State Practices for Local Road Safety (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 model local road safety practices that can be adapted to enhance existing local road safety efforts. FHWA’s domestic scan document, Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads, presented the practices of state DOTs in the planning, programming, and implementation efforts to improve local road safety (Anderson et al. 2010). There is a need to synthesize these efforts and provide examples of effective state and local agency partnership practices to help other states. This study will provide state DOTs and their local agencies with use- ful information on successful partnerships to address the reduction of crashes on local roads. SYNTHESIS OBJECTIVE The objective of this synthesis is to document state pro- grams and practices that address local road safety. These programs and practices may include those that are using data- driven approaches to addressing local road safety. The project gathered information from states and a sample of local agen- cies involved in finding new or innovative ways to address local road safety. This synthesis will help identify local and state agencies that have a track record of working together to successfully deliver projects, and will reveal programs and practices that benefit both state DOTs and local agencies. This synthesis was preceded by NCHRP 20-24, Task 87: State DOT Administration of Local Road Safety Aid, which was oriented to chief executive officers of state DOTs, and which studied how state DOTs organize themselves to admin- ister safety programs on local roads (Preston et al. 2014). This synthesis study built on NCHRP 20-24, Task 87 and delved more deeply into current practice. Information gathered on state’s local road programs included: • Size of state program, funding, and staff. • HSIP split and other funding sources. • Administrative procedures: – Process for applying for funds; – Competitive or not; – Audit procedure; – Bidding procedures; and – Use of consultants, Local Technical Assistance Pro- gram (LTAP) centers, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). • Data used to identify recipient agencies and projects. This chapter introduces background information and high- lights the importance of coordinated safety programs by state departments of transportation (DOTs) to improve the safety of a state’s local roads. The survey, interview processes, and organization of the report will also be presented. BACKGROUND According to U.S.DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, approximately 76% of all road miles in the United States are owned and maintained by local entities, such as towns, coun- ties, and other municipalities (State Transportation Statistics 2014). Based on the review of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for 2013, rural roads, of which is 72% are owned by local entities, contribute to approximately 54% of all fatal crashes on the U.S. highways (“Traffic Safety Facts” 2015). These data accentuate the need to systematically improve road safety on local roads. The current federal transportation law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), includes a number of safety provisions designed to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads (Public Law 112-141 2012). MAP-21 defines a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project as “strategies, activities, and projects on a public road that are consistent with a state strategic highway safety plan and correct or improve a haz- ardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem.” It also confirmed the importance of highway safety by continuing the HSIP as a core federal-aid program. One of the requirements of the HSIP is for states to prepare a Stra- tegic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that addresses the safety needs of all public roads and is developed in consultation with various stakeholders throughout their state. All states have a comprehensive SHSP that provides a framework for reducing highway fatalities and serious inju- ries on public roads. Several reports have been completed in recent years on the importance of addressing local road safety. Such reports include FHWA’s 2013 Assessment of Local Road Safety Funding, Training, and Technical Assis- tance. That report reviewed department of transportation (DOT) practices associated with local safety projects from four different topical areas: resources and information; train- ing and development; technical assistance; and project imple- mentation (Gaines et al. 2013). The report also provided chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 • Since the legislation of MAP-21, the change in the num- ber of local agencies participating in state coordinated local safety programs and the extent of state outreach to local agencies. • Recent obstacles to implementation and strategies for overcoming these obstacles. • Use of 4E (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) approaches to safety. • Noteworthy local and state program partnerships. • Recent local road safety program initiatives that have or will result in tangible safety benefits. • Status of local agencies’ local road safety plans and cor- responding funding sources. The synthesis also includes suggestions for future research based on existing gaps identified through the literature review, survey, and agency interviews. It provides a reference for transportation agencies regarding existing practices, funding approaches, and noteworthy partnerships that address local road safety issues. STUDY APPROACH A multifaceted approach was taken to document the various efforts that have been made in recent years by some states working with local public agencies to implement safety pro- grams that reduce fatalities and injuries on local roads. The approach to this study included a literature review, survey of state transportation agencies, and interviews with state and local transportation agencies in states identified as having practices that are effective in reducing crashes on local roads. The following sections provide more detail on each step in the approach. Literature Review A comprehensive literature review of federal and state sources established background information on the programs and practices that focus on the safety of local roads. A number of available resources were used, including the Transport Research International Documentation (TRID) database, Internet, and Web searches; FHWA and DOT published reports; journal publications; conference proceedings; other published media including newspaper and magazine articles; and resources of professional associations. Results of the literature review will be reflected throughout the synthesis report, primarily in chap- ter two. Particular attention was paid to references suggested in the Project Scope and other related resources. Some of these resources were guidance manuals and toolkits drafted by a number of federal agencies to address local roads safety. Survey of State Transportation Agencies The survey consisted of 73 questions and was sent to each state DOT safety engineer with a recommendation to distrib- ute portions of the survey, if needed, to other members of their organizations in the Local Programs Office and the Chief Engineer, or other state agencies such as Office of Motor Car- rier Services, Director of Department of Public Safety, and Department of Motor Vehicles, for completion and to encour- age a comprehensive and collective response to the survey. The survey was sent to contacts in each of the 50 state DOTs; Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Forty-seven agencies (94%) of all state DOTs responded to this synthesis survey. The survey questions and results are included in Appendix A of this report. Interviews with Transportation Practitioners in Ten States Based on the results of the survey and literature review, ten states were selected for additional information on practices used related to partnering with local agencies in enhancing the safety of local roads. There were a number of criteria con- sidered in the selection. The list of examples was reviewed and approved by the topic panel before detailed interviews were conducted. The first criterion was different local road ownership levels. During the survey, each state was asked to select from seven predefined ownership level categories. The organization of a local road safety program (centralized vs. decentralized) and the levels of communication among different divisions at the state DOT were other criteria con- sidered. The final criterion was the extent of crash reduction on local roads. As a result, DOT offices, local agencies, and LTAPs in the states of Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington were selected for interviews. More than 50 representatives from several agencies or organizations involved at various levels with the local roads safety enhancement contributed to this synthesis. Multiple representatives from the organizations listed in Appendix B were interviewed in person, by telephone, or through e-mail to gather input on issues and practices in their state related to addressing the reduction of crashes on local roads. A listing and sampling of documents obtained as examples of current practice are included in web-only Appen- dix D. Figure 1 is a map of the specific states reviewed and the types and locations of interviewees. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This synthesis report is organized into five chapters. The balance of chapter one presents the report’s background, objectives, and organization, and also defines key terms. The report structure is summarized with brief explanations of each chapter’s content. Chapter two describes and highlights the literature review of state safety programs and practices addressing local roads in the United States as documented in published literature and online state and local resources. Chapter three presents the results of the detailed questions posed in the survey as reported by the DOTs in their survey

5 FIGURE 1 Types of survey respondents and the location and type of interviewees. responses. The survey results provide the state of the practice on the extent to which state programs are addressing safety on local roads. This chapter also provides an overview of the various state and local programs and partnerships that demonstrate successful state coordination of safety programs with their local jurisdictions. Chapter four reviews the specific noteworthy practices of the ten states selected for further study. This information was collected through published literature, survey responses, and a series of detailed interviews with those individuals listed in Appendix B. The chapter is organized into five topic areas of practices: (1) project development and funding; (2) project delivery and operations; (3) data support; (4) education, out- reach, and technical assistance; and (5) Toward Zero Deaths (TZD). Chapter five concludes the synthesis with a summary of findings, knowledge gaps, and suggestions for further research. Also included are a glossary, references, bibliography, and five appendices. Appendix A is a copy of the survey questions and results and Appendix B lists agency or organization rep- resentatives that contributed to the corresponding synthe- sis development. Appendix C offers more details on the ten states selected for their noteworthy examples of state and local agency partnerships, including the administration, implementa- tion and oversight of innovative and/or successful safety pro- grams, practices and projects, performance measures, published results, challenges faced at the state and local levels, and the lessons learned on establishing successful partnerships. Web-only Appendix D presents several sample documents that were shared by agencies as a result of the interviews, and Appendix E includes links to resources identified through the literature review or by the agencies interviewed. DEFINITIONS Some key terms are defined here that pertain to the synthesis scope based on FHWA and published synthesis reports. Addi- tional terms are defined within the context of their relevant sections. A glossary is also included in the report that further defines acronyms and organizations discussed in the report.

6 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) was created in the United States by the NHTSA to provide an overall measure of highway safety, help suggest solutions, and provide an objective basis to evaluate the effectiveness of motor vehicle safety standards and highway safety programs. FARS contains data on a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Federal-aid projects: Projects funded with federal funds both on and off the federal-aid system, on and off the National Highway System (NHS), and off right-of-way; all phases of project delivery (planning through project close-out and reimbursement). FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool: The systemic approach to safety involves widely implemented improvements based on high-risk roadway features correlated with specific severe crash types. The approach provides a more comprehensive method for safety planning and imple- mentation that supplements and compliments traditional site analysis. It assists agencies in broadening their traffic safety efforts and considers risk as well as crash history when identi- fying where to make low-cost safety improvement locations. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal-aid program and its goal is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all pub- lic roads, including non-state-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. Local road: For purposes of this synthesis, local is used to describe roads by the type of agency—or jurisdiction—that owns and operates the facility. Therefore, local roads refer to roads and highways that are non-state owned, such as a county, city, or township agency. Local public agency (LPA): Any organization or instrumen- tality that is directly or indirectly affiliated with a government body under federal, state, or local jurisdiction. Such entities will be administrative and/or have functional responsibilities including the authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain public infrastructure facilities. Although such entities are most often associated with county, municipal, town, and township jurisdictions, and their related public works authorities, the term LPA covers a broader context to include quasi-governmental entities such as port authorities, water districts, public utili- ties, and other agency representatives of governmental enti- ties associated with all levels of government including tribal sovereignties. Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a locally focused plan that builds on a state’s SHSP, as well as provides a framework for local practitioners to identify factors that contribute to crashes. The LRSP identifies data-driven strategies to improve the safety of all local road users incorporating all 4Es of safety Local Technical Assistance Program/Tribal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP): LTAP and TTAP are com- posed of a network of 58 centers—one in every state and Puerto Rico, and regional centers serving tribal governments, with LTAP composed of a network of 51 centers—one in every state and Puerto Rico and TTAP consisting of seven regional centers serving tribal governments. Metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policy-making organization that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities. The U.S. Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, which required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs is channeled through this planning process. Congress created MPOs to ensure that existing and future expenditures of governmental funds for transportation projects, and programs are based on a continu- ing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21): Public Law (P.L.) 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 funded surface transportation programs at more than $105 billion for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): The SHSP is a data- driven plan that establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas that integrate the 4 Es of safety—engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services. Regional planning organization (RPO): An organization that performs planning for multi-jurisdictional areas. MPOs, regional councils, economic development associations, and rural transportation associations are examples of RPOs. These organizations are also sometimes referred to as a regional trans- portation planning authority, Regional Planning Affiliation, or other similar designations. Road safety audit (RSA) is the formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. It qualitatively estimates and reports on potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in safety for all road users.