U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
|
U.S. Department of Transportation |
November 2001 |
Safety Core Business Unit
Office of Corporate Management
Appendix A - Findings in States Visited
The Safety Core Business Unit, in conjunction with the Office of Corporate Management, conducted a program review of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in six States (Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and Iowa) between February and April, 2001. The primary objective of this review was to document best practices of the HSIP by highlighting those practices that are uniquely best in each State. This review was not intended to be an "audit" of the HSIP, but to be a means for identifying some of the best practices that are currently being utilized and for sharing this information with the safety community, particularly the Safety Engineers, Specialists and Coordinators in the FHWA Division Offices and Resource Centers, and the State Transportation and Safety offices.
Each State is required to develop and implement, on a continuing basis, a highway safety improvement program that has the overall objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes and decreasing the potential for crashes on all highways. The requirements for a highway safety improvement program are to include components for planning, implementation, and evaluation of safety programs and projects. These projects are to be developed by the States and approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The review team found numerous, noteworthy activities related to the HSIP and safety in general that are being implemented by the States visited. These are summarized in Chapter III. The processes being carried out by the States are described in more detail in Appendix A. Among the best practices that were identified in a number of the States visited were the following:
Safety is a critical part of the FHWA's mission to improve the quality of our
Nation's highway system and its intermodal connections. The FHWA has established
a strategic goal to continually improve highway safety. It is committed to reducing
highway-related fatalities and serious injuries by 20 percent by the year 2008.
An effective highway safety improvement program is a major component for improving
highway safety through the implementation of improvements at locations with
known and potential crash problems.
Each State is required to develop and implement, on a continuing basis, a highway safety improvement program (HSIP), which has the overall objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes and decreasing the potential for crashes on all highways. The requirements for a highway safety improvement program have been established in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 924 (23 CFR 924), and are to include components for planning, implementation, and evaluation of safety programs and projects. These components are to consist of processes developed by the States and approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Several programs, most notably the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and Hazard Elimination Programs, fall under the umbrella of the HSIP. These programs were established by the Highway Safety Act of 1973 to reduce the number and severity of highway-related crashes. The requirements for the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and Hazard Elimination Programs are defined in Sections 130 and 152, respectively, of Title 23, United States Code. Since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, these highway safety programs are a part of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and 10 percent of STP funds is set aside for carrying out Sections 130 and 152 of Title 23. The amount of funds reserved for both highway-rail grade crossings and hazard elimination projects must be at least equal to the amount that was apportioned to a State in Fiscal Year 1991. For nearly all States, the amount of funds currently apportioned exceeds the amount apportioned in FY 1991. These additional funds, which are referred to as "optional safety funds," may be used for either highway-rail grade crossing or hazard elimination projects.
Projects funded under Section 130 are intended to reduce the number and severity of train collisions with vehicles and pedestrians at highway-rail grade crossings. Typical projects include active warning devices (e.g. lights and gates), signing and pavement markings, illumination, crossing surface improvements, grade separations, sight distance improvements, geometric improvements to roadway approaches, and the closing and/or consolidation of crossings. All public crossing safety improvements are eligible for funding.
Section 152 funds (Hazard Elimination Program) are intended to implement safety improvement projects to reduce the number and severity of crashes at hazardous highway locations, sections, and elements on any public road. Typical projects include intersection improvements (channelization, traffic signals, and sight distance); pavement and shoulder widening; guardrail and barrier improvements; installation of crash cushions; modification of roadway alignment; signing, pavement marking, and delineation; breakaway utility poles and sign supports; pavement grooving and skid resistant overlays; shoulder rumble strips; and minor structure replacements or modifications.
Safety is a critical part of the FHWA's mission to improve the quality of our Nation's highway system and its intermodal connections. The FHWA has established a strategic goal to continually improve highway safety. It is committed to reducing highway-related fatalities and serious injuries by 20 percent by the year 2008. An effective highway safety improvement program is a major component for improving highway safety through the implementation of improvements at locations with known and potential crash problems.
The Safety Core Business Unit (CBU), in conjunction with the Office of Corporate Management, conducted a program review of the HSIP in six States (Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and Iowa) between February and April, 2001.
| The primary objective of this review was to document best practices of the HSIP by highlighting those practices that are uniquely best in each State. |
A secondary objective of this review was to gather suggestions from the State and local personnel interviewed about the current safety funding programs and the HSIP regulations in conjunction with the reauthorization of transportation programs. This objective is being addressed separately and is not a part of this report.
This review was not intended to be an "audit" of the HSIP, but to be a means for identifying some of the best practices that are currently being utilized and for sharing this information with the safety community, particularly the Safety Engineers, Specialists and Coordinators in the FHWA Division Offices and Resource Centers, and the State Transportation and Safety Offices.
The review was conducted as a series of interviews and observations with personnel from the FHWA Division Offices in the States visited and State agencies responsible for the HSIP. In the State of Florida, visits were also made to two District Offices. Interviews were conducted with upper level management and safety program personnel.
The focus of this review was primarily on the Hazard Elimination Program, but interviews also included State Offices responsible for the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program, and for highway safety grant programs funded under Section 402 of Title 23.
These highway safety grant programs provide funds for a variety of non-construction, safety-related efforts, including programs for data, education and enforcement.
The review was conducted by a review team from FHWA consisting of:
Each review typically included four persons from the review team and the FHWA Division Office Safety Engineer in the State visited.
The States selected for review were chosen on the basis of size, geographic balance, and recommendations for States with good HSIP's from team members and from the FHWA Resource Centers and Division Offices.
The interviews focused primarily on the processes being used for the planning, implementation, and evaluation components of the HSIP's. In addition, all of the personnel in the States visited were very eager to demonstrate various safety programs, processes, activities, and technologies which were not necessarily directly related to the Hazard Elimination and Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Programs, but which were definitely innovative and effective safety activities and devices.
The following are the planning, implementation, and evaluation requirements for an HSIP from 23 CFR 924.
The planning component of an HSIP shall incorporate:
The implementation component of an HSIP shall include a process for scheduling and implementing safety improvement projects in accordance with the priorities developed as part of the above planning component.
The evaluation component of an HSIP requires that each State include a process for determining the effect that highway safety improvement projects have on reducing the number and severity of crashes and potential crashes, including:
Also, Section 23 CFR Part 924 stipulates that the findings resulting from the evaluation process be incorporated as basic source data in the above planning process.
The review team found numerous, noteworthy activities being implemented by the States. This chapter provides a general summary of the best practices observed by the review team. Appendix A discusses in more detail the six States visited and the processes that they are currently carrying out.
In determining what is a "best practice," the following definition from the Chevron Corporation was used:
| A "best practice" is any practice, knowledge, know-how, or experience that has proven to be valuable or effective in one organization and that may have applicability to other organizations. |
This definition was also used in the FHWA's report, The Role of the Federal-aid Division in Highway Safety (April, 1998).
The best practices that are noted below are based on the review team's findings from the six States visited. There is no one means for carrying out a highway safety improvement program, and there is no doubt other States have similar best practices.
Among the general best practices identified in a number of the States visited were the following:
| The following best practices relate specifically to the HSIP: |
For highway-rail grade crossings, the following best practices were observed:
For the individual States visited, the following is a summary of the best practices identified.
Overall, this review identified numerous, noteworthy activities related to the HSIP and safety in general that are being implemented by the States visited. In addition to the best practices already noted, the following points need to be highlighted:
The ultimate key to a successful HSIP is ensuring that the best possible decisions are being made when selecting locations for improvements. Since the establishment of the Hazard Elimination and Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Programs, many of the high crash locations have been addressed. The challenge is one of determining those locations with the highest potential for future crash reductions. The Federal Highway Administration has recently awarded a contract for the development of a Comprehensive Highway Safety Improvement Model (CHSIM). This effort is intended to assist States and localities in improving their decision making processes through the use of a new set of analytical tools designed for allocating resources to achieve greater safety improvements. The CHSIM will consist of a set of analytical tools designed to:
The complete CHSIM is expected to be developed over a 5-year period and will ultimately be available as a software product for use by States and localities.
There is a need for up-to-date training on the HSIP and for a means to evaluate the effectiveness of the HSIP. The Safety CBU is in the process of analyzing training needs and developing appropriate training courses.
All agencies and offices involved in the safety program need to continuously develop, implement, and share best practices.
The following is a discussion of the findings in the six States (Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Oregon) that were reviewed. Each report includes
an overview of the States visited, a description of the HSIP processes followed
by these States, and the best practices identified. The overview provides background
information on the size of the safety programs and the State agencies responsible
for the HSIP.
Overview
Connecticut currently has 20,727 miles of public road mileage, with approximately 17,000 miles of local roads.
In 1999, Connecticut experienced 270 fatal crashes and 301 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 1.01fatalities per 100 MVM of travel, the second lowest in the nation. Since 1989, the number of fatalities in Connecticut has declined by more than 25 percent and the fatality rate has declined by 34.8 percent.
In FY 2001, Connecticut was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $ 1,047,610 |
| Hazard Elimination | 1,841,942 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 5,227,712 |
| Total Safety | $ 8,117,264 |
Spending in Connecticut for safety extends beyond the safety setaside requirement, with actual funding in the $15 - $20 million range.
The major highway safety programs are administered by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (Conn DOT). The Highway Safety Improvement Program is administered by Conn DOT's Traffic Engineering Division.
Connecticut's Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program is relatively small. Due to high costs, especially in downtown areas or when signal work is involved, only 3 or 4 projects are implemented each year. There are 673 crossings in the State (348 are public crossings and 325 are private) and about two-thirds of the public crossings have active warning devices. Conn DOT believes that potentially high crash locations and all crossings involving passenger carrying lines have been addressed. Connecticut has a very active Operation Lifesaver Program, with extensive public outreach.
The Governor's Highway Safety Representative (GHSR) in Connecticut is located within Conn DOT. Programs funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are administered by Conn DOT's Office of State Highway Safety. This office administers $1.4 million in NHTSA-related programs. A major emphasis has been on seat belts, and seat belt usage has improved from 59 percent in 1995 to its current level of 75 percent. The State has a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee that is chaired by the Office of State Highway Safety. This committee includes the State Police, hospitals and localities. It has resulted in the development of strong relationships.
Description of Processes
Crash information is processed by the Inventory and Data Unit within Conn DOT's Bureau of Policy and Planning. Approximately 72,000 of the 100,000 reported crashes are coded. Crashes are located by route mile. The current crash reporting threshold for PDO crashes is $1,000. The data is currently coded into a mainframe system. The current backlog is approximately 9 months but progress is being made toward reducing the backlog. Within the next 5 years, all police patrol cars are expected to have computers, which will streamline the processing of data.
The Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSS) is the basis for identifying locations in need of improvement. This list includes each section of roadway or interchange, but only on State roads. For a location to appear on the SLOSSS list, it must experience a crash rate that exceeds a critical rate and a minimum of 15 crashes over a 3-year period. A list of approximately 1,500 locations is generated. The SLOSSS list is sorted by an index determined by rate, type and severity. The average crash rate for each location is computed. Locations not appearing on the SLOSSS list may also be considered if a problem is brought to the State's attention.
Considerable effort is given to engineering studies by Conn DOT's Traffic Engineering Division. Locations in need of a study are assigned to an engineer. The engineer generally plots collision diagrams manually, although software is available. Three years of crash data are used Other information such as photologs, traffic volumes and speed data are also used. Field investigations are conducted of all sites. There is also coordination with the localities. Following completion of an engineering study, recommendations for improvements are made. Minor improvements can be implemented by the Office of Maintenance, which can also do minor signal work.
In selecting projects for implementation, Conn DOT uses benefit/cost and crash reduction factors. There is a $500,000 limit for safety projects. Projects exceeding this amount must then be reviewed by a scoping committee.
Financial management is a key part of the implementation process in Connecticut.
The financial staffpersons responsible for the implementation of roadway, bridge
and safety projects are assigned to Conn DOT's Bureau of Engineering and Operations
under the Chief Engineer. They have backgrounds in both engineering and finance.
Procedures have been developed to expeditiously incorporate safety and bridge
projects into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). An agreement has
been made with each Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) to expeditiously obligate
funds The TIP process lists the total amount of funds for the Hazard Elimination
Program, the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program, and the Bridge Program. Individual
projects are not listed on the TIP. Individual projects are then sent to the
MPO's, which obligate funds in 3 - 4 weeks. The MPO's receive quarterly reports.
Evaluations are performed on a sample of projects using 2 years of "before" and 2 years of "after" data. The evaluations are performed by the Bureau of Policy and Planning. In general, 3 - 6 projects are evaluated each year depending on work load.
In 1985, Conn DOT implemented a Local Road Accident Reduction Program as part of its HSIP. Under this program, $1 million is set aside for localities to implement safety improvements on local roads. Letters are sent to the 12 regional planning organizations to solicit projects. Approximately 10 - 20 proposals are received. The localities provide justification, including crash figures. Benefit/cost is used for the selection of projects. There is a $200,000 limit per project.
For the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program, the State utilizes a modified version of the New Hampshire Model to identify candidate locations. This modified version considers crashes. A hazard index is developed for each crossing. Each year, the top 30 - 40 locations are considered. A field investigation is conducted, which may include representatives from the railroad companies. A full diagnostic analysis, in which 39 design elements are considered, is performed with the objective of total improvement, including drainage. Other improvements within 150 - 200 feet may be considered. The State generally does a complete upgrade at crossings to include lights, gates, and signing. Design work for locations in need of improvement is done in-house by the State, in cooperation with the localities. For locations where improvements have been identified, public hearings are required by Connecticut statute. These hearings are chaired by administrative law judges, and a 30-day notice is required. The State tries to maintain a 3-year program and has identified projects through 2006.
Best Practices Identified
Overview
Delaware currently has 5,732 miles of public road mileage, with a large majority owned by the State.
In 1999, Delaware experienced 91 fatal crashes and 100 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 1.17 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM) of travel, ranking among the lowest in the nation. Since 1989, Delaware's fatality rate has declined by 34.6 percent.
In FY 2001, Delaware was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $ 504,776 |
| Hazard Elimination | 828,325 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 2,186,842 |
| Total Safety | $ 3,519,943 |
Since Delaware is a relatively small State, its processes are centralized.
The Hazard Elimination Program in Delaware is administered by the Delaware Department of Transportation's (Del DOT) Planning Division. A full time staffperson in the Division of Planning is responsible for the Highway Safety Improvement Program. A consulting firm performs studies of locations that may warrant improvement.
Delaware's Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program is a joint effort between the Department of Transportation and the Delaware Transit Corporation. The current Rail Coordinator from the Del DOT also handles preconstruction activities. There are approximately 300 crossings in the State, and approximately 75 - 80 percent of these crossings are signalized. Thus, Delaware's program is relatively small with 3 - 4 crossings being upgraded per year. The work consists primarily of upgrading signals and crossing surfaces. Improvements outside the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program may also be implemented in coordination with other projects.
The Governor's Highway Safety Representative (GHSR) in Delaware is located in the Delaware Department of Public Safety's Office of Highway Safety. This Department also includes the State Police and Motor Vehicles. The GHSR's office operates a $730,000 per year program and projects are data driven. Most of the GHSR's work is with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the focus is currently on education and enforcement. In the past, Section 402 funds were used for crosswalks.
Description of Processes
The Delaware State Police is the repository for all crash records. It provides copies (paper form) of each crash report to Delaware DOT's Division of Planning, generally within 30 days of the crash. The State has increased its reporting threshold for property damage only (PDO) crashes. For 2001, the reporting threshold is $1,500. The Division of Planning takes the paper copy of the crash report and coverts it to electronic data tying it to the Department's milepost inventory system. Delaware DOT is looking at data compatibility, electronic report collection by the agencies, and global positioning.
Three years of crash information is utilized to identify potential locations. All crashes (fatal, injury and PDO) are treated the same in the Department's initial analysis.
The number of crashes is broken down into 0.3 mile segments. Utilizing critical rate analysis, a list of locations with 15 or more crashes over a 3-year period is prepared. The Delaware DOT's critical rate formula is tested continually by changing two variables annually. It should be noted that the critical rate is down from 30 crashes per 0.3 mile segment when this process began to the current rate of 15 crashes.
From an initial list of 200 - 300 locations, 30 locations are selected for further analysis and possible improvement. The initial list is circulated within Delaware DOT to account for any overlap of sites with existing projects (for simple paving and rehabilitation to total corridor projects). Once this is done, the 30 sites with the highest rates are then studied by a consulting firm.
The consulting firm prepares a Task I report which identifies crash patterns and preliminary improvements. A benefit/cost analysis is used. For the purpose of this benefit/cost analysis, $200,480 is used for both fatal and injury crashes and $2,227 is used for a PDO crash. Collision data, traffic volume data and other information are reviewed for each site prior to review in the field. All locations in Task I are investigated, and minor improvements such as signing, striping and lighting are implemented immediately. Sites that have no discernable pattern or deficiency are eliminated. The results of the Task I effort are reviewed by a Highway Safety Improvement Program Committee, which includes representatives from Planning, Traffic, Design and Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO's). The personnel on this committee have decision making authority. For those locations requiring further study, they are advanced to Task II.
Projects under Task II are more detailed and are developed much like other projects in the Capital Improvement Program, although the emphasis is on safety. Except for small, low impact projects, public involvement is a part of the project development process and one or more workshops for each project are held. Del DOT uses a computer simulation and visualization program to enhance photographs of the existing roadway under evaluation. The program shows how the improvement will look if it is constructed.
Prior to handoff of Task II projects to the appropriate office, an internal technical team meets as needed to review all safety projects. The project is handed off to Highway Operations for implementation or to Pre-Construction for design.
The Division of Planning produces an annual report on its HSIP, which describes the projects implemented and includes evaluations of larger completed safety projects. Periodic evaluation reports are also produced. One such evaluation consisted of a 3-year "before" and 5-year "after" study of a centerline rumble strip project which covered 3 miles of a rural, undivided roadway. Prior to implementation, 6 fatalities occurred along this segment. Following implementation, there were no fatalities despite a significant increase in the volume of traffic.
The State has a separately funded Safety Pool, which is one of several "pools" within Del DOT, for projects funded from sources other than with Federal-aid. The HSIP manager is responsible for the Safety Pool. The pool managers meet monthly. These meetings help to coordinate activities and prevent overlap. For example, a project to install skid resistant treatment in Task II would be dropped from Task II if the location is part of a separate reconstruction project by another section in another "pool." All pool managers make safety the highest priority as defined by the Del DOT mission statement, which is "to provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation network that offers a variety of convenient, cost-effective mobility opportunities for people and the movement of goods."
Del DOT also investigates complaints. If warranted, an improvement may be added to the Task II project list or placed in the State's separately funded safety pool.
Del DOT has developed a brochure, "Highway Safety," which describes its highway safety improvement program.
Best Practices Identified
Overview
Florida currently has 115,416 miles of public road mileage, with approximately 12,000 miles maintained by the State.
In 1999, Florida experienced 2,626 fatal crashes and 2,918 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 2.06 fatalities per 100 MVM of travel. Since 1989, the number of fatalities in Florida has declined by 2.2 percent and the fatality rate has declined by 24.8 percent.
In FY 2001, Florida was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $4,686,707 |
| Hazard Elimination | 6,248,540 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 28,328,499 |
| Total Safety | $ 39,263,746 |
The major highway safety programs are administered by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The Hazard Elimination Program, including crash information, and the Section 402 Program are administered by the FDOT Safety Office. This Office is also the focal point for Florida's Safety Management System (SMS). The State's Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program is administered by the Railroad Safety Office. The Governor's Highway Safety Representative is the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Planning and Engineering.
In Florida, considerable work is carried out at the District level. The State is divided into seven Districts, plus a Turnpike District. By statute, each District receives funds by formula. Each District has a Safety Engineer, who reports to the District's Traffic Engineer, and a law enforcement liaison.
Florida law requires that FDOT have a Safety Management System (SMS) as one of its tools to provide information that is needed to make informed decisions regarding the proper allocation of transportation resources. Florida's SMS consists of a steering committee, which holds quarterly meetings at different locations throughout the State. There are currently 9 SMS subcommittees (Traffic Records, Driving Under the Influence, Legislation, Education, Communication, Roadway Safety, Traffic Safety and Community Policing, Pedestrian/Bike-In-line Skate, and Truck Safety).
Local cities and counties have become involved in the SMS process through Community
Traffic Safety Teams (CTST's). These teams are locally based groups of highway
safety advocates committed to solving traffic safety problems through a comprehensive,
multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary approach. There are currently 51 CTST's
in the State.
The CTST's receive some Section 402 funds from FDOT, which also provides a CTST coordinator.
Description of Processes
In 1991, FDOT developed an extensive Highway Safety Improvement Program Guideline to assist District and Safety Engineers in identifying hazards, developing and implementing safety improvement projects, and evaluating safety programs and projects. The processes are currently undergoing revision.
The State has both a long form and a short form for reporting crashes. A police officer is required to fill out a long form if a fatality or an injury occurred. For PD crashes, which account for 40 percent of the State's crashes, filling out a long form is at the discretion of the police officer. The short form consists of 9 data fields in addition to the location of the crash. However, the State does not get information from the short forms. The State's linear reference system is used to assign a mile point to each crash report. Mile points are indexed by county and route number. Florida also has a node referencing system for use by county and route number.
About 9 counties currently have a history of crash information systems and analysis. About 6 more countywide systems are in the development stage.
The State is currently developing Regional Crash Data Centers. The goals of these centers are to provide more complete data collection (both long and short forms), more accurate data since it is handled locally, and more timely data in which crashes will be entered into the database within several days of the crash. Three counties (Seminole, Pinellas, and Alchua Counties) have systems under development. Two other counties (Broward and Hillsborough) plan to implement systems.
High crash locations and segments are identified by the State Safety Office. Crash rates are computed for selected categories. The categories are being revised (e.g. urban, rural and suburban.). The State uses rate-quality control to develop a list of high crash locations. Any section of road with a rate greater than the calculated average or critical rate is reviewed. In addition, the data are searched for concentrations of fatal crashes, percent wet weather crashes, involvement by pedestrians and bicyclists, and other special concentrations. This information is made available to the Districts. Consultants also have access to this information.
The District Safety Engineers have several choices as to how to rank potential
locations. These alternatives may include the number of crashes, the number
of injuries, or a statistical anomaly (a large difference from a set number).
Engineering studies are performed by the Districts. These studies may be done in-house or by a consultant. Some Districts may first perform a quick survey before conducting a full study. In the two District's visited, statewide crash reduction factors are utilized to estimate benefit/cost ratios.
Under guidelines established for hazard elimination projects, the limit for a project is $500,000 but this amount could go higher.
Evaluations of safety projects are currently done by the State Safety Office. Projects on the State system are evaluated using 3 years of "before" and 3 years of "after" data.
In the two FDOT Districts visited (District 1 in Bartow and District 5 in Deland), CTST's were very active and the Districts also play an active role. The CTST's generally meet monthly to discuss local safety issues, study identified problems, and send recommendations to appropriate agencies for action.
In an effort to be more proactive for CTST's, non-crash based projects are eligible for safety funding. Typical projects include sidewalks, pedestrian overpasses, school crossing signals, pavement markings and lighting.
With more than 5,000 crossings, Florida has an active Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program, with considerable involvement by the Districts. A priority safety list is run annually by the Railroad Safety Office and a review is made of the top 800 sites to select crossings for diagnostic reviews. Candidate crossings are sent to the District (approximately 60 locations for each District), and diagnostic reviews are made. The diagnostic team typically includes representatives from the Railroad, FDOT' Traffic Engineering, and the local city manager or traffic operations engineer. For locations in need of improvement, the Railroad provides a "generic" cost to upgrade the crossing. The State may then authorize approval for a project. The State has a Crossbuck Replacement/Improvement Program that at resulted in upgrading 1,100 crossings. It also provides funds for improving crossing surfaces. The Rail Safety Office evaluates each improvement project using 3 years of "before" and 3 years of "after" data. A systems approach is used to upgrade a series of crossings in close proximity. The State is actively making an effort to close crossings. It is also working on a web site for crossing information.
Best Practices Identified
Overview
Iowa currently has 112,811 miles of public road mileage, approximately 10,000 of which is State mileage.
In 1999, Iowa experienced 428 fatal crashes and 490 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 1.68 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM) of travel. Since 1989, Iowa has achieved a 26.3 percent decrease in its fatality rate, and a 4.7 percent decline in the number of fatalities.
In FY 2001, Iowa was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $s3,795,673 |
| Hazard Elimination | 2,700,163 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 2,977,362 |
| Total Safety | $ 9,473,198 |
Additional funding for safety is available through Iowa's Road Use Tax Fund, which includes a requirement that one-half of one percent be made available for safety. This money is used for spot improvements, traffic control devices, and safety research.
Iowa continues to maintain an active Safety Management System (SMS) through its SMS Coordinating Committee. This Committee consists of 35 members representing a mix of management and technical personnel. The Iowa Department of Transportation
(Iowa DOT) was designated as the focal point for the SMS and provides funds to the Coordinating Committee. The Director of the Iowa DOT's Transportation Safety Section currently chairs the Coordinating Committee. The Iowa DOT also has a full-time SMS coordinator, who is organizationally located in the Office of Traffic and Safety. Since the earliest planning stages of Iowa's SMS, the Iowa Department of Public Safety's (Iowa DPS) Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau (GTSB) has partnered with Iowa DOT's Office of Traffic and Safety to ensure the success of the SMS. Other members of the SMS Coordinating Committee include the Iowa Departments of Public Health and Education, local city and county entities (e.g. municipal engineers and law enforcement officers), Iowa State University, the FHWA's Iowa Division, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, highway safety engineering consultants, and private organizations including the American Automobile Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. The Committee has made a policy decision that it will be a resource for ideas in order to avoid controversy and maintain working relationships. Its key focus has been the development of a Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The plan is similar to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Iowa's strategic plan is now a toolbox for identifying several different strategies for consideration by individual agencies and by the Iowa State Legislature. Among the Coordinating Committee's other major accomplishments have been the following:
Iowa's Hazard Elimination Program is administered by the Iowa DOT's Office of Traffic and Safety under the Bureau of Engineering. Iowa's 6 District Offices play an active role in the development of projects.
The Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program is administered by Iowa DOT's Office of Rail Transportation. A hazard index is used to select projects.
The Commissioner of Iowa's Department of Public Safety is the Governor's Traffic Safety Representative. The GTSB administers Iowa's Section 402 program. Programs funded with Section 402 funds include a Traffic Engineering Assistance Program for localities, a Safety Circuit Rider Program that provides training to localities, the replacement of breathalyzers, and programs for older drivers. Iowa has the second highest percentage in the nation of drivers over 85, and the third highest percentage of drivers over 65. There are a number of Safe Communities programs in Iowa. The SMS Coordinating Committee makes funds available to local community groups.
Iowa also has an active Statewide Traffic Records Advisory Committee consisting of approximately 35 members from State and local agencies, Iowa State University, and the private sector. Among its activities is the training of police officers in the latest crash records form.
Iowa State University's Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) is a key participant in Iowa's safety programs. One such program provides safety data and analysis to Iowa's local agencies. Small agencies that do not have the capabilities to do their own safety analysis can contact CTRE for assistance. CTRE also operates the Safety Circuit Rider Program.
Description of Processes
Through its partnership with FHWA in the National Model for the Statewide Application of Data Collection and Management Technology to Improve Highway Safety, the State of Iowa has been a leader in the application of new technologies for data collection, management, and communication of safety information. The National Model project is a consortium effort. The initial membership of the consortium included Iowa DOT's Motor Vehicle Division, Iowa DPS, Iowa State Patrol and FHWA. Currently, those involved in the National Model effort include Federal, State, and more than 160 local agencies. Among the technologies utilized include pen-based computers, mobile printers, fiber optics, digital cameras, a Geographical Information System, and Global Positioning.
One of the products of the National Model Program is the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS), a customizable software tool developed by the Iowa DOT to improve its safety data collection processes. This software is currently used by 200 agencies and is also installed in 300 - 400 mobile units. With the implementation of TraCS, the time for usable data has been reduced from 18 months to 5 months. The system has been made available to other States and 4 States have taken out licenses.
Iowa's Accident Location and Analysis System (ALAS) provides a tool to analyze crash data by jurisdiction and by highway corridor. Crash data and highway data have been referenced by a link-node system. The State is in the process or converting to Global Positioning System (GPS) latitude and longitude.
Iowa has a PDO reporting threshold of $1,000. For minor crashes, the police use a short form and the State will accept driver reports for minor crashes.
For the Hazard Elimination Program, a list of the top 200 locations is generated. Equal weight is given to the number of crashes, crash rate and severity. In determining the severity of the location, Iowa used $1,000,000 per fatality and $75,000 for a serious injury.
The State will provide funds, which will include the use of Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) funds to conduct traffic safety studies. If the study determines that improvements are needed, the locality is responsible for the 10 percent matching money. Evaluations of past hazard elimination projects have been carried out by Iowa State University. Past HEP projects have had a mean benefit/cost ratio of 2.6 and a mean crash reduction of 40%.
Since 1987, the Iowa DOT has operated a Traffic Safety Improvement Program. This program is funded by one-half of one percent of the state Road Use Tax Fund. Applications may be submitted by any city, county or the Iowa DOT. There are three separate funding categories:
Iowa DOT also has County - State/Urban - State Traffic Engineering Program for improvements on primary roadways through cities and counties. The State provides 55 percent of the funding, and the localities must fund the remaining 45 percent. This program helps to accelerate projects.
Best Practices Identified
Overview
Ohio currently has 116,219 miles of public road mileage.
In 1999, Ohio experienced 1,284 fatal crashes and 1,430 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 1.36 fatalities per 100 MVM of travel. Since 1989, the number of fatalities in Ohio has declined by 19.3 percent and the fatality rate has declined by 35.2 percent.
In FY 2001, Ohio was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $6,301,744 |
| Hazard Elimination | 6,858,605 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 11,311,668 |
| Total Safety | $ 24,472,017 |
The State also provides additional money for safety.
The major highway safety programs in Ohio are administered by several agencies.
The Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT) is responsible for the Hazard Elimination Program and for the Rail Grade Separation program, a special program that was established by the State to construct grade separations. The Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program is administered by the Ohio Rail Development Commission, a free standing commission appointed by the Governor. The Commission has an agreement with Ohio DOT for planning and other support. The Secretary of Ohio DOT is a member of the Commission.
Ohio's Section 402 Program is administered by the Office of the Governor's Highway Safety Representative (OGHSR) within the Ohio Department of Public Safety (Ohio DPS). The Governor's Highway Safety Representatives is the Director of the Ohio DPS. and is also Ohio's Lieutenant Governor. The main uses of Ohio's Section 402 funds are for enforcement; education; driving under the influence; and pedestrian, bicycle and school bus safety. A problem identification process is used to determine the best use of Ohio's Section 402 funds. The State currently targets 27 counties, which account for 70% of Ohio's population. Ohio currently has 37 Safe Communities Programs. These are funded for 3 - 5 years. After that time, they must become self-supporting.
The State has a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, which includes the Governor's Highway Safety Representative; the Ohio Departments of Public Safety, Transportation and Health; the MPO Association, the Chiefs of Police Association, the Sheriffs Association; and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It consists of a Standing Committee that meets twice a year and technical groups that meet quarterly.
Ohio is divided into twelve Districts and has sixteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Funding to the Districts is based on need and includes capacity, maintenance and safety. A number of strategic initiatives have been established by the Ohio DOT to better allocate resources. One strategic initiative is the establishment of a Roadway Sufficiency Index, a composite index that considers pavement condition, bridge condition, geometrics and safety. Using this index is expected to maximize the use of funding in the most needed areas.
Description of Processes
Ohio's current crash reports utilize the Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria layout. By law, all crash reports go to the Ohio DPS, which maintains the original database. Modifications are currently being made so that localities can now enter data directly in to the Ohio DPS system. The Ohio DPS provides a database to Ohio DOT, which makes some modifications (e.g. mileage and log points). In the future, crash reports will be web-based. The data will then be available immediately.
The State has developed a High Crash Location Identification System (HCLIS) as the basis for identifying high hazard locations. This system considers crash rates, severity index and other factors. Each year, a prioritized listing of approximately 1,400 high crash locations is published. These locations are on the State's system. The Districts are required to review the top 350 locations (25% of the high crash locations) and receive instructions. The Districts have the flexibility to add projects. Localities may also propose projects and apply for funds.
The review of high crash locations within the Districts is carried out by multidisciplinary District Safety Review Teams. Ohio DOT's central Office of Traffic provides some traffic engineering support. Skid testing is done on request by the Office of Technical Services.
Localities also perform studies. They then set priorities and submit them to the District Office for funding. Localities can use Section 402 funds and other safety funds to study locations not on the State system.
Ohio DOT's central office prioritizes and funds projects. It has recently modified its criteria for the selection of projects using the following system:
Crash Frequency - 10 points
Crash Rate - 10 points
Relative Severity Index - 15 points
Equivalent Property Damage Only - 5 points
Percent Trucks - 5 points
Rate of Return - 5 points
The District Offices then have responsibility for advancing the projects.
There are a number of other efforts to help Ohio's localities. One example is The Roadway Analysis for Fatal & Injury Countermeasures (TRAFFIC) Project. At the request of a county, a TRAFFIC Assessment Team is established to perform highway safety assessments to targeted communities. These teams initially addressed engineering, but have expanded to include enforcement and emergency medical services. These assessments are generally the first step in the development of Safe Communities programs in these counties. The TRAFFIC Project is run by the Local Technical Assistance Program Center, located at Ohio State University, under a contract with the OGHSR.
The State also has established a County Surface Transportation Program which is intended to assist county engineers with roadway safety activities. It is administered by the OGHSR and is funded at $500,000 per year. The funds come from the Ohio DOT and are allocated to the Ohio County Engineers Association. High crash locations are identified and the information is passed on to local agencies who can apply for grants to correct or upgrade the sites. The funds have been used to purchase computer systems, conduct traffic engineering studies and training, and to upgrade signing.
Through a partnership between the Amish community and the Ohio Departments of Public Safety and Transportation, a study of Amish buggy safety was conducted. Although they account for less than 1% of statewide crashes, they are very severe and receive considerable attention. Also, the Amish Community attracts tourists. With assistance from Ohio State University, a series of meetings were held with the Amish community to identify safety measures that would be acceptable. Among the measures adopted was an agreement by the Ohio DOT and the counties to mow and maintain a wider shoulder on rural roads, and the adoption and promotion of an enhanced reflectorization pattern for buggies. Also a video describing the crash problem and driver actions was produced. Overall, this effort was highly successful.
Ohio has an extensive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program. A corridor approach is used for determining crossings to be improved. More elements are considered under this approach and public information is also considered. The State has been working to close crossings for more than 10 years through a number of incentives. Up to $150,000 in State aid can be provided to a community for closing a crossing. To date, approximately 180 crossings (3% of Ohio's crossings) have been closed. In 1995, as a result of a fatal crash and subsequent settlement of a law suit, the Angels on Track Program was established with trust funds to help localities to improve crossings. To be eligible for funding, a task force is required. There are currently 12 task forces in the State. One county has recently submitted a proposal to install lights and gates at one crossing and to close another crossing. The State will provide technical support. Ohio is developing an inventory of its crossings that will consist of a minimum of 4 digital photographs at each of its approximately 6,400 crossings. Data will be collected on the road within 300 feet of the railroad crossing and will include an identification of the crossing, X-Y coordinates, road profile, a sketch of the site, traffic control devices, and the number of lanes. This information is now on the Internet. The State is an active participant in regional conferences, which began in 1990 with the States comprising two former FHWA regions. The conference has grown to 14 States. Meeting sponsors and organizers rotate annually. A notebook is developed for each conference and passed on to the State that will host the next conference.
Ohio's Railroad Grade Separation Program is a 10-year, $200 million program to construct grade separations. Funding for this program has been established as follows:
Ohio DOT - $120 million (60%)
Ohio Rail Development Commission - $20 million (10%)
Federal Earmarking - $20 million (10%)
Railroads - $20 million (10%)
Localities - $10 million (5%)
Legislature - $10 million (5%)
A subcommittee of the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) oversees this program. There is also a technical advisory committee which provides support to the TRAC Subcommittee. The technical advisory committee performs a qualitative assessment of project applications and recommends projects to the TRAC Subcommittee. During the most recent period for the submittal of applications, 74 applications were received totaling $450 million.
Best Practices Identified
Overview
Oregon currently has 68,481 miles of public road mileage.
In 1999, Oregon experienced 367 fatal crashes and 414 traffic fatalities. The State's fatality rate in 1999 was 1.19 fatalities per 100 MVM of travel, ranking among the lowest in the nation. Since 1989, Oregon's fatality rate has declined by 50.6 percent. Between 1998 and 1999, the number of fatalities declined by more than 100.
In FY 2001, Oregon was apportioned the following safety setaside amounts from the Surface Transportation Program:
| Highway-Rail Grade Crossings | $2,194,099 |
| Hazard Elimination | 2,375,012 |
| Optional Safety Amount | 4,613,051 |
| Total Safety | $ 9,182,162 |
All of the major safety programs are administered by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) including the Hazard Elimination Program, the Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Program and the Section 402 Program. Oregon's Governor's Highway Safety Representative is the manager of ODOT's Traffic Safety Division.
Oregon's State legislature mandates that $100 million per year, approximately 25 percent of all of the State's highway funding, be spent on safety. ODOT maintains a database of how these funds are spent on projects and reports this information to the legislature.
ODOT has five regions. Each region has a full-time Transportation Safety Coordinator to handle both behavioral and engineering aspects of safety. Some coordinators concentrate more on the behavioral aspects, while other focus on engineering. The emphasis usually depends on the needs of the region and on the experience of the coordinator.
The Hazard Elimination Program in Oregon is administered by the ODOT's Traffic Management Section, which has a Hazard Elimination Program coordinator.
Oregon has a Safety Management System (SMS) that has been approved by the FHWA Division Office. The SMS consists of two components: a Project Safety Management System and an Information Safety Management System. The Oregon State University conducts a 3-day SMS course that is partially funded by ODOT.
ODOT has a 4-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program that is updated every two years. It has a financial plan for managing Federal funds. It also has a large project management system with details for monitoring projects. Each month, a group, including safety, meets to review obligations, unobligated funds, and the status of projects.
Oregon has also made a major effort to emphasize safety on all of its projects. About 3 years ago, Oregon developed the State Transportation Improvement Program-Safety Investment Program (STP-SIP) which provides separate funding (approximately $16 million per year) to address safety issues on preservation projects.
Description of Processes
In Oregon, drivers report property damage only crashes over $1,000. Fatal and injury crashes are recorded by the police on statewide forms that are used by all jurisdictions.
The police provide paper forms to the Department of Motor Vehicles, who in turn provide them to ODOT. ODOT then enters the data electronically. Crash records are generally recorded into the system within 90 days.
Oregon utilizes its Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) to identify candidate locations on the state system. Crash sites/sections are identified by sliding 0.1 mile segments in rural areas and 0.05 mile segments in urban areas. The SPIS index is based on three years of crash data and considers crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity. The SPIS was modified to reduce the influence of vehicle miles traveled. This index is a balancing act between using total crashes versus crash rate, and rural projects versus urban projects.
Each year a list of candidate locations to be investigated is generated and distributed to the five ODOT Regions for further investigation.
The Regions send letters to localities to identify needs. Local agencies identify their needs based on the SPIS, crash data, citizen input, input from enforcement and emergency response agencies, and road maintenance crews. Agencies that identify locations for safety improvements provide documentation to the region based on guidance developed for the Hazard Elimination Program.
The Regions send the necessary documentation for hazard elimination projects to the Traffic Management Section's Hazard Elimination Program coordinator, who then determines if the project is eligible. Eligible projects are sent back to the Regions, which then decide which projects to advance.
Regions may also apply for other safety funds from the Traffic Safety Division, such as the Roadway Safety Initiative funds for small projects up to $50,000. These are Section 402 funds.
Oregon performs evaluations on some projects based on manpower availability. The evaluations consist of 3 years of "before" and 3 years of "after" data.
ODOT utilizes a Countermeasure Analysis Tool (CAT), a web-based system that can be accessed from anywhere in ODOT. The CAT is used by designers to analyze different alternatives. It is a good decision-making tool and it may be also used for demonstrations to the public.
The State has a number of other programs that provide funds for additional safety improvements, especially to localities.
One of the programs is the Safety Corridors Program, which was initiated in 1989.
The available funding is $400,000 - $500,000 that may be used at the local level.
A 50 percent local match is required. The emphasis of this program is on effective, low cost countermeasures that can be implemented expeditiously, including enforcement and minor engineering improvements (e.g. signing and pavement markings). The criteria for this program includes a 3-year fatality and crash rate that is at or above the statewide average. All corridors are required to have an annual plan. The regional Transportation Safety Coordinator prepares the original plan, provides required reports, and monitors crash and fatality rates for effectiveness. There are 14 corridors, generally 5 - 10 miles in length, that are currently funded. In 13 of these corridors, the crash and fatality rates have been reduced.
Best Practices Identified
For additional detailed information about the material presented
in this report, the following people can be contacted:
Connecticut
Bonnie DuBose
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Connecticut Division
Phone: (860) 659-6703 ext. 3002
Richard Howard
Manager, Division of Traffic
Connecticut Department of Transportation
Phone: (860) 594-2710
E-mail: Richard.howard@po.state.ct.us
Delaware
Patrick Kennedy
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Delaware Division
Phone: (302) 734-5326
Randall Grunden
Safety Manager
Delaware Department of Transportation
Division of Planning
Phone: (302) 760-1245
E-mail: rgrunden@mail.dot.state.de.us
Florida
Norbert Munoz
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Florida Division
Phone: (850) 942-9650
Patrick A. Brady
Transportation Safety Engineer
State Safety Office
Florida Department of Transportation
Phone: (850) 488-3546
E-mail: patrick.brady@dot.state.fl.us
Iowa
Jerold Roche
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Iowa Division
Phone: (515) 233-7323
Joyce Emery
Program Manager
Office of Transportation Safety
Phone: (515) 239-1016
E-mail: jemerydot@yahoo.com
Ohio
Joe Glinski
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Ohio Division
Phone: (614) 280-6844
Jennifer Townley
HSIP Coordinator
Ohio Department of Transportation
Phone: (614) 466-7493
E-mail: jtownley@dot.state.oh.us
Oregon
Nick Fortey
Safety Engineer
FHWA, Oregon Division
Phone: (503) 399-5749
Chris Monsere
Hazard Elimination Program Coordinator
Traffic Management Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
Phone: (503) 986-3580
During the review, a considerable amount of information, documents, manuals, and other materials related to the various safety programs and technologies were collected from the six states visited. For more detailed information or to borrow this material contact:
Ken Epstein
Safety CBU, Office of Safety Programs
Phone: 202-366-2157
E-Mail: kenneth.epstein@fhwa.dot.gov