Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance

2.0 Assessment Methodology

The assessment team conducted an initial literature review and research to identify documented noteworthy practices in local road safety. Based on the information collected during the initial research phase, a questionnaire was developed with input from an expert panel to collect information from all 50 States. The questionnaire was distributed and responses were received from 38 States. Follow-up interviews were conducted as needed to develop case studies. The results of the questionnaire and interviews are summarized in this report.

2.1 Questionnaire

The key baseline of the assessment was established through the use of a questionnaire. It was delivered to all 50 States in November 2012. A copy of the questionnaire and a list of the participating States are available in Appendix A. The electronic questionnaire was distributed to State safety engineers, State LTAP contacts, and HSIP coordinators. Responses were received from 38 States (76 percent response rate). The aggregated results of the questionnaire are summarized in Section 3.0 of this report.

While the survey was primarily directed at State DOTs, respondents were encouraged to reach out to local agency contacts to assist with answering the questions. Seven of the respondents worked with their State’s LTAP to answer the questions. Three States coordinated responses with other departments and/or divisions such as the DOT finance department, planning, or transit bureaus. A single respondent worked with a university traffic operations and safety laboratory to coordinate responses.

The results of the questionnaire are summarized in Section 3.0 of this report.

2.2 Interviews

While the questionnaire provided a baseline assessment of the funding and technical assistance efforts of State DOTs to improve local road safety, case study interviews were conducted with a limited number of States to collect additional information. The following criteria were used to identify States with potential noteworthy practices:

• States that obligate HSIP, HRRRP, State, or other Federal funds to local road safety projects. While this is not the only measure of a successful local road safety aid program, it does show a commitment and ability to actually obligate funds for local road safety projects.
• States that offer funding incentives to encourage local agencies to develop and implement local road safety projects. The provision of these incentives is a strong commitment to local road safety. One of the most common barriers to improving local road safety is the lack of funding available to some local agencies.
• States that provide training, technical assistance, and personnel support to local agencies. Lack of local staff and resources was identified as a major challenge by previous research reports and this assessment.
• States reporting the use of unique noteworthy practices not commonly reported in the assessment.
• States reporting the use of noteworthy practices common to a number of States.

A number of States met the above criteria. Geographic location and the size of the State were used to select a representative sample of States for interviews. Additional consideration was given to States that were not highlighted in previous studies (Such as the FHWA Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally Owned and Maintained Roads (2010).). Florida, Nebraska, California, Ohio, Louisiana, and Tennessee were selected based on questionnaire responses. This report does not include every noteworthy practice identified in recent research. Section 4.0 highlights some of the local road safety successes each of these States has accomplished.

Return to top