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.

7 data can be studied to identify the factors contributing to the crashes. 5. Prioritizing countermeasures for implementation, where a treatment is selected to address crash concerns at a site. 6. Implementing the countermeasures. 7. Evaluating the effectiveness of the countermeasures. In summary, the safety toolkit provides a step-by-step process to assist local agency and Tribal practitioners in com- pleting traffic safety analyses, identifying safety issues, pro- viding countermeasures to address them, and a designing an implementation process. The goal of this toolkit is to assist local agencies in completing the entire safety project from identification of road safety issues to project implementation process. FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool presents a process for the incorporation of systemic safety planning into pre-existing traditional safety processes (Preston et al. 2013). By providing a step-by-step process for conducting systemic safety analysis, their report makes it easier for local agencies to understand what needs to be done to implement such pro- grams. Included are suggestions for deciding when and where to use spot safety enhancements and where a full systemic safety improvement may be more efficient. This tool enables county and local government agencies to plan, implement, and evaluate systemic safety improvement programs. The report works in direct correlation with the MAP-21, which calls for data-driven decisions that reduce crash occurrences and fatalities. In addition, there is a call for more systemic safety programs to be incorporated into the traditional ideas and programs for roadway safety. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners demonstrates five critical elements in developing a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP): having an advocate champion, developing a clear vision and mission, assembling collabora- tive partners to implement the plan, allocating appropriate resources, and establishing open communication with stake- holders (Ceifetz et al. 2012). The manual also highlights the importance of LRSP as it forms the foundation of the safety consensus and focuses among various stakeholders, which ultimately leads to a proactive approach in addressing safety issues. The Safety Circuit Rider Programs Best Practices Guide provided state DOTs and LTAP centers with a guide for This chapter provides an overview and key findings of the state safety efforts throughout the United States. This infor- mation will assist in establishing a baseline of the current extent of state safety programs that address local road safety and in defining context to the noteworthy state-coordinated safety practices. An overview of the resources associated with local road safety is presented, followed by a report on each state’s safety programs and practices. OVERVIEW Many states are facing challenges to address safety issues on locally owned roads, primarily as a result of a lack of resources and/or communication between local agencies and state DOTs. Especially with MAP-21’s emphasis on public roads’ safety, many resources have been published that present tools and strategies to overcome these challenges. In 2013, FHWA produced Assessment of Local Road Safety, Funding, Training, and Technical Assistance, which summa- rizes the findings of a study on how the state DOTs allo- cate funds and resources for safety projects on a local level, with specific successful examples of state–local partnerships (Gaines et al. 2013). A checklist with a list of questions that would be helpful in identifying opportunities to enhance or initiate a local road safety program targeted to state DOTs and LTAP centers was also provided (Gaines et al. 2013). The domestic scan report Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads provided details of successful practices performed by scanned states in six areas: data collection and analysis; local project iden- tification; local project administration; funding; training and technical assistance; and partnership and outreach (Anderson et al. 2010). A FHWA safety toolkit Improving Safety on Rural, Local, and Tribal Roads provides the following seven-step analysis process in assessing the safety of rural local and tribal roads (Wemple and Colling 2014): 1. Compiling the available data. 2. Network screening, where agencies develop lists of candidate sites for safety improvements. 3. Selecting sites for investigation. 4. Diagnosing site crash conditions and identifying counter- measures. After the sites have been narrowed down, all chapter two STATE COORDINATED PROGRAMS ADDRESSING LOCAL ROAD SAFETY IN THE UNITED STATES

8 implementing a Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) program (Gross et al. 2009) The report included characteristics of existing SCR programs, information on the services provided by SCR programs, and lessons learned by the existing programs. The guide shows the effectiveness of the existing SCR programs by highlighting the program’s practices of using existing crash data to identify high-priority sites and finding low-cost safety improvements. In addition to the aforementioned literature, FHWA spon- sors a Peer Exchange series about local and rural road safety, which includes topics such as systemic safety implementation and other safety practices. In 2013, a Peer Exchange focusing on LRSP was held. An LRSP, according to FHWA (2013), is a locally focused plan that builds upon a state’s SHSP as well as provides a framework for local practitioners to identify factors that contribute to crashes. Providing the basis for the systemic implementation of safety countermeasures, the LRSP identifies data-driven strategies to improve the safety of all local road users incorporating all 4Es of safety. The FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines provide a foun- dation for local agencies to use when developing their RSA procedures and presents basic principles to encourage devel- opment of RSAs (Ward 2006). The steps for the RSA pro- cess begin with identifying a project or road in service and selecting a RSA team. Next, a pre-audit meeting would be conducted to review the project information and field obser- vations performed under various conditions. An audit analysis is followed and the findings are presented to the design team, which prepares a response and incorporates the findings into the project. A RSA provides the opportunity to proactively address safety, which can potentially lead to fewer crashes. The Low Cost Local Road Safety Solutions is a publication issued by a partnership between the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) and the National Associa- tion of County Engineers (NACE) to assist local agencies in identifying proven low-cost safety solutions for local roads, both rural and urban (ATSSA 2008). The solutions outlined in the publication cover everything from signage and pave- ment marking to median barriers and rumble strips. A more recent publication of this partnership entitled Cost Effective Local Road Safety Planning and Implementation details top- ics such as conducting a crash study, crash data and its uses, county-wide systemic safety plans, using the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) to improve local road safety, and project and corridor road safety audits (ATSSA 2011). It provides exam- ples of ten specific applications of safety countermeasures and details state DOT and local partnerships in the states of Illinois, Minnesota, Utah, and Washington. NCHRP Topic 20-24(87): State DOT Administration of Local Road Safety Aid (Preston et al. 2014) examined the organizations of state DOTs that administer programs to enhance safety on local roads and assessed the performance of alternative organizational strategies. This study provided the opportunity for understanding how state DOTs engage the local agencies and organizations in the safety process and how they determine factors that influence the DOTs in local road safety. Study results show that to lay the groundwork for successful communication between DOTs and local agencies a number of characteristics such as designated staff working as liaisons to local agencies, partnerships with MPOs, LTAPs, adequate safety funds, and a systemic safety program need to be in place. NCHRP Report 788: Guide for Effective Tribal Crash Reporting (Noyce et al. 2014) noted that many DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies are relying on data-driven crash reporting to determine the focus areas for road improvements. This report offers a map for tribal programs for implementing crash data collection systems and improving the safety of their road- ways. Insufficient crash data are a major issue in many tribal communities. Underreporting, and often times no reporting at all, is an obvious barrier for tribal communities developing and implementing safety programs. To implement the most effective safety programs, it is important that the tribes have an accurate crash database that can identify the critical areas of traffic safety in their respective tribal safety programs. NCHRP Synthesis 460: Sharing Operations Data Among Agencies (Pack and Ivanov 2014) discovered there is little documentation that quantifies the direct value of sharing interagency transportation operations data. It showed that the majority of DOTs are sharing some form of operations data with local agencies. However, most of the data being shared are basic, such as vehicle speed and crash type. State DOTs and local agencies may improve information flow and coor- dination between all agencies involved by collaborating and sharing data, and thereby can enhance the understanding of priorities and restrictions by all agencies. Based on the inter- views with the DOTs and local agencies, there are still concerns about liability with respect to sharing information and open data initiatives. NCHRP Synthesis 458: Roadway Safety Data Interopera- bility Between Local and State Agencies (Lefler 2014) found that, in terms of interoperability between state and local agencies, both have more crash data than roadway or traffic data. In addition, it was discovered that states are striving to obtain, maintain, and use safety data for local roadways to meet the federal mandate to incorporate local roadway data into a statewide base map and support analysis of that data. Local agencies are collecting some of the roadway data ele- ments that states are most in need of and most interested in collecting, including information regarding intersections and curves. Collaboration with local agencies presents a greater opportunity to populate the states’ inventories for these ele- ments. It is also essential that support of data improvement efforts come from both the state DOT and the local agency leadership. NCHRP Synthesis 321: Roadway Safety Tools for Local Agencies (Wilson 2003) reported that there are no uniform

9 safety solutions, and safety practices must be tailored to the local agencies. Reducing the local crash rate requires an increased effort by both experienced and inexperienced professionals who manage local transportation agencies. The goal is to help local agencies implement safety improvements through better organization and apply the most appropriate countermeasure to reduce crashes. The synthesis concluded that a documented local roadway safety program is the most effective safety tool. STATE OVERVIEW Based on the previous information, there were four topic areas of successful practices in which state coordinated pro- grams have been identified as improving local road safety: (1) program development and funding, (2) project delivery and operations, (3) data support, and (4) education, outreach, and technical assistance. Table 1 presents highlights of specific programs and practices by state that address the challenges that were found on FHWA and state DOT websites as well as published resources. In reviewing each state’s SHSP, it was also found that many states (39) have adopted and/or sup- port the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) initiative within its own SHSP. Based on the survey results and the interviews with ten selected states, the TZD initiative was later added as a fifth topic area. Safety programs and practices of ten selected states (Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) will be summarized in chapter four and detailed in Appendix C. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON LOCAL ROAD SAFETY State Practices Description Alabama Education, outreach, and technical assistance ALSAFE, an Alabama-specific planning level safety tool, is an initiative conducted by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Its purpose is the development of a specific planning safety tool for local agencies. It is anticipated that MPOs and states can apply the corresponding tool to address safety in the planning process. Estimated completion date is March 31, 2015 (Alabama Department of Transportation 2015). Data support A pilot project to evaluate the potential use of the United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP) in Madison and Mobile counties is underway. The output from usRAP will allow the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) to benchmark the safety of roads using crash history data and roadway inventory data. These efforts are designed to complement and supplement other highway safety management practices and assist ALDOT and local jurisdictions to provide information on performance measures. The software will enable ALDOT and local agencies to generate a program of road infrastructure improvements to enhance safety for a road network without the need for detailed site-specific crash data (Alabama Department of Transportation 2015). Data support ALDOT utilizes the University of Alabama–Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) data analysis software program, which identifies problem locations, searches for countermeasures, and is able to analyze data and generate crash diagrams (Anderson et al. 2010). Arizona Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Arizona LTAP worked with FHWA to develop a local agency grant program to provide Safety Edge equipment and training to local agencies. Safety Edge changes the shape of the pavement edge from a vertical drop-off to 30 degrees, enhancing the ability of a driver to return safely to the paved surface in run off the road situations. Most local agencies in Arizona do not have the experience or equipment to handle Safety Edge on roadway projects. LTAP promoted Safety Edge implementation at both industry and MPO meetings throughout Arizona (“FHWA Arizona Division Office . . .” 2013). California Education, outreach, and technical assistance California DOT (Caltrans) developed a Local Road Safety Manual to improve the data-driven approach to statewide safety project selections and identify locations with roadway safety issues. This manual improved the ability of local agencies to perform benefit/cost (B/C) ratio calculations for project applications. The Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Caltrans 2013) provides an outline and the tools necessary to recognize local road safety issues, as well as solutions to these problems. Georgia Program development and funding The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) developed the Off- System Safety Program (OSS) in 2005 to enhance off-system safety using a data-driven approach. OSS focuses on low-cost safety improvements that can be designed within the existing rights-of-way that are likely to reduce both the severity and frequency of crashes. Administered by the Local Grants Office, GDOT provides each of the seven districts with $1 million per year dedicated to off-system safety projects. Each of the districts hired an off-system coordinator to manage the program. These coordinators provide technical assistance and expertise to local governments in identifying projects and providing cost estimates (GDOT 2005). (continued on next page)

10 serious injury crashes per jurisdiction using five years of crash data, where the highest risk areas are identified (“Programs,” Local Highway Technical Assistance Council 2015) Project delivery and operations Another program administered by LHTAC is the Local Highway Rural Investment Program (LRHIP), which aids small local agencies with roadway construction and signage projects (Local Highway Technical Assistance Council 2015) Illinois Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Bureau of Safety Engineering created a strong partnership with law enforcement to improve local road safety. Law enforcement officers conducted safety training within IDOT and provided detailed crash report data. This partnership resulted in an increased understanding of how their safety roles complement each other (FHWA 2010). Data support IDOT also assists local public agencies (LPAs) on the use of the safety data. IDOT’s Bureaus of Safety Engineering and Local Roads and Streets offers safety analysis tools, safety data, and Highway Safety Manual training. They also provided LPAs with technical assistance in accessing safety data to identify roadway projects (State Safety Data and Analysis Systems: Noteworthy Practice 2004). Indiana Program development and funding The Hazard Elimination Project for Existing Roads and Streets (HELPERS) is a program created through Indiana’s Department of Transportation (INDOT) and the local LTAP center. Provided funding by these two entities, the goal of this program is reducing the number of and severity of crashes in Indiana by identifying local road safety issues and providing low-cost solutions to addressing these problems. Counties and towns, and cities with populations of less than 50,000 are eligible for the HELPERS program. The program provides technical assistance in areas such as crash analysis, RSAs, traffic volume counts, signal warrant analysis, ball bank studies, and low-cost improvement ideas. HELPERS is able to provide assistance to agencies not eligible or those that do not wish to apply for federal funds by providing a list of countermeasures that can be implemented (“HELPERS,” Indiana LTAP 2013). Kansas Program development and funding Education, outreach, and technical assistance According to the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), 92.5% of Kansas roadways are owned by cities, counties, and townships. Hence, the DOT developed a strategic highway safety plan specifically for local roads. A Local Roads Support Team (LRST) was formed to identify and coordinate strategies with the goal of reducing fatal crashes on local roads. The overall trend of crashes and general roadway safety on Kansas roadways is improving, but when local road safety is looked at specifically, the crash data have remained unchanged in recent years. Proposed strategies to improve local road safety in Kansas include making federal and state funds more accessible to local agencies, maximizing benefit of said funding by utilizing crash data and distributing the funds on a need basis, improving LPA access to crash data, collaborating between local and regional safety agencies, LPA training and assistance with developing safety programs and cost- effective strategies, and emphasizing law enforcement and its importance in terms of local road safety (Kansas DOT 2014). Program development and funding In 2010, KDOT developed a voluntary exchange program, the Federal Fund Exchange Program, to assist local agencies in streamlining the project implementation process on local roadways. Through this program, local agencies were able to trade all or a portion of their federal Surface Transportation Program funds with state funds or with another LPA in exchange for their local funds. This program allowed LPAs far greater flexibility in selecting local projects. Figure 2 details the corresponding fund exchange program (Kansas DOT 2014). Idaho Program development and funding Idaho’s LTAP, the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), is assisting all safety-related programs for local agencies. The Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (LHSIP) is administered by LHTAC for funding projects based on the number of fatal and TABLE 1 (continued)

11 FIGURE 2 Kansas DOT’s Federal Fund Exchange Program. Kentucky Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) uses the Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) Program to provide technical assistance and present safety information to local agencies. The Kentucky LTAP offers technical assistance and training on low-cost safety improvements to local agencies through the Safety Circuit Rider Program (Kentucky Transportation Center 2010). Program development and funding The High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) funds are used in conjunction with the program to fund improvements on horizontal curve realignments and training (FHWA 2015). Data support KYTC used the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool on the local road system to analyze county roadway corridors (FHWA 2013). Maine Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Maine Transportation Safety Coalition (MTSC) was founded by transportation safety advocates and professionals for the sole purpose of improving the safety of Maine’s roads. This coalition offers opportunities for local agencies to learn and share information at monthly meetings and through quarterly newsletters. The website promotes special events and educational materials (“About the MTSC” Maine Transportation Safety Coalition 2014). Maryland Program development and funding A leadership summit was conducted by the Maryland Management Team to address the SHSP requirements that are applied to all local roads. Data were provided on the most serious roadway safety problems in Maryland, and participants viewed the data and identified the emphasis areas. The Regional Traffic Safety Program (RTSP) is responsible for marketing programs and campaigns to local agencies, as well as providing funding. This program is comprised of ten program managers in eight regions and ensures coordination and cooperation with traditional highway safety partners. The RTSP program managers build multi-jurisdictional task forces and manage grants for the Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO) (“Regional Traffic Safety Programs” Maryland DOT 2015). Massa- chusetts Program development and funding The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) distributes two-thirds of its HSIP funding to local communities through MPOs. An RSA must be performed on the site for a project to be eligible for HSIP funding, and countermeasures identified in the RSA must be included in the project. RSAs have helped locals to identify low-cost improvements and helped improve relationships between local safety agencies and MassDOT (FHWA 2015). Nebraska Program development and funding A systemic county sign installation program was developed between the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) Local Projects Division and the Nebraska LTAP Center. The NDOR identifies high risk sites for Education, outreach, and technical assistance safety improvements, while the LTAP center provides the crash data and assists in the project application process (Gaines et al. 2013). TABLE 1 (continued) (continued on next page)

12 Nevada Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Nevada Departments of Transportation and Public Safety conducted road show meetings to educate stakeholders about the SHSP process. Participants were briefed on the zero fatality goal and the Nevada Big Book of Safety, which is a searchable list for local agencies to use for research and contact information on the traffic safety initiatives (“SHSP Stakeholder Involvement” 2011). New Jersey Data support Program development and funding The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) partnered with the Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) at Rutgers University to develop Plan4Safety, which is a web-based software tool used to analyze crash data. All local agencies have access to this software tool, and crash data can be filtered to allow for a greater in-depth analysis. Plan4Safety integrates the statewide crash data and roadway characteristic data, and provides GIS location data. Also included is a module to give local agencies access to safety grants through the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety. The Local Safety Program is an MPO administered program to support construction of safety improvements on local roads. The projects supported by this program include new traffic signals and signage, as well as pavement markings and curb ramps. For this program, projects must be quick-fixed and supported with detailed crash data analyses (Anderson et al. 2010). North Dakota Program development and funding The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) has a Local Road Safety Program (LRSP) that is divided into four phases, including a tribal phase. Each phase focuses on a certain region of the state. An LRSP manual is created for each county, with all the manuals containing consistent goals, which are to reduce the number of severe crashes by identifying high-risk areas, promoting effective low-cost treatment options, and assisting local agencies in competing for safety funding. Each portion of the state is analyzed, and treatment options are provided based on the work that needs to be done, as well as the funds available for each area. A manual is developed for each tribal area, with a focus on describing the emphasis areas, identification of a list of high-priority/low-cost safety strategies, documentation of at-risk locations that are candidates for safety investment, and development of $1 million of suggested safety projects across the reservations. The manuals for each of the regions and counties contain the same information as the tribal manuals, with the exception of the funding development for the suggested safety projects. In North Dakota, the state DOT funds the development of LRSPs for each county and dedicates 50% of their HSIP funding to local agencies (North Dakota Local Road Safety Program 2013). South Carolina Project delivery and operations The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is an example of a state that effectively used data-driven methods to implement new safety measures. By doing this, the reduction in overall crashes at 458 analyzed intersections decreased by 22%. SCDOT chose to hire a private company to install the safety devices. The installation was another step in the process that could take some time and going through a private company may have been an added expense, but ultimately allowed the safety precautions to be implemented sooner (Bergal 2014). South Dakota Program development and funding South Dakota Department of Transportation has a county wide highway signing program to identify, design, and upgrade existing signs on a system wide basis. The signs eligible for replacement include all regulatory, warning, and guide signs. Under this program, the funding is covered entirely by federal safety funds at no cost to local governments. Upon completion of the projects, the local agency is responsible for maintenance (“Countywide Highway Signing Frequently Asked Questions” SDDOT 2010). Tennessee Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) Project Safety Office sponsors road safety audits to identify and study safety improvements at locations identified through the analysis of crash data. Safety programs used to plan and fund improvements to local roads include the HRRR program, the Local Roads Safety Initiative, and the Roadway Departure Action Plan. The Project Safety Office simplified the process so that construction contracts can be approved within a year after the problem has been identified. The Local Roads Safety Initiative assists with improving safety on local roads by creating a partnership between the SHSP and safety projects coordinator (FHWA 2015). TABLE 1 (continued)

13 Wisconsin Data support Program development and funding The Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads (WISLR) assists local governments and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) to manage local road data to improve decision making, and to meet state statute requirements. WISLR combines local road data with interactive mapping functionality that provides users with the ability to display data in a tabular format, on a map, or both. WISLR allows local governments to report local road information, such as width, surface type, surface year, shoulder, curb, road category, functional classification, and pavement condition ratings to WisDOT. Local governments use WISLR’s querying, analytical, and spreadsheet tools to organize and analyze data. As a safety and asset management system, WISLR was designed to meet the needs of local agencies in integrating data, which produced consistent data throughout the state. The Local Roads Improvement Program assists local governments in improving local roads and acts as a reimbursement program, paying up to 50% of the total eligible costs with local governments providing the rest (“Wisconsin Information System . . .” FHWA-SA-14-037 2014). Wyoming Program development and funding The Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program (WRRSP), funded by the Mountain–Plains Consortium (MPC) and the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT), is the entity that oversees the identification of high-risk rural roadways and development of strategies to obtain funding on the riskiest segments (Ksaibati et al. 2011). As a part of the WRRSP, a statewide sign program is being implemented for local governments, where half of the counties have submitted sign requests at high-risk locations. As a part of this program, WDOT will purchase and distribute more than 1,200 signs for installation by the counties. The Wyoming LTAP center will then conduct a study to examine the effectiveness of these new signs. Program development and funding Education, outreach, and technical assistance The Cheyenne MPO is heavily involved in planning traffic safety in Wyoming, completing a Transportation Safety Management Plan (TSMP), which is similar to a SHSP at the MPO level, and developing funding grants. Meetings were arranged to review the strategies set forth in the TSMP, and action plans are updated frequently. Through the MPO, safety stakeholder engagement was built and sustained, engaged in the process of identifying, and coming up with solutions for safety issues on local roads. This plan resulted in implementing major safety projects from new local agencies, and engaged local agencies in law enforcement summits and legislative briefings. The Cheyenne MPO set up the first safety summit in the region, focusing on law enforcement personnel. The legislative briefing focused on addressing a safety belt law and a medical advisory board (“SHSP Stakeholder Involvement” FHWA-SA-11-02 2011). TABLE 1 (continued)