State Practices for Local Road Safety (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

14 mation for each state DOT and Table 4 presents the state’s local road program staff size distribution. Table 5 summarizes the organization of the local road pro- grams of the six state DOTs that indicated more than 90% of locally owned and maintained roads (Figure 3). Six state DOTs responded that they did not have a dedicated local roads program; of those six, Delaware and Rhode Island noted that their respective state DOTs will be developing a local road program in the future. LOCAL ROAD SAFETY INFORMATION, RESOURCES, AND FUNDING Providing technical assistance and support to local agen- cies when needed is a key element in a project’s success. To gather information regarding the entities that provide tech- nical assistance and support at each different project stage, survey respondents were allowed to select multiple agencies, which included the state DOT, LTAP, MPO, and other (e.g., consultant or university). As shown in Figures 4 and 5, states’ involvement was observed at every project stage. Among the remaining entities, MPOs were identified most frequently in providing assistance during project stages pertaining to information resources, local project application process, and project planning stages, followed by the LTAP centers. During the environmental assessment, project design and utilities, and project procurement and contracting phases, the role of other entities such as a consultant is noted. For the post-project evaluation, post-project audit of compliance with guidelines, and regulations, states are identified as the foremost involved entity. States and LTAP centers were the prominent entities for the assistance and technical sup- port associated with the training on federal-aid procedures and reporting requirements. When asked whether state DOTs have a crash data collec- tion system for state and non-state-owned roads, all 47 states responded that they had such systems. Figure 6 depicts DOT reported agencies responsible for collecting and maintaining non-state owned road crash data systems. When asked about crash data accessibility for local agen- cies, the majority of DOTs (31) stated that local agencies can access and effectively use the crash data that are maintained at the state level. Figure 7 presents the distribution of the information available to local agencies. INTRODUCTION A survey was distributed to the state Safety Engineer (or equiv- alent position) at the 50 state DOTs, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Forty-seven of the state DOTs responded (a survey response rate of 94%) and provided input on state practices in local road safety. The DOT survey questions and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix A, along with a complete set of survey responses. This section is orga- nized into the following four sub-sections: (1) Organization Structure and Local Road Programs; (2) Local Road Safety Information, Resources, and Funding; (3) Project Development, Implementation, and Administration; and (4) Noteworthy State Coordinated Local Agency Safety Program Partnerships and Challenges. ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND LOCAL ROAD PROGRAMS The majority of the states (27 of 47; 58%) reported that the local road programs and/or projects are implemented by the state DOTs through both central offices and district office staff. Fifteen state DOTs (32%) noted that only central office staff is involved in implement local road programs and/or projects. When asked whether the local road programs and safety programs that include local roads reside under the same state organization, 41 state DOTs (87%) stated that both programs reside under the same state organization. Table 2 presents six state DOTs that reported different state organi- zational structures in handling the local road programs and safety programs. The survey asked the extent of each state DOT’s respon- sibility for local roads and the road mile ownership by local agencies. Table 3 and Figure 3 summarize collected survey information. Six DOTs (Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington) responded that more than 90% of total lane miles are locally owned and maintained. Road lane mile ownership was one of the criteria used to select states for further interviews in chapter four (Case Examples) and Appendix C. Forty-one of 47 of the responding state DOTs (87%) reported that they have a dedicated local road program. Appendix A con- tains Table A1, which lists the website and local program infor- chapter three SURVEY ON STATE PRACTICES FOR LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

15 State Description Connecticut Safety-related local road programs are run by the Safety Engineering Unit in Traffic Engineering. All other local road programs are run by the State Design Unit. Indiana The INDOT Office of Traffic Safety establishes requirements for LPA application for HSIP and HRRRP project eligibility. The INDOT Division of LPA Assistance and Grants has authority to determine project funding approval and administers project development phases. Kentucky HSIP is administered by the Division of Traffic Operations. Safety programs are administered by the Office of Highway Safety. Local roads programs are administered by the Office of Local Programs. Massachusetts The local roads safety program is part of the overall safety program (specific projects are data- driven regardless of jurisdiction). New York Local Program Bureau in the Planning and Policy Division and the Safety Program Management & Coordination Bureau in the Operating Division. Utah The safety programs reside in the the Operations Department, Traffic & Safety Division. TABLE 2 REPORTED LOCAL PROGRAM AND SAFETY PROGRAM ORGANIZATION Response Type Response Rate Local jurisdictions own and maintain their own roads 38 DOTs (81%) State oversees capital improvement projects of local roads, while the local jurisdictions maintain their own roads 5 DOTs (11%) State owns and maintains unincorporated roads, while the local jurisdictions own and maintain their own roads 1 DOT (2%) Other 3 DOTs (6%) • Alaska: Some locals own and maintain their roads, while others may enter into maintenance agreements with the state • Delaware: State owns and maintains most of the roads • Rhode Island: Local jurisdictions own and maintain their own roads. However, state is responsible for safety on all public roads 47 responses. TABLE 3 REPORTED EXTENT OF STATE DOT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOCAL ROAD FIGURE 3 Reported road lane miles ownership by local agencies (47 responses). Response Type Response Rate Less than 5 12 DOTs (30%) 5–10 11 DOTs (28%) 10–15 5 DOTs (12%) Over 15 12 DOTs (30%) 40 responses. TABLE 4 REPORTED STATE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM STAFF SIZE

16 State Program Local Road Program Staff Size Safety Program Staff Size Iowa Office of Local Systems 9 1 Kansas Bureau of Local Projects 20 1 Michigan Local Agency Program (LAP) and Local Safety Initiative (LSI) 19 1 (LAP) and 4 (LSI) Minnesota State Aid for Local Transportation 67 1 North Dakota Local Road Safety Program 10 3 Washington Local Programs 63 2 TABLE 5 ORGANIZATION AND STAFF SIZE OF STATE DOT’S LOCAL ROAD (AND SAFETY) PROGRAMS WITH MORE THAN 90% OF LOCALLY OWNED ROADS FIGURE 4 Entities that provide assistance to local agencies on project elements. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

17 FIGURE 5 Entities that provide assistance to local agencies on post-project and federal-aid procedures. Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. FIGURE 6 Reported agencies through which non-state-owned road crash data are collected and maintained (47 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

18 The safety of tribal land roads is an important issue in many state’s overall safety efforts. Nine state DOTs reported that the state DOT has safety programs on tribal lands. Table 6 summarizes details of safety tribal land programs provided by eight states. There are 11 federally recognized Native American tribal governments in Minnesota. MnDOT also has a coordinator for the tribal governments and the tribes are involved with TZD activities. As an example, St. Louis County interacts with the two tribal governments, Fond du Lac Reservation of Chippewa and the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa. The safety coordinator for Fond du Lac is actively involved in the TZD regional coalition. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) held a Tribal Traffic Safety Summit in May 2009 to discuss traffic fatality reductions on tribal roads. The 4Es of traffic safety were the focus of this summit and recommendations were made to increase Native American priorities in the Target Zero process (FHWA-SA-11-02). The 29 federally recog- nized tribes within Washington State are sovereign nations. Each tribe has its set of codified laws, including those address- ing traffic safety. In the early 2000s, the traffic fatality rate was FIGURE 7 Crash information available to local agencies (47 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. State Comment Idaho Only the statewide behavior highway safety program such as public service announcements, billboards, etc., is related to tribal lands. There are no other formal programs that relate to infrastructure. Minnesota Minnesota does have a safety program that impacts tribal lands, but it’s not specific to tribal lands. These roads would be identified through regular risk assessment; i.e., Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) District Safety Plans. Montana Part of Montana’s SHSP, VisionZeroMT http://www.mdt.mt.gov/visionzero/plans/soar.shtml Nevada Working with tribal partners with Road Safety Assessments and low-cost safety improvements through Intergovernmental Agreements. New York New York DOT treats tribal lands just like state highways—incorporating all standard safety treatments on roadways maintained by the state. North Dakota Local Road Safety Programs for each of the four tribal nations are currently in development. Oregon Tribal lands are eligible for federal funding and many of the roads in tribal lands are under the jurisdiction of different counties. Wyoming Part of the Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program (WRRSP) TABLE 6 REPORTED SAFETY PROGRAMS ON TRIBAL LANDS

19 2.4 times higher than for non-Native Americas. In the 2010 Target Zero Plan, the rate had risen to 3.3 times higher and in the 2013 Target Zero Plan the rate continued to climb to the current level of 3.9 times higher. The link of the criteria for tribal governments to access FHWA discretionary safety funds is presented in Appendix E. A key issue faced by Washington State is a lack of data making it difficult to analyze information specific to reservations. Data serve as the critical link in identi- fying safety problems, selecting appropriate countermeasures, and evaluating performance. As a result of limited data, anal- ysis is challenging and tribes have difficulty justifying their needs and competing for safety funding. To address some of the tribal traffic safety issues, the Washington Transporta- tion Safety Commission (WTSC) entered into a “Centennial Accord Agreement 2014 Plan” with Washington State and the Tribes of Washington State. The purpose of this initiative is to enhance traffic safety, thereby saving lives, preventing injuries, and averting the loss of property on Washington’s tribal lands. A copy of the agreement and the ten action items are presented in web-only Appendix D. Thurston County, Washington, partners with three tribes and provides technical assistance on projects (e.g., a traffic study affecting state, local, and tribal roads; an intersection alternatives analysis; and two roundabouts) valued at $5 mil- lion. The partnership is accomplished through an inter- governmental agreement, which is presented in web-only Appendix D, and the corresponding project description link is provided in Appendix E. The link to the 2012 video report of Colville’s reservation’s efforts, “Traffic Safety Successes on the Colville Reservation,” is also included in Appendix E. Safety Program Funding and Priority Setting Twenty-eight states provided detailed answers to a question regarding the funding sources for local safety programs, and the distribution of funding sources varied from state to state. In most cases, federal funding was noted as the major fund- ing source (more than 80% of funds) except for the states of Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Ohio. Table 7 presents collected survey information regarding the funding sources for the local safety programs. Survey results noted that state DOTs employ multiple cri- teria in determining the funding allocation for local safety programs. Twenty-seven DOTs listed crash data as one of the primary factors that determines funding allocation for local safety programs, whereas 19 use risk analysis. Figure 8 displays various funding allocation methods for local safety programs. Thirty-five state DOTs reported that SHSP emphasis areas are used when selecting which local safety programs are funded. A competitive application process was indicated by 28 state DOTs as another factor in determining local safety project funding. Twenty-three state DOTs stated that technical criteria was one of the factors for funding where a large number of those states indicated benefit/cost (B/C) ratios as the main technical criteria. In addition to the B/C ratio, the Ohio DOT responded that crash analyses and a priority level in terms of statewide, regional, or local, and matching funds are consid- ered. Illinois DOT requires the projects to be linked to SHSP and address fatalities and serious injuries. Utah DOT responded that projects must potentially reduce serious injuries and fatali- ties using a proven low-cost safety countermeasure. Figure 9 Fund Source Description States 100% Federal Funding Sources Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia 90% Federal and 10% Local Funding Sources Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 90% Federal and 10% State Funding Sources Massachusetts, Montana, and New Hampshire 80% Federal and 20% State Funding sources Delaware and Georgia Other • Alabama: 50% federal, 30% state, and 20% local funding sources • Colorado: approximately 90% from federal funding sources • Illinois: 20% federal funding sources • Iowa: approximately 8% federal and 80% from state funding sources • Louisiana: 95% federal and 5% local funding sources • Nebraska: 84% federal, 1% state, and 15% local funding sources • New Mexico: approximately 93% federal and 7% state funding sources • Minnesota: 50% federal funding sources • Ohio: 65% federal, 23% state, and 12% local funding sources TABLE 7 REPORTED FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE LOCAL SAFETY PROGRAMS

20 FIGURE 8 Reported state funding allocation for local safety programs (47 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. FIGURE 9 Reported funding selection process for local safety projects (47 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

21 describes the collected information associated with funding selection for local safety projects. Some state DOTs identified alternative funding techniques for local road program safety projects. Eleven state DOTs responded that a set percentage of funds is taken off the top of federal funds provided to the state. Ten state DOTs indicated that the funding allocation technique chosen is dependent on the type of project, whereas five reported that a set percentage of funds is taken off the top of state transportation funds. Idaho has a specific formula that factors inputs such as fatali- ties and serious injuries, roadway mileage, and vehicle miles traveled. Figure 10 summarizes the alternative funding allo- cation techniques. Funding allocation for local road safety projects occurs at the state level for 35 state DOTs. For 14 state DOTs, it was at the MPO/RPO level that funding is allocated for local road safety projects. Local Road Safety Plan Thirty-four state DOTs reported that their local agencies have local road safety (or equivalent) plans. When asked about the state DOT’s financial assistance, 27 states specified that their respective state DOT does assist in financing local road safety plans through either federal or state funds. Eight DOTs (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) reported that funding assistance will be considered for local road safety plans in the future. Figure 11 provides the financing assistance sources of local road safety (or equivalent) plans. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ADMINISTRATION Use of Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response Approaches to Safety As part of the MAP-21 legislation, the federal government requires all state DOTs to develop and maintain a SHSP. Thirty-two states indicated that their SHSP includes an ele- ment that identifies and addresses goals and initiatives to improve the safety on local roads. Many DOTs have local road programs spelled out within their respective SHSPs. The focus of the approaches of state DOTs’ 4E for local roads include road safety audits, local and tribal technical assistance pro- grams, improvement of communication and data collection between state and local governments, low-cost safety counter- measures such as safety edge and rumble strips, high risk rural road programs, and safety programs specifically for pedestri- ans, bicycles, motorcycles, intersections, and roadway depar- tures. Some state DOTs are taking part in new and innovative strategies involving local road programs. When describing the extent of the safety goals on local roads, all responding states indicated the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries on local roads with various target values. For instance, the goal of the South Dakota DOT is to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes by 15% on all public roads by the year 2020, while the goal of MnDOT is to have fewer than 300 roadway fatalities by the year 2020. Another common theme among state responses was the focus on intersection safety. For example, in Louisiana, the goal for FIGURE 10 Reported alternative funding allocation techniques for local road safety program safety projects (43 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

22 the Infrastructure and Operations Emphasis Area is to reduce roadway departures and intersection fatalities and injuries by 50% by 2030. Rhode Island DOT (RI DOT) also has a focus on reducing intersection fatalities by coordinating with local jurisdictions and conducting workshops to teach the agencies, whereas MassDOT incorporates the 4Es into intersection design to reduce intersection fatalities and serious injuries. Information about the 4E approach to safety collected from the survey questions indicated a multitude of projects and programs. • Engineering: Many of the engineering approaches focused on systemic approaches to improving signage and adding rumble strips. Nine states identified signage upgrading as an engineering design for local road safety improvements. For example, Illinois DOT performed a system wide rural sign upgrade for regulatory and warn- ing signs for all 102 counties, while the Idaho Local Highway Technical Assistance Council uses a system- atic approach to sign upgrades through a competitive application process. Delaware LTAP provides student interns with instructions for managing sign inventory programs and Mississippi DOT supplies signs at no cost to local governments in locations determined by crash data. Ina addition, four states identified rumble strips as an engineering design. Iowa DOT, MassDOT, and Louisiana DOT all have horizontal curve programs to reduce run-off-the-road crashes. Vermont DOT has a School Zone Safety Initiative that helped upgrade school zones and achieve a uniform application of traffic control devices within Vermont’s local school zones. In Kansas, upon the request of local agencies, the state may provide 100% of project engineering costs. • Education: Twenty-three states noted that local agencies receive education on local road safety through the state LTAP center or other DOT programs. South Dakota is developing applications to be used on mobile devices to improve education on local road safety. In Texas, the Lone Star LTAP offers training on safety, infrastructure, and work force development. In addition to educating local agencies, some states reported on education pro- grams for residents of the surrounding communities. In Illinois, the DOT has Traffic Safety days, a week-long safety education course, for high school students focusing on safety topics. MassDOT is beginning to work on a state- wide awareness campaign for bicycle and pedestrian safety that started with 12 local communities through- out the state. In Rhode Island, the Attorney General’s Office, RI State Police, RIDOT, and AT&T are involved in the It Can Wait campaign through which 41 schools have been visited to educate high school students on the dangers of texting and using a cell phone while driving. Vermont holds regional safety forums where state and local officials come together with law enforce- ment, advocacy groups, and private sector leaders to discuss innovative approaches to improving highway safety. • Enforcement: Survey results indicated that a key part- nership for the DOTs in promoting safety on local and state roads is with the state law enforcement or pub- lic safety office. Most states enforce distracted and drunk driving and seat-belt use. Of note is Georgia’s Thunder Task Force, an enforcement technique that is centered on areas of unusually high incidences of traf- fic fatalities and serious injuries. In Idaho, all of the enforcement programs are funded and managed by the Idaho Transportation Department, Office of Highway Safety. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute houses the Governor’s Council and has responsibility for all behavioral traffic safety programs, including seat-belt use, impaired driving, and law enforcement programs. FIGURE 11 Financing sources of local road safety (or equivalent) plans (47 responses).

23 MassDOT is funding enhanced enforcement for local police departments to target interactions between bicycles, pedestrians, and motorists. Massachusetts’s Traffic Records Coordinating Committee funded crash data systems of local police departments using fed- eral funds. • Emergencies Services: Georgia DOT reported a task team that develops specific implementation plans and solutions to enhance response time, whereas Michigan noted that its Highway Safety Program includes a Traffic Incident Management Component. The Minnesota State- wide Trauma System is integrated into the Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths program. The Minnesota Depart- ment of Health (MDH) oversees the statewide trauma system, which consists of the State Trauma Advisory Council (STAC) and Regional Trauma Advisory Com- mittees (RTAC). The WTSC, which chairs the state’s Traffic Records Committee, focuses efforts on improv- ing access to and the quality of emergency services data, whereas the state’s Department of Health supports Emer- gency Services efforts. Iowa, New Jersey, and Rhode Island mentioned the application of emergency vehicle signal preemption at intersections. Use of Other Tools in Local Road Safety Table 8 describes other tools and approaches applied in assess- ing and evaluating local road safety. Project Development and Implementation When asked about their current problem identification pro- cesses on local roads, the most frequent response from state DOTs was a combination of both reactive and pro active meth- ods. Figure 12 and Table 9 summarize the problem identi- fication process each responding state has implemented for local roads. The survey indicated cost–benefit analyses as the most fre- quently applied criterion for prioritizing local safety projects (28 states) followed by crash history (26 states) and avail- able funding (25 states). Thirty-three state DOTs responded that their state has performance measures for evaluating the impact of safety projects. Six states (Connecticut, Missis- sippi, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia) indicated that those performance measures were used to direct the amount of funding that is allocated to local agency appli- cants. Fatal and serious injury crash numbers and crash rates are identified as major performance measures, which is also described in the next section, Noteworthy State Coordinated Local Agency Safety Program Partnerships and Challenges. Project Administration Project Application and Competitiveness For the project application submittal process, 29 state DOTs responded that each jurisdiction submits its own local road safety projects to the state. Twenty-three state DOTs reported that MPOs and RPOs submit local road safety proj- ects. Figure 13 summarizes survey information collected about agencies that submit local road safety projects to the state DOT. While the majority of the states responded that a similar funding application process is used for both state and local projects, many states recommend that local agencies contact regional and district offices or safety committees prior to the Tools Response Option Response Results FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (46 responses) Currently use 16 DOTs Not yet but plan to use in the future 15 DOTs No, but other equivalent tool 15 DOTs. The states of Indiana, South Dakota, and Wyoming have developed software to identify routes for safety improvements (including shoulder widening, inslope flattening, reconstruction, approach flattening, lighting, and turn lanes). State DOT’s assistance in conducting Road Safety Audits/Assessments for local agencies (47 responses) Currently use 36 DOTs Use a coordinated team approach across state DOT divisions to coordinate the local road safety program (47 responses)* 1 (Not effective) 0 2 (Somewhat effective) 1 DOT 3 (Effective) 10 DOTs 4 (Mostly effective) 12 DOTs 5 (Very effective) 4 DOTs (Illinois, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Tennessee) *5 being very effective and 1 being least effective. TABLE 8 REPORTED OTHER TOOLS AND APPROACHES APPLIED IN ASSESSING AND EVALUATING LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

FIGURE 12 Reported problem identification methods.

25 Problem Identification Process Method* States and Description A combination of both reactive and proactive methods (25 responses) Crash data analysis (reactive) and systemic approach to determine high risk roadway (proactive) Reported examples include: • Florida: Florida DOT has initiated efforts to combine its identification methods through the District 7 Local Agency Project Funding Program and Intersection Safety implementation in Districts 2 and 3. • Indiana: DOT conducts an annual screening of state and local roadway networks for apparent safety risks. All intersections, road segments, and interchange ramps undergo a comparison of multi- year crash frequency data to nominal risk calculated for two indices. The Index of Crash Frequency (ICF) measures relative risk of all crashes, while the Index of Crash Cost (ICC) measures relative risk of severe crashes. The results can be used to conduct RSAs for both reactive spot safety improvement projects and for planning proactive systemic safety projects. • Oregon: The DOT reported that it uses crash-based analysis for network screening purposes for both state highways and local roads using the Safety Priority Index System (SPIS), a numerical value based on the combination of crash rate, crash frequency, and crashes severities. Oregon DOT has launched a newly developed All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program and plan to apply Highway Safety Manual Safety Performance Functions for some areas. Details of the ARTS program are presented in chapter four and Appendix C. • Washington: Spot locations are primarily addressed through the City Safety Program (reactive), while risk locations over widespread areas (systemic safety) are addressed in both the City Safety Program and the County Safety Program (proactive). Reactive method (14 responses) Crash frequency analysis 11 DOTs Crash rate analysis 8 DOTs Surrogate analysis 2 DOTs Other • Arkansas: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department uses a reactive method based on complaints from the people they serve. • California: California identifies projects on local roads in a reactive manner through a benefit–cost analysis. • Wisconsin: Wisconsin uses the input of DOT staff, local officials, and the public to identify problems on local roads. Proactive method (3 responses) Road safety audit 3 DOTs (Nevada, New Hampshire, and North Dakota) Risk factor analysis 2 DOTs (Nevada and North Dakota) *Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. TABLE 9 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION METHODS

26 application to assess funding eligibility and project feasibility. Table 10 presents some of the details provided regarding the application process. Twenty-eight state DOTs reported that local safety proj- ects are competitive with state road safety projects based on the project prioritization and submittal process. Table 11 summarizes survey responses pertaining to the local project competitiveness level with state safety projects. Procurement and Contracting Survey results associated with the entities that administer contracts for local safety projects are presented in Figure 14. It is noted that 15 states indicated that a combination of meth- ods (state, local agency, and consultant) is used for administer- ing contracts for local safety projects. FIGURE 13 Reported entities that submit local safety projects to the state DOT (46 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. State Description Illinois Illinois DOT’s annual solicitation letter that goes out to local agencies to apply for funding. Candidate applications are submitted to the Illinois DOT district offices for initial review and comment followed by the Central Office for review by the safety committee. New Jersey MPOs solicit the projects from locals followed by a screening and submittal to NJDOT. A technical review committee evaluates the application, gives comments and recommends the projects for construction. New York A periodic project solicitation is done through the MPOs and Regional Planning and Program Managers to local agencies. Oregon The Oregon DOT delivers safety projects on local roads based on a ranked list prepared by a consultant. Vermont In Vermont, there is currently no application process for HSIP projects but rather HSIP locations are ranked and reviewed by the state and project sites are selected by the regional planning commissions (RPCs) based on crashes. Wyoming The Wyoming WRRSP works with counties to develop applications and a Committee of Wyoming DOT Engineers reviews and recommends projects to the State Highway Commission for approval. TABLE 10 SAMPLE APPLICATION PROCESS Thirty-four state DOTs reported that the state assists local agencies in the procurement and contracting of local road safety projects. When asked to provide details, 23 states indicated that assistance is accomplished through an established LPA pro- gram. Table 12 presents survey information of the states where the assistance for the procurement and contracting of local road safety projects is not associated with an LPA program. Bidding and Auditing Procedures For smaller dollar value local federal-aid projects, nine of 47 state DOTs (19%) offer a different bidding process to facilitate the project. The alternative bidding processes are summarized in Table 13. Thirty state DOTs indicated that the comprehensive review, oversight, and auditing requirements for the use of federal-aid

States Reason for Lack of Competitiveness Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, and New York Lack of supporting data (e.g., crash and volume) or resources (e.g., funds and technical staff) for project identification and justification Delaware, South Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia State road safety projects have priority over local safety projects California and Minnesota Different prioritization methods used for state and local projects Kansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Idaho Local projects only compete with other local projects TABLE 11 REPORTED REASONS FOR LACK OF COMPETITION BETWEEN LOCAL AND STATE SAFETY PROJECTS FIGURE 14 Reported entities that administer local safety projects (46 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. State Description Massachusetts MassDOT noted that all state and local projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) get advertised and awarded the same. Texas The procurement and contracting process requires all HSIP projects to go through the Texas DOT procurement process. Utah Utah DOT has the same advertising process established for the state DOT in place for local projects. Vermont Vermont DOT combines all low-cost sign projects into one large statewide project, while individual HSIP projects are contracted by the state. In both cases, Vermont DOT designs and awards the projects in direct consultation with the towns. Washington The majority of large cities and all counties are certified to administer their own federal projects. TABLE 12 REPORTED REASONS FOR LACK OF COMPETITION BETWEEN LOCAL AND STATE SAFETY PROJECT State(s) Description Alabama, Kansas, Michigan, and Oregon The use of Force Account is authorized. Illinois Projects can be done through either a local or state letting process. As an option the locals may use a master contract to procure items. North Dakota The Small Scale Safety Program is used when safety project estimates fall under $20,000. The NDDOT administers the program, the locals find three suitable bids, and the project is awarded based on environmental clearances and approval by the state FHWA division office. New York Local sponsors can bid their own projects via state and local agreements. Ohio Coop purchasing program is available to local governments. Tennessee Bundle several low-cost projects together for a better bid. TABLE 13 REPORTED ALTERNATIVE BIDDING PROCESSES FOR SMALLER DOLLAR VALUE LOCAL FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS

28 dollars has been a deterrent to local agencies participating in safety programs. To encourage local agency participation in the use of federal-aid dollars, 12 state DOTs reported that they have considered multiple options including allowing more work phases in funding and lowering the local match when possible. Five state DOTs (19%) allow local agencies to submit applications for funding at any time of the year. Iowa DOT provides state funding that matches the federal funding so that the only contribution required by local agencies is staff time. MnDOT reported streamlining and consolidating the solicitation process through various practices such as a uni- versal application (one application) for federal safety funds, a one-page project memo for projects with minor impacts, and encouraging local agencies to bundle similar type of proj- ects. In New Mexico, a quarterly application process is used. Oregon and Washington State DOTs reported providing training and technical assistance as major factors to encour- age local agency participation. Washington DOT also noted setting minimum funding levels for most safety projects as another factor. To assist local agencies, 29 state DOTs indicated that they conduct post-project audits in compliance with federal regulations on those projects funded with federal-aid dollars. The use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as stipulated by the federal or state agency providing the funding for the project, was most commonly reported by most DOTs. Missouri DOT conducts standard audits unless the LPA expends more than $500,000 in federal funds where an inde- pendent audit by the State Office of Management and Budget is necessary. In Michigan, the Office of Commission Audit is charged with the overall responsibility to supervise and con- duct auditing activities for Michigan DOT. In Washington, the state DOT assists with the assurance of compliance with federal rules and requirements including audits of completed projects. NOTEWORTHY STATE COORDINATED LOCAL AGENCY SAFETY PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS AND CHALLENGES Figure 15 introduces the challenges reported by DOTs and shows that the limitation of local agency resources was the most highly ranked challenge, followed by state DOT resource limitations. Figure 16 shows the tools that state DOTs use to address these challenges. Ten states reported providing work- shops, training, and technical assistance as one of the primary tools to address challenges. Specifically associated with proj- ect delivery, Washington State DOT noted an approach of requesting fewer matching funds if projects are awarded by a certain date, whereas Oregon DOT has local roads project delivery by the state agency. FIGURE 15 Identified challenges related to local roads safety (45 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.

29 FIGURE 16 Tools used to address challenges as reported by agencies (23 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. Since the MAP-21 legislation, 19 state DOTs have noticed an increase in the number of local agencies taking part in state coordinated local safety programs. Figure 17 summarizes the main factors that contribute to this increase as identified by the 19 responding states. Performance measures were reviewed as part of the sur- vey. Thirty-three states responded that they have instituted performance measures to quantify the effectiveness of safety programs. The survey responses reported that fatal and serious injury crash numbers and crash rates are applied as performance measures across all responding states. The aforementioned performance measures are used by the state DOTs to deter- mine whether or not the implemented safety programs and specific projects in each state produce a measureable positive result on improving the safety of local roads. Thirteen states responded that their safety programs have produced measure- able positive results. Twenty-one states indicated that the per- formance of their safety programs and projects was still under evaluation at the time of the survey completion. Most states noted their states’ before and after analysis of crash data, spe- cifically the number of fatal and/or severe injury crashes, when asked to provide details of performance measures. Thirty-three state DOTs have seen a reduction in fatal and/or severe injury crashes over the past three years on local roads within their respective state. Figure 18 shows a more detailed response as to which factors were critical in this reduction. As indicated in Figure 18, 22 state DOTs identified the promotion of systemic low-cost safety improvements as a main factor in reducing fatal and/or severe injury crashes, whereas 18 listed the initiation or expansion of state coordinated local road safety programs. Two states (Iowa and Michigan) reported that a combination of efforts among all state agen- cies produced the largest impact on their crash reduction on local roads, whereas four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, and Wisconsin) reported the emphasis on 4Es attributed to the reduction.

30 FIGURE 17 Identified main factors that attribute to the increase in the number of local agencies participating in state-coordinated local safety programs (19 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers. 11 DOTs 2 DOTs 11 DOTs 14 DOTs 18 DOTs 22 DOTs Other (e.g., structured safety program at local level, increased trust among county and state agencies, emphases on 4Es, etc.) Increased emphasis on safety at all levels Improved local agencies’ access to crash data Increased HSIP funding Initiation or expansion of state coordinated local road safety programs and partnerships Promotion of systemic low-cost safety improvements FIGURE 18 Reported main factors that attribute to the fatal and/or severe injury reduction (32 responses). Survey respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.