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 Departure / Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects

Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects

Download Version
PDF [1.88 MB]

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

December 2006

< Previous Table of Contents Next >

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY

Every State and local transportation agency resurfaces roadways to preserve their functional serviceability. Likewise, every transportation and public works agency takes steps intended to improve safety. The resources devoted to each function, and the extent to which these initiatives are integrated, can vary substantially. The scan was undertaken to identify and disseminate information on practices that effectively integrate safety improvements into resurfacing and pavement restoration projects.

Through a review of published materials, an e-mail survey, and outreach to professional contacts, six States were identified as scan destinations. Visits were conducted during three separate two-State trips in June, July, and August 2005. The Scan Team coordinated with the host DOTs and FHWA Division Offices in advance to clarify the nature and scope of the visits. Host agencies were gracious and extremely cooperative in developing itineraries. Each destination was unique, but most visits involved meetings at DOT headquarters with personnel in bureaus (e.g., design, pavement management, programming, safety) and local DOT units. The Scan Team met with county engineers in Iowa, New York, and Washington State.

Every agency operates in a unique environment that influences how it approaches the incorporation of safety in resurfacing. One of the most significant factors is the allocation of resources between surface conditions and safety needs. The "balance point" is reached differently within each agency. In some cases, funding for infrastructure preservation and safety improvements are allocated separately, with specific eligibility guidance applying to each. Other agencies operate with fewer programmatic fund sources, less precise eligibility criteria, and generally greater discretion on defining and scoping resurfacing projects.

The extent of support by an agency's leaders and its institutional culture are critical factors in determining the degree to which safety improvements are incorporated into resurfacing. All agencies and many individuals exercise some level of discretion over how limited resources are invested. These decisions reflect judgments on the proper use of funds and relative priorities. All of the personnel encountered during the scan believe that safety should be improved in connection with resurfacing projects. Some personnel and agencies consider it essential to integrate safety improvements in resurfacing projects. Others consider safety improvements desirable but are reluctant to extend project development time or make substantial discretionary expenditures to attain the improvements.

All agencies are accountable for achieving progress toward infrastructure and safety goals. Accountability methods and measurement vary. Measurements may be expressed as output (e.g., lane miles treated, guardrail installed) or outcomes (e.g., ride quality, crashes per year). Pavement restoration has an immediate measurable effect on ride quality, which allows the effects of paving investments to be reliably measured. It is far more difficult to measure the results of safety investments as crashes are rare, even at high-risk locations, and affected by many factors beyond the roadway infrastructure.

Resurfacing programs are driven by pavement conditions; this is true for every DOT and county visited during the scan. The process of defining a project's elements, including the scope of pavement and safety work, varies substantially. The techniques, personnel involved and timeframe for resurfacing project development also vary. All of the DOTs visited are decentralized organizations and local DOT units are responsible for project delivery. DOT headquarter units participate in advisory or decision-making roles in the areas of pavement management, safety analysis and countermeasure identification and programming. The observed agency relationships were all deemed to function fairly well, leading to the conclusion that there is no single right way to assign roles or distribute responsibilities within a decentralized organization.

In most States, local governments (e.g., counties, cities, towns) own the majority of roadways. However, individual local government units may have very limited jurisdiction, perhaps just a few miles. In addition to funding, States have institutional and technical capabilities that are of great value to local government. Each State supports an LTAP center to provide localgovernments with technical assistance. Several of the DOTs work very closely with counties, substantially increasing the effectiveness of county efforts and expenditures.

Tort liability is a substantial concern of many transportation agencies, State and local. This concern weighs on managers and individual professionals in determining the scope of resurfacing projects. There is a sentiment that designing projects with no improved features results in less liability exposure than projects that provide some improvements but fall short of meeting all applicable criteria. Tort concerns were expressed most strongly in New York and Washington State.

Integrating safety improvements into resurfacing can be an effective way to preserve both mobility and safety. Based on DOT visits, leadership support is needed to develop and implement an integrated strategy, because it may involve new priorities and direction. Revamped organizational processes and operational guidance will be needed to articulate policy, expectations, and methods of pursuit. The Scan Team identified the following good practices that support attainment of pavement preservation and improved safety:

Institutional Practices:

Technical Practices:

The good practices have been noted as either institution or technical. Institutional practices are related to the capabilities, culture, and priorities of an agency. Agencies do not necessarily have the ability to adopt these practices on their own. Some (e.g., expedited right-of-way acquisition) may require legislation, rulemaking, or negotiation with stakeholders (e.g., contractor associations, local governments). Technical practices tend to be matters that are wholly or substantially within the purview of transportation agencies.

< Previous Table of Contents Next >
Page last modified on October 15, 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