support to the counties for identifying spe-
cific projects for implementation of systematic Figure 9 Cable median barrier on a Missouri road.
improvements.
· Mn/DOT is working on developing methods to
identify sites with promise to support system- Missouri has also invested heavily in reducing
wide deployment efforts. Research is now road-departure crashes by adding paved shoulders
underway on methods to prioritize rural high- and rumble strips to the system--approximately
way segments, rural horizontal curves, and 5,600 miles on high-priority state routes. These have
rural STOP-controlled intersections based on also been paid for with non-safety funds.
crashes, geometric features, and traffic volume.
· Mn/DOT is working on developing a database Rural versus Urban Funding
to support project evaluations.
The HSIP funding split is approximately 50-50
between urban and rural areas. This is influenced by
Missouri Case Study the two large urban areas in the state--St. Louis and
Kansas City. As mentioned previously, significant
Black Spot versus Systematic Methods safety improvements, like cable median barriers and
Missouri reported that 75% of HSIP funds had his- paved shoulders/rumble strips, have been financed
torically been directed toward black spots--primarily with non-safety dollars. When factoring in total
intersections with a history of severe crashes. How- safety expenditures, the split shifts to a higher rural
ever, since 2007, the focus has shifted to a more sys- proportion.
tematic approach, and almost two-thirds of HSIP
funding has been directed toward systemwide solu- State versus Local Funding
tions, including shoulder improvements and edge line HSIP funds are not currently shared with local
rumble strips on major roads. Missouri's total safety units of government. Missouri would consider proj-
program is a combination of HSIP, HRRR, and other ects on the local system for HSIP funding but does
diversion dollars. Historically, HSIP has focused on not expect that they would rank highly enough to be
black spot intersections, HRRR has focused on road- funded based on current prioritization methods, which
departure crashes, and diversion dollars have paid for are primarily based on black spots and require meet-
cable median barrier projects. Recently though, over ing a benefit-cost threshold. However, with approx-
75% of the combined safety money has gone to sys- imately 25% of fatal crashes occurring on local
tematic methods. highways, Missouri has identified local units of gov-
Missouri has made very strong progress with ernment as an important partner in further improving
implementation of systematic improvements on the highway safety in the state.
state roadway system by paying for them with non-
safety funds. Specifically, Missouri has been a
SHSP Considerations
national leader in the installation of cable median
barriers, with approximately 600 miles of barrier Missouri's updated SHSP (2008) identifies
installed in the state by the end of 2009 (see Figure 9). road-departure and intersection crashes as its safety
13
OCR for page 14
emphasis areas. The identification of road-departure districts. The Safety Quality Circle is made up
crashes in the 2004 SHSP drove the systematic of central office and district staff. This group
improvements that were made with other funding meets monthly to help transition the state's
sources. It is hoped that the success of these efforts safety focus to more systematic, proactive
will allow Missouri to continue to transition HSIP approaches.
funding toward a more systematic approach. · MoDOT leadership has been safety focused
In terms of enforcement, education, and emer- and willing to devote substantial resources to
gency response, the primary driver behavior strategy adding safety features to larger projects.
identified in the SHSP is targeted enforcement. This · MoDOT has a very good relationship with
effort is funded with non-HSIP dollars. The Mis- FHWA.
souri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has · MoDOT has very good crash data, including
not requested authorization to flex HSIP dollars and the ability to analyze local systems.
currently has no plans to do so, as there are significant The weaknesses of the current HSIP approach
needs in engineering/infrastructure improvements. were identified as the following:
Organizational Structure, Funding Mechanisms, · Lack of involvement with local governments.
and Evaluation About 25% of fatal crashes are on the local sys-
tem, but no safety funds have been directed to
In terms of allocating HSIP funds, Missouri has local roads. (Note that a fraction of the state's
a decentralized organization. The central office pro- gas tax is dedicated to local roads, but this is
vides overall program management and sends crash used for construction and maintenance).
data and a listing of high-priority intersections and · MoDOT has yet to identify an approach or
roadway segments to the districts. The districts are methodology for finding sites that are at risk
responsible for project development and selection. but that have few or no crashes.
The central office has input on each district's HSIP
spending, but final decisions are made at the district The following improvements to the current
level. Each district receives a specified percentage HSIP approach are being considered:
of HSIP funds. Within this amount, there are no caps · MoDOT is revising its safety program guide-
on HSIP project costs. lines to provide the Central Office with more
There is an annual program evaluation carried oversight earlier in the project development
out by the MoDOT Traffic Division and Highway process.
Safety Division. In terms of individual projects, · MoDOT is working to establish a more direct
each district is required to conduct a before-after link between the 2008 SHSP priorities and
study for each HSIP-funded project. actual HSIP spending.
Missouri uses a formula and a benefit-cost · MoDOT expects the HSIP to continue to tran-
requirement for determining projects that are eligi- sition toward a more proactive, systematic
ble for HSIP funding. The formula is primarily approach as a result of the new focus on severe
based on the number of crashes, but also considers crashes and road-departure crashes.
population and traffic volume. The benefit-cost ratio
for a proposed project must be greater than 1.0. Mis-
souri is reviewing this benefit-cost requirement as it North Carolina Case Study
relates to potentially funding a greater proportion of
Black Spot versus Systematic Methods
systematic improvements through HSIP.
North Carolina reported an HSIP approach that is
HSIP Approach: Strengths, Weaknesses, predominantly black spot focused--approximately
and Potential Improvements 90% of the program. Several systemwide improve-
ments, primarily cable median barrier and shoulder
The strengths of the current HSIP approach were
rumble strips, are integrated into the overall effort.
identified as the following:
North Carolina's HSIP has evolved over the
· A Safety Quality Circle has been established, years and continues to be improved with each update.
which is developing safety champions in the The Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
14
OCR for page 15
selection of a local project for HSIP funding is case
dependent and negotiated.
SHSP Considerations
North Carolina's SHSP identified road departure,
intersections, pedestrians/bicyclists, and bridges as
emphasis areas. These emphasis areas have influ-
enced both systematic and black spot efforts. North
Carolina has an established black spot (corrective)
program that has some flexible components to it. It is
mature and successful. Most of the systematic efforts
are countermeasure specific, such as median barriers,
rumble strips on freeways, safety edges, clearance
Figure 10 Example of North Carolina road with intervals, removal of late night flash for signals, and
safety improvements: turn lanes at intersection and so forth.
improved geometry. In terms of driver behavior, the North Carolina
Governor's Highway Safety Program has developed
and manages grant-based behavioral safety pro-
(TEAAS) and the capabilities of North Carolina's grams including seat belt and child safety seat usage
headquarters and division safety professionals have programs, alcohol programs, and speed enforcement
helped guide the development of the current approach. programs. North Carolina also continues to keep a
This approach identifies locations meeting or exceed- motorcycle helmet law in place despite strong oppo-
ing specific criteria, such as those with a high fre- sition from user groups.
quency of crashes or exceeding established severity
thresholds (see Figure 10).
Organizational Structure, Funding Mechanisms,
The HSIP distributes about $28 million per year
and Evaluation
for safety improvements along both state and local
roads in North Carolina. In addition, there is a state- North Carolina reported a partnership between its
funded black spot safety program that invests another central office and regional offices located throughout
$9.1 million per year. the state. The central office administers the safety
program and provides technical support to the
Rural versus Urban Funding regions in the form of crash data and identification of
hazardous locations. The regions are responsible for
North Carolina has a fairly even (50-50) distri-
conducting investigations, recommending counter-
bution of safety funds between urban and rural areas.
measures/treatments, developing projects, and coor-
There are fewer, higher cost projects in urban areas
dinating projects through the construction phase. The
and more, lower cost projects in rural areas.
central office determines which projects are selected
for funding.
State versus Local Funding
The North Carolina Department of Transporta-
Local government projects are eligible for consid- tion (NCDOT) prepares an annual program review, as
eration for HSIP funding. Local projects usually required by FHWA. There is also a Safety Evaluation
involve collaboration with DOT division staff and are Group that performs system, project, and treatment-
not independently submitted. Approximately 95% of specific evaluations and system studies. This group
HSIP funds go toward safety projects in the state conducts a before-after analysis for each project, and,
system, which consists of 80,000 miles. There are when enough projects of one type are available, an
20,000 miles under the jurisdiction of local agencies. Empirical Bayes Analysis is conducted of the group.
There is no single mechanism or methodology Programmed HSIP safety projects are filtered
for evaluating local agency projects for HSIP fund- through an equity formula, which is used to distrib-
ing. They are evaluated on the basis of a benefit-cost ute the funds to the regions for North Carolina's
analysis just like the other candidate projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Due to
state system. The final determination regarding the the lower cost of most safety projects, the equity
15
