HSIP Assessment Toolbox

< Previous Table of Contents  

Pulling It All Together

Highway Safety Improvement Program
2010 Quality Assessment

The FHWA Office of Safety conducts an annual quality assessment to measure progress in implementing the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The 2010 HSIP Quality Assessment is provided below.

Directions:
Please select one answer for each question by using the toggle boxes to the left of the multiple choice options. If you have comments to add please include them in the gray field below the comments section for each question. Additional clarifying guidance is provided in [brackets] where appropriate. In addition, in some instances additional “sub-questions” are asked to give you the opportunity to clarify your response.

  1. Which FHWA Division Office are you responding for?

    (state)

  2. Please provide your contact information

    (name and phone number)

  3. Based on the stakeholders list in the SHSP guidance (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/guides/guideshsp040506/) the SHSP development process included significant input (other than review and concurrence) from what percentage of the stakeholders?

    [Note: This question refers to SHSP development and should be answered based on the eight stakeholders required under 23 USC 148 NOT the guidance as indicated. Additional sub-questions related to SHSP implementation are provided below.]

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 - 100%

    COMMENTS:

    3a. How is SHSP implementation occurring?

    1. No implementation.
    2. Implementation of SHSP strategies (with no action plans).
    3. Emphasis area action plans.
    4. Implementation plan.

    [Note: An emphasis area action plan contains action steps (i.e. what to do) to accomplish the goal of the emphasis area, whereas the implementation plan would outline how to accomplish that goal (i.e. responsible party, timeline, resources needed). Some states combine both action steps and implementation steps into one plan.]

    COMMENTS:

    3b. What percentage of your SHSP strategies are being implemented?

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 - 100%

    COMMENTS:

    3c. Has the SHSP been updated to reflect current needs?

    [Note: Please indicate when and how often in the comments section below. Additional insights as to what triggered the update are also welcome.]

    1. No.
    2. In progress.
    3. Yes.

    COMMENTS:

  4. What percentage of project expenditures in your HSIP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 - 100%

    COMMENTS:

  5. What percentage of projects in your HSP and CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?

    [Note: Please answer question 5 to the best of your ability in reference to both the HSP AND CVSP. As we recognize that these answers could vary significantly, sub-questions have been added so that you have the opportunity to respond individually for each program.]

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 - 100%

    COMMENTS:

    5a. What percentage of projects in your HSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 – 100%

    COMMENTS:

    5b. What percentage of projects in your CVSP are driven by strategies and priorities in your SHSP?

    1. 0 – 20%
    2. 21 – 40%
    3. 41 – 60%
    4. 61 – 80%
    5. 81 – 100%

    COMMENTS:

  6. What types of crash data are used to identify projects in your HSIP?

    1. No crash data used
    2. All crashes with no indication of severity
    3. Only fatal crashes are used for analysis
    4. Fatal, serious injury and total crashes, with fatal and serious injury crashes weighted more heavily
    5. Only fatality and serious injury crashes are used.

    COMMENTS:

Return to top


Program Delivery Improvement Tool
Safety Activity Statements

[Note: The PDIT paperless tool is available upon request.]

Core Element: Highway Safety Improvement Program

Activity #170:
A quality control process is utilized to monitor the identification and development of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects to assess compliance with HSIP procedures and best practices.

Activity #171:
The methodology to identify and rank hazardous locations has a focus on fatalities and serious injuries (frequencies and/or rates).

Activity #172:
The HSIP process include coverage of all public roads.

Activity #173:
The HSIP process leads to identification and implementation of cost effective projects in all of the 4E (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services) areas.

Activity #174:
The HSIP project identification process includes coordination with the Governor’s Highway Safety Office on identified non-infrastructure countermeasures.

Activity #175:
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan drives the HSIP project selection process.

Activity #176:
Projects are developed and implemented at locations on the State’s “5 percent Report.”

Activity #177:
A project evaluation process is in place which provides feedback on countermeasure effectiveness (crash severity reductions, crash reduction factors, etc.) back to the project selection process.

Activity #178:
The 10 percent funding flexibility option in SAFETEA-LU is used.

Core Element: Strategic Highway Safety Plans

Activity #179:
Key processes, procedures, and/or activities are in place that guides strategic highway safety planning.

Activity #180:
A broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders is actively involved in the overall safety program.

Activity #181:
The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) drives the highway safety improvement program, highway safety plan, and commercial vehicle safety plan.

Activity #182:
Funds provided for safety are prioritized for highest impact.

Activity #183:
Funding flexibility from all sources is used in safety project selection.

Activity #184:
Implementation of strategies identified in SHSP has begun.

Activity #185:
A process is in place to monitor the effectiveness of the SHSP.

Core Element: Traffic Records Collection & Analysis

Activity #186:
A Statewide Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) is active and working to improve the Traffic Records Systems (TRS).

Activity #187:
Membership on the TRCC represents the vehicle, driver, roadway, injury and citation stakeholder groups at the local, State, and Federal level.

Activity #188:
A Traffic Records Assessment has been performed.

Activity #189:
The TRCC has developed a Traffic Records Strategic Plan to address traffic records needs.

Activity #190:
Accuracy of the data contained in the electronic statewide traffic records databases is assessed on an annual basis and actions are being taken to improve accuracy.

Activity #191:
The Statewide crash database contains data from all reportable crashes on all public roads.

Activity #192:
All Statewide crash data is entered into an electronic database within 60 days of crash.

Activity #193:
The Statewide TRS is substantially consistent with the nationally accepted and published guidelines and standards for data elements (NEMSIS, MMUCC, etc) – obtained either from the crash report data and/or from other database linkages.

Activity #194:
All crashes are located using GIS, geo-coding, etc., and can be analyzed/summarized on electronic maps.

Activity #195:
The TRS is used in a systematic approach (weighing both crash severity and frequency) to identify potential safety improvements, set safety funding priorities and project decisions.

Activity #196:
All traffic records related databases (crash, roadway, driver, hospital, EMS) are linked and shared between appropriate agencies.

Activity #197:
Technical assistance is provided to local agencies in locating crashes on locally owned routs and in crash/safety analysis capabilities.

Core Element: Required Safety Initiatives

Activity #198:
A process is in place to maintain current inventory information on the public rail-highway grade crossings in the national inventory database maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Activity #199:
There is a process for ranking the relative hazardousness of railroad-highway grade crossings that result in annual projects that have a positive cumulative impact on eliminating hazards at rail-highway grade crossings.

Activity #200:
There is a process in place to satisfactorily determine the fatality and incapacitating injury rates on rural major and minor collectors and rural locals roads and compare them to statewide average rates to identify locations above the statewide rates, or likely to exceed the statewide rates, that would be eligible for funding under the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP).

Activity #201:
The HRRRP process leads to selection of countermeasures that result in implementation of cost effective HRRRP projects.

Activity #202:
A HRRRP project evaluation process is in place which provides feedback on countermeasure effectiveness (i.e., fatal and incapacitating injury crash reductions) back to the project selection process.

Activity #203:
The Safe Routes to School application process is competitive and results in infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that meet the intent of the program as described in SAFETEA-LU Section 1404.

Core Element: Safety in Project Development

Activity #204:
Planning documents (Unified Planning Work Program, Transportation Improvement Program, Long Range Transportation Plan, etc.) highlight tasks and projects to specifically address State and region critical elements of the SHSP.

Activity #205:
A Statewide safety and mobility policy is developed and implemented regarding the systematic consideration of safety throughout the various stages of the project development and implementation process.

Activity #206:
Low cost safety features and strategies are promoted extensively to State and local officials.

Activity #207:
Statewide safety enhancements are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and evaluated for all projects.

Activity #208:
Safety is a primary consideration in all facets of the environmental process.

Activity #209:
Planning process provides for systematic consideration of projects and strategies that will increase safety.

Activity #210:
Environmental documents address safety for each alternative to satisfy the Purpose and Need statement.

Activity #211:
An analysis of crash records is used to improve policies, procedures, specifications, and standards.

Activity #212:
Project plans include provisions for enhanced enforcement during construction when appropriate.

Activity #213:
Innovative techniques are routinely used to improve project safety and reduce work zone crashes.

Activity #214:
General and seasonal work zone safety campaigns are implemented.

Activity #215:
Night reviews on work zones are conducted on projects.

Activity #216:
Senior managers, district engineers, county engineers, etc. are evaluated on the quality of their work zone(s).

Activity #217:
Designers participate in final project inspections to identify safety improvements on future projects.

Activity #218:
Design exception process includes safety analysis of the corridor to ensure safety is not compromised.

Activity #219:
Plans are reviewed for safe movement of all users (Bike and Pedestrian) during the design process.

Activity #220:
There is a policy in place to routinely incorporate safety enhancements into 3R projects.

Core Element: Safety in Maintenance & Operations

Activity #221:
A process is in place to adopt the most current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) issued by the FHWA.

Activity #222:
A Statewide MUTCD Committee is in place, including representatives of local highway agencies, to develop Statewide plans for the implementation of new editions of or major revisions to the MUTCD.

Activity #223:
Annual budget plans for operations and maintenance programs include processes to consider and integrate highway safety strategies/enhancements into the operations and maintenance (O&M) program areas where appropriate.

Activity #224:
Procedures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of O&M safety initiatives.

Activity #225:
The development of preventative maintenance projects (10/08/04 FHWA Memorandum) includes procedures to identify and implement safety improvements to the highway infrastructure.

Activity #226:
A process is in place to share O&M strategies with all highway agencies.

Core Element: Program Management

Activity #227:
Agency leadership receives quarterly briefings on the status of attaining safety goals.

Activity #228:
Agency leadership regularly uses the media to convey safety messages.

Activity #229:
The transportation budget has a category for safety in which safety transportation projects are proposed, selected, and prioritized separately from other transportation projects.

Activity #230:
Appropriate policy and guidance is developed, updated, and made available in this program area.

Activity #231:
Continuous improvement is supported through mechanisms such as program and process reviews.

Activity #232:
Training and development opportunities are provided to key internal and external partners and stakeholders.

Activity #233:
Processes are in place to ensure that key vacancies are filled.

Activity #234:
New technologies are considered and implemented to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this program area.

Activity 235:
Processes are in place for the selection and administration of consultant support to ensure these resources are used efficiently and effectively.

Return to top


Program Review / Peer Review Questions

The following pages outline a series of questions that address the various elements of the safety-related programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Safety under the auspices of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) [23 U.S.C. 148]. These include the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the State’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (State HSIP), including the High Risk Rural Roads program (HRRRP) and the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP).

[Note: The Data portion of this assessment tool will focus on how data is utilized to support the various programs under the HSIP. An assessment of your State’s crash data can be accomplished through FHWA’s Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP). In addition, an assessment of your State’s entire traffic records system can be achieved through a Traffic Records Assessment sponsored by NHTSA.]

These questions encompass the range of information that can be gathered during your peer review or program review. Your review may focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, State HSIP, HRRRP, or RHXP) or on one specific program process (i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Therefore, the questions have been organized by program, and within each program, by process, as noted on the following page.

It will be up to the individual review teams to identify those questions that are most pertinent to your review. You are encouraged to add or delete questions to best suit your needs.

Many of these questions will be asked of the agency representatives (i.e., program managers) that administer the programs under the HSIP. It is also beneficial to conduct outreach to agency leaders to gain an understanding of their views on the benefits and challenges associated with the HSIP. The questions under the “general” section would be appropriate for this audience.

Remember, the intent of the program review/peer review is to identify noteworthy practices as well as opportunities for improvement.

Directory

General
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
State Highway Safety Improvement Program
High Risk Rural Roads Program
Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program

General

  1. Briefly describe the HSIP.

    • How is the HSIP developed?
    • How does the HSIP function?
    • Who’s responsible for administering the HSIP?
    • Who’s involved in the HSIP process inside and outside the DOT?
    • How extensive is the HSIP?
  2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the HSIP process?

  3. Describe any unique or innovative activities (i.e., time saving procedures) employed to administer the HSIP.

  4. What reviews or evaluations have you done on safety or the HSIP? What were the significant findings and recommendations?

  5. What objectives for safety and the HSIP are documented in current Department highway safety plans, Department strategic or annual work plans, or other Department plans?

  6. How is safety staffed in the Department?

    • Is there a full-time safety engineer/safety program person?
    • Is the safety program centralized or decentralized?
    • Are there Safety Engineers in each of the State’s District Offices? Do they meet on a regular basis?
  7. How has the development and implementation of your HSIP changed since SAFETEA-LU?

  8. How are other agencies (i.e., Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Local Government Agencies, Governor’s Highway Safety Office) and the general public involved in your safety programs?

  9. How are local roads (i.e., non-State system) addressed in the State HSIP?

  10. How does the HSIP support the goals, objectives, and strategies of the SHSP?

Back to Directory

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

[Note: The SHSP Implementation Process Model will provide additional information to support an SHSP Program Review or Peer Review. For States wishing to assess the SHSP development process, the SHSP Process Checklist may be helpful.]

General Approach to Overall SHSP Implementation

  1. Describe the process for gaining and maintaining commitment and involvement of State DOT senior management in the SHSP development and implementation process.

  2. What methods and procedures have been employed for inter-agency and intra-agency coordination/collaboration?

  3. Describe how data is used to support SHSP development and implementation.

    • What data is used?
    • Are SHSP program areas prioritized based on data analysis?
  4. What modes other than highway (i.e., pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motor carriers) are included in your SHSP?

  5. How is LTAP utilized to promote local stakeholder involvement in the SHSP development and implementation process?

SHSP Emphasis Area Action Plans

  1. Describe how emphasis area action plans (i.e., implementation plans) are used to assist with SHSP implementation.

  2. What is the process for pursuing legislation changes as a result of SHSP strategies?

  3. What is the process for pursuing those changes to policies or design standards as a result of SHSP strategies?

SHSP Integration with other Plans and Programs

  1. How has the SHSP influenced the HSIP?

  2. How has the SHSP influenced the Statewide Transportation Planning process?

  3. How has the SHSP influenced Metropolitan Transportation Planning process?

    • Describe MPO involvement in SHSP development and implementation process.
  4. How has the SHSP influenced the Statewide and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (S/TIP) process?

    • How has the SHSP changed the safety project selection criteria and/or project prioritization process?
  5. How has the SHSP influenced the Highway Safety Plan (i.e., 402 Program)?

    • How are Community Traffic Safety Program (CTSP) Coordinators involved in SHSP implementation?
  6. How has the SHSP influenced the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan?

  7. How are the SHSP strategies incorporated into the environmental process (i.e., project alternative analysis, mitigation countermeasures)?

  8. How are the SHSP strategies incorporated into the operations and maintenance program area?

Tracking and Evaluating the Implementation of SHSP Strategies and Projects

  1. Describe the procedures for monitoring, progress reporting, and evaluation of SHSP strategies and actions.

  2. What procedures have been established for ongoing SHSP update and maintenance?

  3. What resources are being used to support the overall administration of the SHSP implementation process?

  4. What concerns, conflicts, and/or barriers have impeded implementation of the SHSP within your agency, with respect to partner agencies and stakeholders, and/or with the public?

    • In these cases, have you employed conflict resolution procedures? If so, how and through whom?
  5. What methods are you using to maintain interest and momentum on the SHSP?

Additional Questions

  1. What are some innovative noteworthy practices you would like to share?

  2. What are the lessons learned (i.e., what worked and what did not)?

  3. What are the next steps in the implementation of the SHSP? What do you see as the near term goals, challenges, and opportunities?

  4. Thinking longer term, what is the future of the SHSP in your State?

  5. Assuming 3 to 5 years from now that the SHSP has been implemented, evaluated, and found effective, what is the next generation of the SHSP?

  6. What needs to be done to take the SHSP to the next level and what tools or resources are needed to accomplish it?

  7. How would you define success as it relates to development and implementation of your States’ SHSP?

  8. What are some things your State is doing to institutionalize the SHSP process?

Back to Directory

State Highway Safety Improvement Program (State HSIP)

[Previously the Hazard Elimination Program]

Planning

Data Analysis/Problem Identification:
  1. What data (i.e., crash, roadway, EMS) is used to support the HSIP planning process?

  2. How is the data analyzed to identify highway locations, sections, and elements determined to be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or potential?

    • What methodology is used?
    • How is exposure (i.e., vehicle miles traveled) considered?
    • How many years of crash data are used?
    • Is any special consideration given to special vehicles (i.e., large trucks and buses) or other crash characteristics?
  3. What are the strengths and benefits of the HSIP problem identification process as described in Question 2above?

  4. Where could improvements be made to the HSIP problem identification process?

  5. What do you consider to be your best practices related to the HSIP problem identification process?

  6. How is crash potential analyzed as part of the HSIP project identification process?

  7. What other factors are considered in the HSIP project identification process? Explain.

  8. How are local roads addressed in the HSIP?

  9. What is the balance between crash-reducing and crash potential projects, as well as infrastructure vs. behavioral projects (10 percent flexibility)?

Engineering Studies:
  1. Explain the process for conducting engineering studies of the identified hazardous locations, sections, and elements.

    • Are field investigations done at all locations? At some?
    • How are local government agencies involved in the engineering study process?
    • Once recommendations are made, what is the next step?

  2. How are engineering studies used to establish highway safety improvement projects?

  3. What are the strengths and benefits of the process used to conduct and implement the results of engineering studies?

  4. Are there opportunities to improve the process for conducting and implementing the results of engineering studies?

  5. How is the engineering study process coordinated with other offices within the State DOT (i.e., districts) and other agencies?

  6. To what extent are driver or vehicle factors considered in countermeasure development?

  7. How are crash reduction factors used to support the engineering study process?

  8. Are some solutions delegated to other sections?

  9. How are SHSP strategies considered when determining appropriate treatments for priority locations?

Establishing Priorities:
  1. What is the process for determining priorities for implementation of HSIP projects?

  2. What do you consider to be opportunities to improve your HSIP project prioritization process?

  3. What do you consider to be your best practices in establishing HSIP priorities?

  4. Explain the criteria for establishing priorities for both high crash and potential crash (i.e., systemwide) locations.

  5. Are priorities established on a Statewide, district, system, or other basis?

  6. How are priorities for 402 Programs coordinated with those of the HSIP?

  7. Is there a process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing? Explain.

  8. How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., MPOs, legislature, elected officials) involved in providing input to priorities or special emphasis topics?

  9. Are lower priority projects selected for construction/implementation before higher priority projects? If so, why, and what is the criteria for doing it?

  10. How are local road projects considered in the project prioritization process?

    • Is the location prioritization process different for on and off the State system?

Implementation

Funding:
  1. Are HSIP projects funded with sources other than HSIP funding?

    • How is your State leveraging HSIP funds?
    • What additional funding sources (i.e., other Federal aid programs, 402 program, State, local) are utilized to support HSIP implementation?
    • How much funding is directed towards HSIP projects each year by category?

  2. Has there been an increase in the level of HSIP and non-HSIP funds spent on infrastructure-related safety projects since SAFETEA-LU?

  3. Are there dollar limits for safety projects?

  4. What is proportion of funding provided for HSIP projects on State system roads vs. non-system roads?

    • Is the “off-system” funding adequate (proportional to crash experience)?
    • Has there been a change in how funds are allocated since SAFETEA-LU?
    • Are funds allocated to districts/regions, or do all districts apply for funds from the same pot?

  5. How are the planning and evaluation components of your HSIP funded?

    • If HSIP funds are used, please describe the process.

  6. In 23 USC section 120 it allows 100 percent Federal funding for "Certain Safety Projects." Does your State take advantage of this provision? Please describe.

  7. How is the HSIP flexible funding provision used?

    • Are funds flexed to other agencies?
    • Do you anticipate using this provision in the future?

Programming:
  1. How are identified priority HSIP projects included in the S/TIP?

  2. Has your State developed any time-saving procedures to advance safety projects (i.e., Statewide categorical exclusions for safety projects, streamlined public involvement process, expedited programming steps, or other project development and delivery efficiencies)? Please describe.

  3. How do you ensure that projects funded with HSIP funding directly support the State’s goals and objectives in the SHSP?

  4. How do other units within the DOT or from outside initiate HSIP or other safety projects?

  5. What are the concerns of locals in pursuing Federal-aid?

Environmental Process:
  1. Are there programmatic environmental documents/procedures (i.e., categorical exclusion) in place for HSIP projects?
  2. To what extent are HSIP projects subject to the environmental process beyond categorical exclusions?
Construction:
  1. Explain how HSIP projects are scheduled for construction/implementation.

  2. What is the average timeframe for HSIP project identification to implementation?

  3. What is the average timeframe for obligation of funds for HSIP projects to implementation?

  4. How are small scale safety improvement projects implemented (i.e., bid individual projects, in-house State forces, bundle projects for bid, on call ID/IQ)? Please describe the process and any approvals that were necessary to make this happen.

  5. How many projects are completed annually (including local road projects)?

Evaluation

  1. Explain the evaluation component, both project and program evaluation, of the HSIP.

    • How do you measure success for your HSIP?
    • How is the evaluation process funded?

  2. Are their opportunities to improve the HSIP evaluation process?

  3. What do you consider to be the best practices associated with the HSIP evaluation process?

  4. How are the results of the evaluation component of HSIP incorporated back into the data collection, analysis prioritization, and scheduling (i.e., planning) procedures?

  5. Describe how the outcomes of implemented safety projects are used to develop AMFs or CRFs.

    • What are the methodology/guidelines used to develop the CRFs/AMFs?
    • Is this information shared with your peers? How?

  6. Explain how the HSIP evaluation results are being used to refine planning, design, operational or maintenance standards, policies, practices, and procedures for application of the successful outcomes in future projects?

  7. To what extent does the State use the HSIP evaluation process to modify strategies and programs in future SHSP revisions?

Back to Directory

High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP)

Planning

  1. How is the HRRRP administered in your State?

  2. What data (i.e., crash, roadway, traffic, EMS) is used to support the HRRRP planning process?

    • What type of exposure data is utilized to calculate the fatal and serious injury crash rate?

  3. Has the data collection process been altered to help justify HRRR projects?

  4. What is the process or methodology for determining HRRR projects?

    • If sufficient data is not available to calculate the fatal and serious injury crash rate, what other methods are used to identify HRRR projects?

    • How are local roads considered in the HRRR project identification process?

  5. How are non-State entities involved in HRRRP process for your State?

  6. What innovative practices are used to identify HRRR projects?

  7. How are HRRR eligible projects prioritized for implementation?

    • How are local roads considered in the HRRR project prioritization process?
    • Who participates in the selection process? Are local road owners represented?

Implementation

  1. What types of projects are implemented under the HRRRP?

    • What is the average cost of these projects by category?
    • What proportion of them are on non-State roads?

  2. Excluding the ability to identify eligible roadway segments, what other barriers to implementation of the HRRR program exist in your State? (These might include institutional, legal, coordination, competing priorities, lack of matching funds, or other.) Please provide some explanation of each and how are they being addressed.

  3. Are there special barriers to implementing HRRR projects on non-State roads? If so, how have they been (or how will they be) resolved?

  4. Does the obligation rate of HRRR funds reflect the focus on local and rural roads discussed in the SHSP?

  5. Have local road owners been actively encouraged to participate in the HRRRP? What is the process or procedure for this?

  6. How many HRRR projects have been completed from identification through implementation?

Evaluation

  1. Describe the HRRRP evaluation process.

  2. How beneficial/effective do you believe the HRRRP is in your State?

  3. Have you seen reduced number of fatalities and serious injuries on high risk rural roads since the inception of this program?

  4. What reviews or evaluations have you done on the HRRRP? What were the significant findings and/or recommendations?

General

  1. How is your State institutionalizing the HRRRP process?

  2. What innovative practices related to the HRRRP do you feel are noteworthy?

  3. What are the lessons learned (i.e., what worked, what did not) with respect to the HRRRP?

  4. Is your HRRRP linked to the SHSP?

Back to Directory

Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP)

Planning

  1. Who (i.e., State agency, public utility) leads the RHXP planning process?

  2. How is the RHXP planning process coordinated between agencies?

Data Collection & Analysis:
  1. Explain the process to update your State’s crossing inventory? How is it funded?

    • How frequently does your State conduct inspections of railway-highway crossings?

  2. Are new technologies (i.e., GIS) for RHXC data collection and analysis being used?

  3. Does your Statewide crash database contain information related to crashes that occur near or associated with highway railway grade crossings?

  4. How are RHGC project data and information collected and maintained?

Crossing Prioritization and Project Selection:
  1. How are highway-rail grade crossing projects prioritized?

    • Is it based on a hazard index formula?
    • How frequently is the hazard index updated?
    • To what extent is consideration given to highway-rail grade crossing exposure to large number of people, passenger trains, school buses, transit buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, and hazardous materials?
    • How are larger projects such as grade separations considered in the project prioritization process?

  2. Are there projects for Statewide improvements?

  3. Explain the process for obtaining consensus or approval of the priority project listing.

  4. How, and to what extent, are non-State DOT entities (i.e., legislature, elected officials) involved in providing input to project priorities or special emphasis topics?

  5. Does your State have criteria for using section 130 funds to upgrade aging active devices (flashing lights/gates)?

  6. Does your State have a process or policy for crossing consolidation and/or closure?

    • Are there incentives for closing crossings?
    • On average, how many crossings are closed each year?

  7. Has your State incorporated, or does your State plan to incorporate RSA techniques to identify railway-highway crossing safety problems and select safety treatments?

  8. Are all public RR crossings signed in accordance with the MUTCD? If not, explain the procedure used to accomplish this.

  9. Describe the design process for railway-highway crossing projects.

Implementation

  1. How are railway-highway crossing projects prioritized for implementation?

  2. Explain how railway-highway crossing projects are incorporated into S/TIP.

  3. How many railway-highway crossing projects are completed annually?

  4. What is the average time frame for Highway-Railroad crossing projects from identification to implementation?

  5. Describe the construction process for railway-highway crossing projects.

    • Who does the construction?

  6. What is the policy/process for improving railway-highway crossings that are either within or near the terminus of capital projects?

  7. Are railway-highway crossing projects funded with sources other than the set-aside funding?

    • What additional funding sources (i.e., HSIP, other Federal-aid programs, 402 program, State, local) are utilized to support RHXP implementation?
    • How much funding is directed towards RHXP projects each year by category?

Evaluation

  1. Explain how your State evaluates the effectiveness of grade crossing improvements.

    • Is an evaluation method other than “before-and-after” crash data comparison used? Has another method been considered given that relatively few crashes occur at railway-highway crossings?

Back to Directory

Return to top


STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN PROCESS CHECKLIST

(06/29/06)

State:

Date SHSP Developed or Last Updated (mm/yyyy):

Reviewer:

Review Date:

SAFETEA-LU requires States to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) by October 1, 2006, in order to obligate funds for 23 USC 148 (HSIP) eligible activities. This SHSP Process Checklist is a tool for assessing the process and completeness of a State’s SHSP. The assessment factors outlined below represent the required elements of a State-developed SHSP. The “Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion’s Guide to Saving Lives” (the SHSP guidance) contains additional information on these elements, as well as other suggested elements, and should be used as a reference document for this checklist.

The checklist consists of four columns: SAFETEA-LU Requirements, Items to Consider, Assessment, and Comments.

  • The “SAFETEA-LU Requirements” are listed in the first column by each key activity of the SHSP process in the order outlined in the SHSP guidance. The SHSP guidance is a good resource that includes both the SAFETEA-LU requirements along with best practices that States could use to help satisfy the requirements.
  • The “Items to Consider” column is intended to provide examples to generate ideas related to the corresponding requirement. The Items to Consider is not an exhaustive list. States have different needs so each State will have additional or different items to consider. The reviewer should consider what activities would best satisfy the SAFETEA-LU requirements as appropriate for that State and customize this checklist as needed.
  • The “Assessment” column provides a place to record the reviewer’s assessment overall of how the State satisfied the SAFETEA-LU requirement using the “Items to Consider.”
  • The “Comments” column provides the reviewer a place to document any notes, suggestions for improvement, strengths, or shortcomings
  Requirements Items to Consider Assessment Comments
  Initiate the Development Process
1 The SHSP considers the results of State, regional, or local transportation and highway safety planning processes.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(E)
To what extent did the State consider the different planning processes in developing the SHSP? For example, Statewide Transportation Plan metropolitan long range plans, Local Transportation Plans, Statewide CVSP, HSP, and HSIP? Did the State consider the Section 130 planning process? Do the safety goals in other plans align with the SHSP goals?  Is there a process to align these goals? Did the State consider how the SHSP emphasis areas compare with the priorities of the other planning processes? Has the State considered how the other planning processes will play a role in implementing the SHSP? Has the State considered how the items in these other plans will be affected by the SHSP?  Has the State considered how the other planning processes will work together in the future?       Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Gather Data
2 The State has in place a crash data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(A)
What crash data evaluation system does the State use?  Has the State identified data system improvement needs?  Has the State identified when and how the data system improvements will be made? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
3 The State’s capabilities for traffic records data collection, analysis, and integration with other sources of safety data has advanced in a manner that:
  • Complements the State highway safety program and the commercial vehicle safety plan.
  • Includes all public roads.
  • Identifies hazardous locations, sections, and elements on public roads that constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users.
  • Includes a means of identifying the relative severity of hazardous locations described in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, and traffic volume levels.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(D)
Has the State’s crash record database been integrated with CVISN, courts data, citation data, driver license, hospital data, etc.? Does the State invest in upgrading their traffic records capabilities? Does your State’s crash record database meet the model minimum uniform crash criteria (MMUCC)? If the State’s data systems do not include the listed elements, has the State identified when and how data system improvements will be made? Does the State have a recent traffic records assessment?  If not, Is the State planning to conduct a traffic records assessment?  Will the State form a traffic records coordination committee?  Does the State have an implementation schedule for traffic records improvement? Is the State developing a Traffic Records Strategic Plan? Are you satisfied that the State is taking steps and has a plan on how it will satisfy these requirements in the future?  Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Analyze Data
4 The SHSP analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional or local crash data.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(B)
Did the State analyze the crash data for all public roads? Did the State prioritize safety emphasis areas based on this data analysis? Did the State use all of the best available information? Is the data easily accessible by all potential users?  If not what steps are being taken to provide access? If there are data deficiencies (as defined above) did the State make efforts to fill in the data gaps in other ways such as getting input from other sources?  For example, if there is a deficiency in local crash data did the State weigh heavily on the input from local partners participating in the development of the SHSP? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Establish a Working Group      
5 The SHSP was developed by the State transportation department.
23 USC 148(a)(6)
Did the State transportation department provide leadership in the development of their SHSP? Will the State be prepared to implement the SHSP? Has the State assigned or appointed an individual or unit that is accountable for the development, implementation, evaluation, and continued management of the SHSP? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
6 The SHSP was developed after consultation with:
  • Highway safety representative of the governor of the State.
  • Regional transportation planning organization and metropolitan planning organizations, if any.
  • Representatives of major modes of transportation.
  • State and local traffic enforcement officials.
  • Persons responsible for administering Section 130 (Railway Highway Crossings Program) at the State level.
  • Representatives conducting Operation Lifesaver.
  • Representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program.
  • Motor Vehicle Administration agencies.
  • Other major State and local safety stakeholders.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(A)
How was consultation accomplished? Was it a one time event (i.e;. meeting, workshop, forum)? Was it just written comments on the plan? Was it ongoing participation in a working group, task group or steering committee?  What was the level of local involvement? Were representatives from all 4E’s involved in the development?  For an expanded list of potential safety partners, refer to the SHSP guidance. Were all stakeholders’ concerns given adequate consideration? Do you feel that the consultation process is consistent with the intent of SAFETEA-LU?         (The SHSP Guidance defines Consultation as: “Consultation means that one party confers with another identified party in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers that party’s views”.)  Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Adopt a Strategic Goal      
7 The SHSP adopts strategic and performance based goals that --
  • Address traffic safety, including behavioral and infrastructure problems and opportunities on all public roads.
  • Focus resources on areas of greatest need.
  • Coordinate with other State highway safety programs.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(C)
How did the State determine the goals and performance objectives? Are these goals aggressive yet achievable? Do the performance based goals include goals that relate to both behavioral and infrastructure problems? Are the goals and performance objectives based on analysis of crash and other safety data? Did the State consider the goals and performance objectives of other plans such as the CVSP, HSP, and HSIP (including section 130)? Has the State considered how the SHSP goals and objectives will affect other safety plans? Did the State consider how the goals could be broken down into definable elements that can be adopted by other agencies? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Identify Strategies and Countermeasures      
8 The SHSP describes a program of projects or strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(F)
Was data used to determine the most effective strategies and countermeasures? How does the State plan to implement the SHSP through the HSIP? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
9 The SHSP identifies opportunities for preventing the development of such hazardous conditions.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(E)(ii)
Did the State consider proactive approaches to address potentially hazardous locations and features? Does the State plan to make system wide policy for safety improvements? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
10 The SHSP addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway safety projects.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(C)
Did the State integrate 4E strategies where practical?  Did the State use an integrated approach through a variety of emphasis area group members when determining strategies? Were the 4E’s fully utilized to prioritize strategies that will significantly reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries? Does the State have in place the organizational structure for administering and managing safety programs so that the SHSP can be implemented? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Determine Priorities for Implementation      
11 The SHSP determines priorities for the correction of hazardous road locations, sections, and elements (including railway-highway crossing improvements), as identified through crash data analysis.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(E)(i)
What factors are used to determine priorities for implementation? Is the State giving priority to safety projects that can be supported by data? Were the highest impact and most cost effective priorities selected? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
12 The SHSP considers safety needs of, and high fatality segments of, public roads.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(D)
Did the State consider safety improvements for local roads? Does the State plan to make safety improvements where they are needed even if they are off the State DOT’s system? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
13 The SHSP identifies hazardous locations, sections and elements that constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians and other highway users.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(B)(i)
Did the State consider all highway users and modes during the SHSP data analysis? Did the State consider system-wide improvements? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
14 As part of the SHSP, the State establishes the relative severity of those locations, in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, traffic volume levels, and other relevant data.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(B)(ii)
What data did the State use to establish severity? Did the State use weighted severity factors in the prioritization of hazard locations? Was b/c analysis used to determine priorities? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Approval      
15 The SHSP has been approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State Agency.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(G)
Did the Governor approve the plan? Was another responsible agency directed by the Governor to approve the plan? Yes
No
 
  Implementing the SHSP Through Action Plans      
16 As part of the SHSP, the State establishes and implements a schedule of highway safety improvement projects for hazard correction and hazard prevention.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(E)(iii)
Did the State consider ways to proactively address hazards? Did the State consider safety improvements for local roads as priorities for implementation? Has the State assigned or appointed an individual or unit that is accountable for the implementation of the SHSP? Does the State have an HSIP process that will enable it to implement the infrastructure related safety improvements? How does the State plan to implement the SHSP within the DOT?  How will the State facilitate implementation with other agencies and organizations? Has the State demonstrated a means for SHSP implementation through implementation or action plans?  Has the State identified funding for implementing strategies in the SHSP? Was b/c analysis used to determine priorities? Are you satisfied that the State is preparing to implement the strategies outlined in the SHSP through the other safety programs? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Linking the SHSP with the Transportation Planning Process      
17 The SHSP is consistent with the requirements of section 135(g) [Statewide Transportation Improvement Program] of Title 23 USC.
These requirements include:
  • All federally funded projects including all capital and non-capital projects, and all regionally significant transportation projects requiring Federal approval or permits.
  • Development in consultation with affected non-metropolitan local officials and with Indian tribal governments.
  • Provisions for interested parties with a reasonable opportunity for comment.
  • Consistency with the Statewide Transportation Plan.
  • Fiscal constraint.
23 USC 148(a)(6)(H)
Has the State considered how the emphasis areas and strategies in the SHSP will be implemented through the statewide transportation planning and programming process?  For example, within metro areas, is the SHSP consistent with the MPO’s plan and TIP? By the time the projects (or program of projects) are included in the STIP, will the bulleted items outlined to the left be met? By the time the projects (or program of projects) are included in the STIP, will the safety projects accurately represent the goals and strategies of the SHSP?               Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
  Evaluating the SHSP      
18 The State has established an evaluation process to analyze and assess results achieved by highway safety improvement projects identified in the SHSP.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(F)(i)
Has the State determined post project methodologies that will be used for evaluation of strategies and countermeasures?
Has the State assigned or appointed an individual or unit that is accountable for the evaluation of the SHSP? Has the State established a process for how the SHSP will be evaluated in the future?  This process should include who to involve in the evaluation, frequency of evaluation, and how the SHSP will be affected by the evaluation.
Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
19 The State will use the evaluation information in setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects.
23 USC 148(c)(2)(F)(i)
Has the State considered how the evaluation results will affect future safety programs? Has the State determined how future revisions will be carried forward through implementation?  For example, how will the results of periodic evaluation be reflected in the HSIP (including section 130), HSP, CVSP, STIP, TIP, etc… Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 
20 The State will evaluate the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improvements.
23 USC 148(c)(1)(C)
Has the State considered how often to reassess the SHSP? What is the evaluation period initially and what might it be in the future? How will the evaluation results feed back into other safety programs? Yes
No
Partly
In Progress
 

Other Comments:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Return to top


Potential Information Resources

The following is a list of potential resources that would be beneficial information to the review team prior to a peer review or program review.

  1. Invitation Letter.
  2. Purpose and objectives of the exchange and/or focus items for discussion.
  3. Preliminary agenda.
  4. List of State Web sites for safety, safety management systems, and/or HSIP information.
  5. HSIP Manual and highway safety project selection process.
  6. State’s annual HSIP report.
  7. State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
  8. List of recent, current, and planned HSIP projects.
  9. Safety elements of planning documents (i.e., Long Range Plan, Capital Investment Strategy, Statewide Transportation Improvement Program).

Return to top


Example Review Topics

The peer review or program review can focus on only one element of the HSIP (i.e., SHSP, State HSIP, RHXP, or HRRRP) or on one specific program process (i.e., planning, implementation, or evaluation). Example review topics include:

Strategic Highway Safety Plans

  • SHSP Development
  • SHSP Implementation
  • Integration of HSIP with SHSP
  • Coordination with Partners
  • Leveraging Resources

State Highway Safety Improvement Program

  • Project Identification
  • Engineering Studies
  • Project Prioritization
  • Local Road Involvement
  • Funding/Programming Projects
  • Evaluation

High Risk Rural Roads Program

  • Project identification
  • Implementation
  • Evaluation

Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program

  • Project Identification & Prioritization
  • Inspections
  • Construction process
  • Evaluation

Return to top


Sample Peer Review Agenda

A sample agenda is outlined below. It is important to note that the content and structure of the agenda will be shaped by the review topic.

Day One
8:00 – 8:30 a.m. Introduction/Overview (purpose, review elements, etc.)
8:30 – 9:30 a.m. Host State Presentations
9:30 – 10:00 a.m. Answer / Discussion
10:00 – 10:30 a.m. Break
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon Visiting State Presentations
12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity)
1:00 – 5:00 p.m. Open Discussion

Day Two
8:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon Discussion with other HSIP Representatives
12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity)
1:00 – 5:00 p.m. Open Discussion

Day Three
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon Report Preparation
12:00 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Informal Networking Opportunity)
1:00 – 4:00 p.m. Close-out Session

Return to top


Sample Report

HSIP Peer Review
Hosted by the
[State name] Department of Transportation
[Date]

Introduction

The [State name] Department of Transportation hosted a Peer Review of its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) on [Date]. The peer review team consisted of:

  • [Name, title, and organization] Exchange Team Leader
  • [List All Team members -- Name, title, and organization]
  • Other attendees and observers included:
  • [List Other Attendees and Observers -- Name, title, and organization]

Objectives

The expressed objectives of the peer review process were to:

  • Learn how the [State name] Department of Transportation manages and implements the HSIP.
  • Provide an occasion for members of exchange team and the Department of Transportation to think about HSIP management.
  • Exchange information among members of the team and others involved in the peer review.
  • Identify useful ideas members of the peer review team can apply in their agency.
  • Address the following focus items identified by [State name] DOT:

Scope

To prepare for the peer review, the team reviewed documentation describing the Department of Transportation's HSIP procedures. During the exchange, the team discussed [State name]'s procedures and those used in other team members' respective agencies. The exchange team also interviewed [Number of] persons, including:

  • [List names of persons interviewed]

Interviews were conducted using a general set of questions to stimulate discussion, and provided
the exchange team an opportunity to listen to concerns, experiences, technical accomplishments,
and suggestions from those interviewed. Members of the team also answered questions posed to them by persons from the Department of Transportation, FHWA, and others. The team members volunteered information pertinent to the discussions on administration, HSIP development, project management, and technical accomplishments.

Several common themes emerged from the interviews:

  • [Insert Theme 1]
  • [Insert Theme 2]
  • [Insert Theme 3]
  • [and so on]

Strengths and Key Issues

The exchange team noted several significant strengths at the Department of Transportation:

  • [Insert strength and/or key issue]
  • [Insert strength and/or key issue]
  • [Insert strength and/or key issue]
  • [and so on]

The team's observations on these issues as well as on general topic of HSIP follow:

[Item or Issue]

  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [and so on]

[Item or Issue]

  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [and so on]

[Item or Issue]

  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [and so on]

The Peer Review Team Member Reports are as follows:

[Name and organization -- Team Leader]

Observations:

  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [Insert observation]
  • [and so on]

Planned Actions or Opportunities for [Team leader's State name] DOT:

  • [Insert planned action or opportunity]
  • [Insert planned action or opportunity]
  • [Insert planned action or opportunity]
  • [and so on]

[Use this same format for each of the Peer Review Team Members. The last individual report and usually most comprehensive of all the reports given is for the host State.]

< Previous Table of Contents  

Program Contact

Tamiko Burnell

202-366-1200

What's New

Web-based HSIP Courses
Five new web-based courses related to the HSIP are available from the National Highway Institute

Integrating Road Safety into NEPA Analysis: A Primer for Safety and Environmental Professionals:
    • Brochure
    • Report

NEW Strategic Highway Safety Plans: A Champion's Guidebook to Saving Lives, Second Edition

HSIP Self Assessment Tool

Highway Safety Improvement Program – Project Eligibility

Strategic Highway Safety Plan – Leadership that Saves Lives

Strategic Highway Safety Plan – Get Involved!

HSIP Noteworthy Practice Series

P2P – Integrating Local Planning Organizations into a State HSIP

SHSP Implementation Process Model Interactive CD

HSIP Manual

HSIP Assessment Toolbox

SHSP IPM – The Essential Eight – Fundamental Elements and Effective Steps for SHSP Implementation

SHSP IPM Supplement Number 1 – Case Studies

A Primer on Safety Performance Measures for the Transportation Planning Process

Data and Safety Analysis Tools Brochure