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


Skip to content
FacebookYouTubeTwitterFlickrLinkedIn

Safety

eSubscribe
eSubscribe Envelope

FHWA Home / Safety / Roadway Safety Professional Capacity Building / P2P Technical Assistance / Region 9 Local Road Safety Peer Exchange

Region 9 Local Road Safety Peer Exchange

Downloadable Version
PDF [189 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
September 17-18, 2013

Hosts
California Local Technical Assistance Program

California Department of Transportation

Participants

Alaska

Arizona

California

Idaho

Nevada

Utah

Washington

FHWA Office of Safety

FHWA Resource Center

U.S. DOT Volpe Center

FHWA Technology Partnership Program

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

a graphic of a yellow caution sign with four divisions: two stick figures shaking hands, a stick figure pedestrian, a four-way intersection, and a curving road

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Background

2. Peer Exchange Proceedings

3. Strategy Highway Safety Plans Noteworthy Practices

4. Transportation Safety Performance Measures

5. Highway Safety Improvement Program Noteworthy Practices

6. Opportunities for LTAP/TTAP Center and Local/Tribal Agency Involvement in the State Safety Program

7. Action Plan Highlights

8. Feedback and Suggestions

Appendix A: Event Registrants

Appendix B: Event Agenda


1. Introduction and Background

This report provides a summary of the proceedings of the Region 9 Local Road Safety Peer Exchange held in Sacramento, California on September 17 and 18, 2013. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety (HSA) sponsored the peer exchange in coordination with Region 9 of the National Local Technical Assistance Program Association (NLTAPA). The goal of the peer exchange was to facilitate the exchange of information on local road safety and explore opportunities for greater coordination and communication between FHWA, State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP) Centers, and local officials/practitioners within the States. The Peer Exchange covered the following key topics:

Region 9 States in attendance included: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Washington. Representatives from the following local agencies participated in this event: the City of Sacramento, CA; Nevada County, CA; Placer County, CA; Trinity County, CA; the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Logan, UT; Gila River Community, Sacaton, AZ; and Thurston County, WA (see Appendix A for a complete list of participants).

Return to Top


2. Peer Exchange Proceedings

The format of the Peer Exchange consisted of a series of presentations and roundtable and breakout group discussions (see Appendix B for the full agenda). Participants from each State were charged with developing action plans at the end of the workshop to address the key topics noted above in their respective States. The action plans identify strategies to address each issue, as well as resources and champions to advance those objectives.

A brief description of the peer exchange proceedings is provided below.

Welcoming Remarks

The FHWA California Division Director for National Programs and the Caltrans Office Chief for Local Assistance Bridge and Safety Programs welcomed participants to the peer exchange. The presenters discussed the challenges and opportunities that the implementation of MAP-21 presents to local road safety. The presenters also provided an overview of local road safety issues in California and stressed the value of collaboration and the free exchange of ideas.

The FHWA Office of Safety Local and Rural Road Safety (LRRS) Program Manager provided an overview of the workshop event and asked participants to introduce themselves and share their expectations. Expectations included the following:

Highway Safety Improvement Program Overview

The FHWA Office of Safety HSIP Program Manager gave an overview of HSIP to inform the conversation of the event. She also reviewed changes to the program under MAP-21.

HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. HSIP is Federally-funded and State-administered. The program underwent many changes as a result of MAP-21. MAP-21 increased HSIP funding, ended the High Risk Rural Roads Program set-aside, eliminated the requirement for States to submit a transparency report, and increased eligibility for non-infrastructure safety projects. MAP-21 also introduced a regular SHSP update cycle.

Federal requirements and support for SHSPs fall under HSIP, as does the Railway-Highway Crossing Program. SHSPs are data-driven, Statewide, comprehensive transportation safety plans that identify safety emphasis areas and strategies to facilitate coordination among State safety stakeholders. The SHSP is intended to guide HSIP investment decisions. This approach results in a systematic and repeatable process, defensible decisions, and, ultimately, the prevention of traffic fatalities and serious injury crashes. Increasing and sustaining local involvement in HSIP and SHSP processes is a major challenge and a key focus of the peer exchange.

Local Technical Assistance Program Safety Data Program Performance

The Program Manager for LTAP/TTAP at the FHWA Technology Partnership Program presented an overview of the activities and accomplishments of LTAP/TTAP Centers across the country. There is an LTAP Center in every State and Puerto Rico and there are seven TTAP Centers. Most LTAPs are housed within universities or State DOTs. The flexibility of LTAP/TTAP allows Centers to partner with State DOTs to address the needs of local agencies through training, technical assistance, technology transfer, and communications and marketing.

NLTAPA represents the 58 LTAP and TTAP Centers in the United States. The Federal Highway Administration and NLTAPA have instituted the Joint Safety Program to support the integration of roadway safety into LTAP/TTAP. An overview of the LTAP/TTAP roadway safety accomplishments report for 2012 identified ongoing successes and areas of opportunity for LTAP/TTAP Centers to improve roadway safety through the training, technical assistance, communications, and other services that they provide. Common training and education activities at LTAP/TTAP Centers include: offering relevant National Highway Institute (NHI) and Resource Center trainings, identifying gaps in road safety training available, and delivering original courses to address specific needs. Although every LTAP/TTAP Center operates differently a number of Centers provide local agencies access to safety data, assist local agencies in solving local safety problems, and coordinate among local agencies and connect them to State DOTs.

Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local and Rural Road Owners

A representative from the FHWA Resource Center explained the benefits of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) as part of the local road safety planning process and discussed the steps in the development of an LRSP.

LRSPs are locally-coordinated safety plans that provide a comprehensive, flexible framework that draws upon the 4Es of safety: engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services. LRSPs may result in increased funding for safety improvements in locations where such funding has not traditionally been available, as they help local agencies identify potential safety projects and funding sources for those projects. LRSPs also raise the safety awareness of local officials and may help to establish productive partnerships among local, regional and State officials. The success of an LRSP often depends upon the presence of a local champion, the clarity of the plan's mission, collaboration between partners, and open lines of communication.

Steps in the development of an LRSP include the following:

The FHWA Office of Safety document " Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners" provides more detailed information on the development of LRSPs.

State Summary Presentations

Representatives from each State offered a brief overview of local safety efforts in their State, emphasizing challenges and best practices associated with safety data, management of the HSIP, and local involvement in the SHSP. The presentations were followed by a roundtable discussion of noteworthy practices mentioned in the presentations. Examples of noteworthy practices highlighted by participants included the following:

Return to Top


3. Strategy Highway Safety Plans Noteworthy Practices

Participants heard from three select peers regarding strategies for including local agencies in the development of SHSPs. These presentations were followed by a break-out group discussion highlighting the challenges of encouraging local involvement and identifying possible strategies to engage locals in the development of SHSPs.

Washington Noteworthy Practices

As a Target Zero State, Washington has set a goal of zero fatalities and serious injury crashes Statewide by 2030. Washington State is currently on their fourth version of the SHSP. Their update process includes local involvement in the following ways:

Idaho Noteworthy Practices

ITD is currently on the third update of its SHSP. The agency selects emphasis areas based on the economic cost of crashes, the breakdown for which is included in their SHSP. ITD's SHSP update process includes local involvement in the following ways:

Gila River Indian Community Noteworthy Practices

The Gila River Indian Community is located south of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. The Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation (GRICDOT) includes multiple departments, including Planning, Construction and Engineering, and Road Maintenance. Gila River is currently developing the first Tribal Safety Plan in Arizona. GRICDOT's SHSP process involves the following actions:

Break-out Group Discussion

Table 1 summarizes the result of facilitated discussions on the challenges of getting local involvement in the SHSP, whether the SHSP is tailored for local involvement, and possible strategies to get local agencies involved in the SHSP and maintain their interest.

Table 1. Local Involvement in the SHSP: Challenges and Strategies

Challenges Strategies
  • Many local agencies fail to see the value of the SHSP or are not aware that it exists.
  • Local agencies may not understand the SHSP process and how it fits into safety expenditures.
  • The location of meetings requires travel for many stakeholders, which hinders local participation.
  • There is a perception that participation in the SHSP is not appropriate for local agencies.
  • Participation in the SHSP is not a top priority for local agencies.
  • Local agencies lack the staff time or other resources necessary to be involved in the SHSP.
  • Emphasis areas and Statewide trends may not collectively apply to rural and urban areas.
  • Local agencies struggle to collect, coordinate, and analyze data on local roads.
  • Tribal safety issues may go unreported.
  • It is challenging to maintain local commitment in the long term.
  • The available tools do not correspond to the challenges faced.
  • Demonstrate that the initiatives and outputs of the SHSP directly affect the daily business of local agencies.
  • Identify local safety champions to foster excitement for and participation in the SHSP process.
  • Use regional meetings or videoconferencing technology to lessen travel barriers; fund travel for local agency participation
  • Have State DOT visit local government units.
  • Hold a rotating safety summit across the State, or organize county-level safety summits.
  • Demonstrate the value of data for local road safety improvements to those responsible for its collection.
  • Develop a systematic approach to addressing anecdotal data.
  • Form coalitions with representation from MPOs, LTAP/TTAP Centers, county commissioners, etc.
  • Use the LTAP Center as a local coordinator to facilitate change.
  • Organize an annual executive leadership meeting—with Federal, State, and local leadership—to keep stakeholders on the same page.
  • Promote the SHSP through organizations such as the American Public Works Association or the National Association of Regional Councils.

Return to Top


4. Transportation Safety Performance Measures

The FHWA Office of Safety HSIP Program Manager gave an overview of transportation safety performance measures under MAP-21. MAP-21 requirements establish safety as one of seven performance goals. MAP-21 will require States and MPOs to:

One key issue related to safety performance management is defining performance in terms of serious injuries by rate and number. As a performance measure, the term " serious injuries" presents a challenge due to the lack of a consistent definition, the lack of consistent coding conventions, and inconsistent data collection based on the determinations of law enforcement officials.

The notice of proposed rulemaking for Transportation Safety Performance Measures under MAP-21 is expected in Spring 2014. An effective date of all performance management rulemaking has tentatively been set for Spring 2015.

Although the final performance management rule is not yet in place, quantifiable data is already helping States measure safety impacts and set usable performance measures; 47 States currently incorporate quantitative safety goals in their SHSP.

Return to Top


5. Highway Safety Improvement Program Noteworthy Practices

Participants heard from three select peers regarding strategies to improve highway safety through HSIP.

Caltrans Noteworthy Practices

California's local rollout of HSIP under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) funded a number of projects that were not fully ready for implementation. In recent years, Caltrans DLA has shifted to a more data-driven program that uses existing Statewide crash data. California's HSIP process now recognizes a variety of safety needs and effectively compares widely-varying projects: urban and rural projects, systemic and spot location projects, and motorized and non-motorized projects. Caltrans DLA was able to make this transition through the following measures:

Alaska Noteworthy Practices

As a sparsely-populated State without a contiguous Statewide roadway network, Alaska does not have traditional local roads initiatives. The State's extreme geography and abundant wildlife present several challenges to local road safety. In the State's remote communities, many trips are made by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and snowmobiles, which present crash reporting issues. In administering Alaska's HSIP program, ADOT&PF has adopted the following strategies:

Under the HSIP program, Alaska's LTAP and TTAP Centers plan to facilitate the creation of safety plans for tribal governments, develop web-based training tools, and host " rural modes" safety summits.

Thurston County, WA Noteworthy Practices

Thurston County's HSIP-funded projects have increased greatly in recent years. In 2005, Thurston County was awarded $500,000 in HSIP funding, with a focus on updating existing infrastructure. In 2009, $550,000 was awarded. In 2010 and 2013, $2.4 million was allocated to Thurston County. Many of the improvements were made based on a pilot study that reviewed projects through a prioritized process using the new Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. These improvement projects included guardrail and delineation, rumble strips, curve sign warning, and extension lines at curves. As a result of this shift toward data-driven improvement projects, Thurston County has experienced a 31 percent total crash rate reduction and a 30 percent reduction in fatal crash rates since 2005.

Safety tools currently used by Thurston County Public Works in the HSIP application process include:

Table 2 summarizes the result of facilitated discussions on challenges to allocating HSIP funds to local agencies, strategies that address these challenges, and noteworthy practices for managing local projects.

Table 2. HSIP Project Selection and Implementation: Challenges and Noteworthy Practices

Challenges Strategies
  • Local and tribal resources to administer projects or conduct data analysis to identify safety needs are limited.
  • Local partners do not understand how HSIP decisions are made due to lack of transparency.
  • A lack of understanding of HSIP discourages local agencies from applying.
  • Tribal roads are often left out of HSIP projects and Tribes may be reluctant to work with State DOTs on safety.
  • Local agencies do not see the value of applying for HSIP funds.
  • Once an agency has been denied funds it perceives the application process as difficult.
  • There are too many local agencies to select all local applications for HSIP funds.
  • Local governments are at a disadvantage due to a lack of data on local roads.
  • Competing priorities (e.g., rural vs. urban; spot vs. systemic improvements) frustrate potential applicants.
  • Benefit/cost ratios are often biased toward urban areas due to the high population density. The perception of inequitable funding allocation discourages smaller counties from applying for funding.
  • Provide additional training and technical assistance for local agencies (e.g., CMF workshops, rural-only HSIP webinars, advance notice of opportunities).
  • Establish a data-driven, procedural application and selection process to minimize the political nature of project selection.
  • Conduct quarterly meetings with MPOs, counties, and other jurisdictions to answer questions about funding availability and project timeframes.
  • Conduct a tribal safety summit to communicate the value of HSIP-funded projects.
  • Assign project managers from the State DOT to manage or shepherd local HSIP projects.
  • Elevate safety culture by developing a local focus guidance document and specifying minimum data requirements for HSIP applications.
  • Set aside funding for specific districts, counties, or groups of counties.
  • Take advantage of the Resource Center's safety training, which can be adjusted to suit local needs.
  • Provide data directly to local agencies or conduct data analysis on their behalf.

Return to Top


6. Opportunities for LTAP/TTAP Center and Local/Tribal Agency Involvement in the State Safety Program

After each group reported back from their respective break-out sessions, the facilitator led a roundtable discussion on opportunities for engaging the LTAP/TTAP Centers and local/tribal practitioners. Participants were encouraged to note ideas about how to involve LTAP/TTAP and local and tribal personnel in the State safety process. They identified the following practices for Centers and State DOTs to accomplish together:

Recommended activities where LTAP/TTAP Centers should take the lead were identified, as follows:

Return to Top


7. Action Plan Highlights

At the end of the event, the State DOT, FHWA Division Office, and LTAP/TTAP representatives of each State met together to discuss actions and strategies for improving their local road safety programs. The resulting action plan also set goals and objectives and identified the resources and champions needed to move actions forward. Representatives from each State reported out to the group the results of their action planning sessions.

Key actions included:

Return to Top


8. Feedback and Suggestions

In the evaluations, participants stated that they appreciated learning that they are not alone in facing local road safety challenges. They noted that it was valuable to learn about the flexibility in how HSIP is used in different States, as well as the variation in how safety programs are administered. The most valuable aspects of the event included the opportunity to learn from peer presentations, network with peers, discuss issues in breakout sessions, and develop Action Plans to coordinate actions for improving local road safety. Suggestions for improvements to the event included adding more discussion on project implementation and tribal involvement in SHSP and HSIP. Participants consistently noted their interest in following up with the Action Plans. One attendee wrote, " Will there be follow-up on Action Plans? If we want this Peer Exchange to be beneficial, there should be!”

Return to Top


Appendix A: Event Registrants

FHWA/Volpe
Craig Allred
Transportation Specialist
FHWA Resource Center
Business Phone: 720-963-3236
Business Email: craig.allred@dot.gov
Karen Scurry
Transportation Specialist
FHWA Office of Safety
Business Phone: 609-637-4207
Business Email: karen.scurry@dot.gov
Rosemarie Anderson
Transportation Specialist
FHWA Office of Safety
Business Phone: 202-366-5007
Business Email: rosemarie.anderson@dot.gov
Greg Schertz
Safety Discipline Champion
FHWA Office of Federal Lands Highway
Business Phone: 720-963-3764
Business Email: greg.schertz@dot.gov
Andrew Berthaume
Community Planner
U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Business Phone: 617-494-3159
Business Email: andrew.berthaume@dot.gov
Susan Smichenko
Community Planner
U.S. DOT Volpe Center
Business Phone: 617-494-3438
Business Email: susan.smichenko@dot.gov
Cameron Ishaq
Management Consultant
Fasterhorse LLC
Business Phone: 301-661-9110
Business Email: cameron.ishaq@fasterhorse.com
Jeffrey Zaharewicz
LTAP/TTAP Program Manager
FHWA Office of Technical Services
Business Phone: 703-235-0991
Business Email: jeffrey.zaharewicz@dot.gov
Adam Larsen
Federal Lands Highway
TPP Tribal Coordinator
Business Phone: 360-619-7751
Business Email: adam.larsen@dot.gov
 
Alaska
Al Fletcher
Field Operations Engineer/Safety Team Leader
FHWA Alaska Division Office
Business Phone: 907-586-7245
Business Email: al.fletcher@dot.gov
Matt Walker
Asst. State Traffic & Safety Engineer
Alaska DOT & Public Facilities
Business Phone: 907-465-6963
Business Email: matthew.walker@alaska.gov
Arizona
Mona Aglan-Swick
HSIP State Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
Business Phone: 602-712-7374
Business Email: maglan-swick@azdot.gov
Rebecca Mayher
AZ LTAP/ITD Tech Program Manager
AZ LTAP/Arizona Department of Transportation
Business Phone: 602-687-2940
Business Email: mayher@azdot.gov
Kelly LaRosa
Transportation Safety Specialist
FHWA Arizona Division Office
Business Phone: 602-382-8991
Business Email: kelly.larosa@dot.gov
Patrick Stone
Local Public Agency Program Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
Business Phone: 602-712-4428
Business Email: pstone@azdot.gov
California
Hector Barron
City Traffic Engineer
City of Sacramento, Department of Public Works
Business Phone: 916-808-2669
Business Email: hbarron@cityofsacramento.org
Stephanie Holloway
Associate Civil Engineer/Traffic Safety
Placer County Department of Public Works - Transportation
Business Phone: 530-745-7551
Business Email: shollow@placer.ca.gov
Jesse Bhullar
Chief, Bridge and Safety Programs
Caltrans
Business Phone: 916-653-4231
Business Email: jesse_bhullar@dot.ca.gov
Richard Ke
Safety Program Coordinator
Caltrans
Business Phone: 916-653-4727
Business Email: richard.ke@dot.ca.gov
Steven Castleberry
Public Works Director
Nevada County Public Works
Business Phone: 530-265-1718
Business Email: steven.castleberry@co.nevada.ca.us
Lori Kempley
HQ - Asst. Training Coordinator - Local Assistance
Caltrans - Local Assistance
Business Phone: 916-651-6548
Business Email: lori_kempley@dot.ca.gov
Ted Davini
Local Safety Program Manager
Caltrans
Business Phone: 916-651-8256
Business Email: ted.davini@dot.ca.gov
Ken Kochevar
Safety Program Manager
FHWA - California Division Office
Business Phone: 916-498-5853
Business Email: ken.kochevar@dot.gov
Chris Engelmann
Transportation Engineer
Caltrans
Business Phone: 805-542-4690
Business Email: chris.engelmann@dot.ca.gov
Kevan Shafizadeh
Technical Director
California LTAP
Business Phone: 916-278-5348
Business Email: shafizadeh@csus.edu
Michelle Gianini
Project Director
California LTAP - California State University, Sacramento
Business Phone: 916-278-6174
Business Email: gianinim@csus.edu
Rick Tippett
Director of Transportation
Trinity County
Business Phone: 530-623-1365
Business Email: rtippett@trinitycounty.org
Gabe Hernandez
Program Manager
Sacramento State/CA LTAP
Business Phone: 916-278-4805
Business Email: ghernandez@csus.edu
Arianna Valle
Safety Engineer
FHWA - California Division Office
Business Phone: 916-498-5992
Business Email: arianna.valle@dot.gov
Idaho
Kelly Campbell
Research Analyst, Principal
Idaho Transportation Dept./Office of Highway Safety
Business Phone: 208-334-8105
Business Email: kelly.campbell@itd.idaho.gov
Laila Kral
T2 Manager
Idaho Technology Transfer Center/LHTAC
Business Phone: 208-344-0565
Business Email: lkral@lhtac.org
Bruce Drewes
Idaho Technology Transfer Center/LHTAC
Business Phone: 208-344-0565
Business Email: bdrewes@lhtac.org
 
Nevada
Juan Balbuena
Safety/Local Public Agency Program Engineer
FHWA Nevada Division Office
Business Phone: 775-687-8582
Business Email: juan.balbuena@dot.gov
Ken Mammen
Acting Chief Safety Engineer
Nevada Department of Transportation
Business Phone: 778-888-7459
Business Email: kmammen@dot.state.nv.us
Jim Nichols, P.E.
Program Director
Truckee Meadows Community College
Business Phone: 775-829-9022
Business Email: jnichols@tmcc.edu
Leah Sirmin
Planning & Research Program Manager
FHWA Nevada Division Office
Business Phone: 775-687-8580
Business Email: leah.sirmin@dot.gov
Utah
Nicholas Jones
Director
Utah LTAP
Business Phone: 435-770-6873
Business Email: nick.jones@usu.edu
Jeff Gilbert
Transportation Planner
Cache MPO - Logan, UT
Business Phone: 435-755-7634
Business Email: jeff.gilbert@cachecounty.org
Washington
Don Petersen
Safety & Geometric Design Engineer
FHWA Washington Division Office
Business Phone: 360-534-9323
Business Email: don.petersen@dot.gov
Matthew Enders
Technical Services Manager
WSDOT
Business Phone: 360-705-6907
Business Email: matthew.enders@wsdot.wa.gov
Scott Davis, P.E.
Traffic Engineering & Operations Manager
Thurston County Public Works
Business Phone: 360-867-2345
Business Email: davissa@co.thurston.wa.us
 
Tribal Representatives
Byron Bluehorse
Program Manager
Alaska TTAP
Fairbanks, Alaska
Business Phone: 907-474-1580
Business Email: bdbluehorse@alaska.edu
Sasha Saliego
Transportation Planner
Gila River Indian Community
Sacaton, AZ
Business Phone: 520-562-6306
Business Email: sasha.pachito@gmail.com

Return to Top


Appendix B: Event Agenda

Region 9 - Local Road Safety Peer Exchange Agenda
Sacramento, CA
September 17 and 18, 2013

September 17, 2013
8:00 - 8:30 A.M. Welcoming Remarks
Maiser Khaled, Director for National Programs, FHWA CA Division
Jesse Bhullar, CalTrans

Workshop Overview
Rosemarie Anderson, FHWA Office of Safety

8:30 - 9:00 A.M. Participant Introductions
9:00 - 10:00 A.M. Presentations
Highway Safety Improvement Program Overview
Karen Scurry, FHWA Office of Safety

FHWA LTAP/TTAP Safety Data Program Performance
Jeffrey Zaharewicz, LTAP/TTAP Program Manager, TPP, FHWA

County Road Safety Plans
Craig Allred, FHWA Safety & Design Technical Services Team

10:00 - 10:15 A.M. Break
10:15 - 12:00 P.M. State Presentations
Brief presentation by each State on local safety efforts in data, SHSP, and HSIP
Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Washington
12:00 - 1:00 P.M. Lunch
1:00 - 1:45 P.M. Facilitated Roundtable Discussion
Noteworthy practices from the State presentations
1:45 - 2:45 P.M. Presentations
Strategic Highway Safety Plans - LTAP/TTAP and Local/Tribal Agency involvement in the State SHSP process - Development, Implementation & Marketing
  • Matthew Enders, Washington DOT
  • Kelly Campbell, Idaho DOT and Laila Kral, Idaho Technology Transfer Center
  • Sasha Pachito, Gila River Indian Community Department of Transportation
2:45 - 3:00 P.M. Break
3:00 - 4:00 P.M. Breakout Groups
SHSP and Local Involvement Challenges
  • Challenges getting local involvement
  • Is the SHSP tailored for local involvement?
  • Strategies to get locals involved and maintain their interest
4:00 - 4:30 P.M. Report Out
4:30 - 5:00 P.M. Wrap Up
September 18, 2013
8:00 - 8:30 A.M. Recap of Day 1
8:30 - 9:15 A.M. Facilitated Roundtable Discussion
Safety Performance Measures
  • Overview Presentation
    • FHWA MAP-21 Performance Measures
      Karen Scurry, FHWA Office of Safety
  • Open Discussion
    • Data requirements
    • How will local agencies support State performance targets?
9:15 - 10:15 A.M. Presentations - Highway Safety Improvement Program
Administration, Project Selection, Collaboration, Allocation of Funds to Locals/Tribes
  • Ted Davini, Caltrans
  • Matt Walker, Alaska DOT
  • Scott Davis, Thurston County, WA
10:15 - 10:30 A.M. Break
10:30 - 11:30 A.M. Breakout Groups
Highway Safety Improvement Program Project Selection and Implementation
  • Challenges to Allocating Funds to Locals
  • Strategies Addressing Identified Challenges
  • Managing Local Projects
  • Identify Each Agency's Role
11:30 - 12:00 P.M. Report Back
12:00 - 1:00 P.M. Lunch
1:00 - 1:45 P.M. Facilitated Roundtable Discussion
  • Lead-in presentation
    • Future CA LTAP Safety Efforts, Steven Castleberry, Nevada County, CA
  • Open Discussion
    • Opportunities for LTAP/TTAP Centers and Local/Tribal Agency Involvement in the State Safety Program
1:45 - 3:00 P.M. Action Planning - Breakout Groups by State
Each State will develop an Action Plan based on Lessons Learned
3:00 - 3:45 P.M. Report Back
3:45 - 4:00 P.M. Wrap Up (Next Steps), 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