U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building / P2P Technical Assistance / Montana Highway Improvement Safety Program

Montana Highway Improvement Safety Program

Downloadable Version
PDF [255 KB]

An RSPCB Peer Exchange


About the Peer Exchange

FHWA's RSPCB Peer-to-Peer Program (P2P) supports and sponsors peer exchanges and workshops hosted by agencies.

Date
May 5, 2011

Hosts
Montana Department of Transportation
FHWA Montana Division Office

Key Participants
Idaho Transportation Department
FHWA Idaho Division Office

North Dakota Department of Transportation
FHWA North Dakota Division Office

South Dakota Department of Transportation
FHWA South Dakota Division Office

Wyoming Department of Transportation
FHWA Wyoming Division Office

FHWA Office of Safety

U.S. DOT Volpe Center

FHWA's Office of Safety sponsors P2P events.
Learn more

Caution sign divided into four sections: a stick figure paging through a document, a stick figure pedestrian, a traffic light in the center of an intersection, and a stick figure in a car's driver's seat

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Background

2. Proceedings of the Montana Peer Exchange

3. Roundtable Discussion

4. Key Takeaways

Appendix A — Event Participants

Appendix B — Agenda


1. Introduction and Background

This report provides a summary of a peer-to-peer (P2P) videoconference sponsored by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety. The videoconference format provided a low-cost opportunity for agencies to share information on administering the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in rural states.

The event included an introduction to the HSIP by the FHWA Office of Safety, overviews of each State's HSIP process by State Department of Transportation (DOT) representatives, and roundtable discussions among the states regarding the operation of their HSIP. Representatives from each State DOT were joined by safety specialists in their respective State FHWA Division Offices to learn about noteworthy practices in the HSIP. (See Appendix A for a complete list of participants.)

2. Proceedings of the Montana Peer Exchange

The FHWA Office of Safety's HSIP manager welcomed videoconference participants and provided an overview of the peer exchange objective: to respond to MDT's request to learn more about how to improve and enhance its HSIP process by gathering information about the structure and administration of neighboring states' programs. Topics covered included:

Following the introduction, MDT and each peer agency presented summaries on how they administer their HSIP, including project selection and prioritization criteria, SHSP linkages, examples of implementing systematic improvements through the HSIP, and their management of crash data. (See Appendix B for the agenda.) Summaries appear below.

Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)
MDT's Safety Management System Section Supervisor and the Traffic and Safety Bureau Chief discussed Montana's program. MDT maintains 12,000 of Montana's 75,000 public road miles. Ten percent of MDT-maintained roads are located within tribal reservations. MDT receives $10.5 million in annual HSIP funding, which is administered through the Traffic and Safety Bureau at DOT headquarters. This funding includes $750,000 from the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) and $3.6 million from the Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP).

MDT provided the following information regarding its HSIP:

Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
ITD's Office of Highway manages both $10.5 million in annual HSIP funding and $4 million in behavioral safety program funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Funds are distributed to local partners through a resolution signed by its Transportation Board.

ITD's Highway Safety Manager and Research Analyst Principal presented an overview of ITD's HSIP:

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)
Wyoming receives about $18 million per year in HSIP funding, including transfer funds, which it uses to focus on hotspots. District offices select HSIP projects; the Highway Safety Office provides screening information and project listings to help districts prioritize them.

The Highway Safety Program Manager of WYDOT presented an overview of Wyoming's HSIP.

South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT)
SDDOT manages $10.5 million in annual HSIP funding for both State and local roads. South Dakota's safety program receives an additional $4.5 million under the Repeat Offender Law—23 U.S.C. §164 (Penalty Transfer Program) because it does not have a repeat intoxicated driver law. SDDOT has been selecting their HSIP projects using a hotspot approach. However, the agency is interested in exploring alternative ways to allocating HSIP funding, since a balance of safety funds remains at the end of most years.

Representatives from SDDOT's Office of Project development provided additional information on South Dakota's HSIP:

South Dakota is currently updating its SHSP. SDDOT is working directly with the Office of Highway Safety (in the Department of Public Safety) to form a steering committee; the goal is to develop an SHSP that will use all of the State's HSIP funding.

North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)
The NDDOT Traffic Operations Section administers North Dakota's HSIP. In FY2011, North Dakota received $9.5 million in HSIP funds as well as $600,000 from the HRRRP and $2 million from the RHGCP. Although North Dakota has the most miles of roadway per capita, only 7,000 of the State's 107,000 miles of roadway are on the State system. As a result, the State implements many small city and county projects through its HSIP, including signing and marking projects (up to $20,000 each).

NDDOT's Traffic Operations Engineer and Transportation Engineer III highlighted additional elements of North Dakota's HSIP:

back to Table of Contents


3. Roundtable Discussion

Following the State presentations, facilitators led a roundtable discussion. A summary of the discussion appears below.

Q.
How often do you develop your HSIP and how does safety fit into your organizational structure?
A.
All states develop their HSIP on an annual basis. The HSIP extends four or five years to match the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Safety fits into the organizational structures of each peer State differently.
  • MDT's Highways and Engineering Division includes a Traffic and Safety Engineering Bureau which is responsible for providing management, design, and technical support for traffic and safety engineering functions, and managing and coordinating the HSIP and RHGCP. The State Highway Traffic Safety Office, within MDT's Rail, Transit, and Planning Division, manages Montana's behavioral safety programs and develops its CHSP.
  • ITD's Office of Highway Safety manages the HSIP, the SHSP, crash data, and NHTSA behavioral safety programs. The Office of Highway Safety partners with engineering staff to implement systematic projects.
  • North Dakota's HSIP is administered by NDDOT's Traffic Operations Section, which also oversees traffic operations studies, crash analysis, RSAs, speed limit requests, turn-lane requests, signing requests, lighting studies, signal maintenance, and signal studies. NDDOT's Traffic Safety Office administers behavioral safety programs.
  • SDDOT's Planning and Engineering Division within the Project Development Office manages the HSIP. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety manages behavioral safety, emergency response, and enforcement programs.
  • WYDOT's Highway Safety Office manages Wyoming's HSIP, maintains the State's crash data, and administers its behavioral grant and motorcycle safety programs. The Highway Safety Office works regularly with the Traffic Office on safety issues.
Q.
Describe how your State prioritizes HSIP projects.
A.
A number of prioritization methods were described:
  • Montana and Wyoming prioritize projects based on a benefit-cost ratio, which is weighted by crash type. In Wyoming, a list of projects prioritized by the benefit-cost ratio is provided to districts to review and incorporate into the STIP depending on their alignment with other management systems.
  • South Dakota also uses a benefit-cost ratio but does not formally split funding between systematic projects and those identified based on the benefit-cost analysis.
  • North Dakota prioritizes HSIP projects based on its HSIP implementation plan, which provides direction for implementing systematic improvements that address SHSP emphasis areas. NDDOT does not develop benefit-cost ratios for its projects; rather, it conducts an evaluation of the economic costs of crashes and those costs are linked to the infrastructure emphasis areas in its SHSP.
  • Idaho evaluates the economic cost of crashes and ties that to its SHSP Lane Departure and Intersection emphasis areas. Beginning with that analysis, districts and local governments analyze the safety data to identify where problems are occurring. Districts create a list of project candidates and complete a benefit-cost analysis. Once a district submits project candidates, a small team determines which should receive funding based on the data, the economic cost of crashes, and the benefit-cost ratios.
Q.
How much flexibility do you have in advancing projects identified through RSAs?
A.
Each State discussed its flexibility:
  • South Dakota spends about $500,000 annually on performing and implementing the recommendations of RSAs on county and local roads. RSAs are performed at locations where concerns have been identified and result in a formal report that recommends projects.
  • North Dakota studies its RSA locations to determine whether any countermeasures fit within its HSIP implementation plan. NDDOT implements two to three RSA recommendations each year.
  • Wyoming does not have a formal RSA program but conducts a similar process through its Local Technical Assistance Program using funding from HRRRP. The process includes analyses of crash data and windshield road review video to identify locations with likely safety issues. WYDOT develops and distributes a list of projects for those locations to local agencies for their consideration.
  • Idaho treats RSA-identified projects the same as standard HSIP projects, providing funding priority to projects that are data-driven, low-cost, near-term, and that align with SAFETEA-LU requirements and Idaho's SHSP.
Q.
Do you provide HSIP funding to local agencies?
A.
Each State discussed its policies regarding HSIP funding to local agencies:
  • Idaho allocates 12.5 percent of its HSIP funding to local agencies.
  • South Dakota and Montana do not generally transfer HSIP funding to local agencies.
  • MDT focuses HSIP funding on the State system, where more fatal crashes occur. As the local government traffic safety service, MDT provides State funding to local agencies.
  • NDDOT sends an annual solicitation for project proposals to local agencies, counties, and cities; however, such entities do not generally participate in HSIP.
Q.
Does your State have a safety corridor program?
A.
Corridor programs described:
  • Montana's SHSP includes high-crash corridors as an emphasis area. These 10- to 15-mile corridors are identified based on queries of crash frequency and severity. Idaho evaluates the safety health of corridors based on weighted factors like crashes, roadway geometrics, shoulder width, roadway-departure prevention measures, and access management. Corridors can range from 30 to 50 miles and are rated as good, fair, or poor.
  • North and South Dakota do not have safety corridor programs.
  • Wyoming is considering the use of corridors.
Q.
Does your State have an evaluation process for its HSIP?
A.
Evaluation processes described:
  • Wyoming evaluates the effectiveness of safety treatments by comparing the impacts of multiple treatments at the same location. WYDDOT also conducts theme-based studies, for instance, on treatments installed at the State's top 300 curves.
  • Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and North Dakota are interested in establishing evaluation processes for their HSIPs but face challenges in moving beyond Federally-required evaluation criteria.
Q.
Does your State use SafetyAnalyst?
A.
None of the states are currently using SafetyAnalyst. Montana was part of the pool-fund study for SafetyAnalyst but does not currently use it. Idaho is considering using SafetyAnalyst but has faced challenges in making it operational.
Q.
Does your State restrict access to crash data?
A.
In North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, access to crash data can be requested. In Montana, access to crash data is restricted to MDT and the Montana Highway Patrol. Idaho maintains a web-based crash data system and, once redacted, treats crash data as public.

back to Table of Contents


4. Key Takeaways

Participating states appreciated the opportunity to learn from their peers and, in particular, understand that their agencies share many of the same challenges in implementing their respective highway safety programs. Many states also expressed that this event helped them identify opportunities for flexibility in the HSIP. Finally, states learned about approaches to evaluating countermeasure deployments.

back to Table of Contents


Appendix A: Event Participants

Idaho
Brent Jennings IDT Brent.Jennings@itd.idaho.gov
Kelly Campbell IDT Kelly.Campbell@itd.idaho.gov
Lance Johnson FHWA ID Division Lance.Johnson@dot.gov
Montana
Kraig McLeod MDT kmcleod@mt.gov
Duane Williams MDT duwilliams@mt.gov
Marcee Allen FWHA MT Division Marcee.Allen@dot.gov
North Dakota
Chris Holzer NDDOT cholzer@nd.gov
Shawn Kuntz NDDOT skunz@nd.gov
Stephanie Hickman FHWA ND Division Stephanie.Hickman@dot.gov
Nick Renna FHWA ND Division Nicholas.Renna@dot.gov
South Dakota
Sonia Downs SDDOT Sonia.Downs@state.sd.us
Josh Hinds SDDOT Josh.Hinds@state.sd.us
Sharon Johnson FHWA SD Division Sharon.Johnson@dot.gov
Wyoming
Matt Carlson WYDOT Matt.Carlson@dot.state.wy.us
Lee Potter FHWA WY Division Lee.Potter@dot.gov
New Jersey
Caroline Trueman (observer) FHWA NJ Division Caroline.Trueman@dot.gov
FHWA Office of Safety
Ryan Brumfield FHWA PDP Ryan.Brumfield@dot.gov
Tamiko Burnell RSPCB Program Manager Tamiko.Burnell@dot.gov
Karen Yunk HSIP Program Manager karen.yunk@dot.gov
Susan Smichenko USDOT//Volpe Center Susan.Smichenko@dot.gov
David Perlman USDOT/ Volpe Center David.Perlman@dot.gov

back to Table of Contents


Appendix B: Agenda

Montana Peer Exchange/Workshop Agenda

May 5, 2011 – 9 am to 12:30 pm MDT

Purpose: Montana is seeking to improve its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The conversation circle will give Montana and the peer states the opportunity to discuss their HSIP programs (15 minutes each). Ten minutes will be available for Q&A after each discussion. The following topics should be addressed:

9:00 am Welcoming Remarks/Introductions
9:10 am Workshop Overview and Expected Outcomes
9:15 am Host State – Kraig McLeod, Montana Department of Transportation
9:40 am Peer State – Brent Jennings, Idaho Transportation Department
10:05 am Break
10:15 am Peer State – Matt Carlson, Wyoming Department of Transportation
10:40 am Peer State – Sonia Downs, South Dakota Department of Transportation
11:05 am Peer State – Chris Holzer, North Dakota Department of Transportation
11:30 am Break
11:40 am Open Discussion – facilitated by FHWA Office of Safety
• Challenges
• Key Takeaways
• Next Steps
12:30 pm Adjourn

back to Table of Contents


Page last modified on September 4, 2014
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000