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.

40 ment of Transportation and Development brought in a law enforcement expert to improve crash data collec- tion through the training of law enforcement agencies on data collection, which resulted in improved accuracy and completeness in statewide crash data reporting. • Many states have adopted and/or support the Toward Zero Deaths initiative or an equivalent within its own SHSP, in which states address reducing crashes on all public roads by employment of 4E (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services) approaches. • Local agencies frequently lack the resources (e.g., staff and funds) to plan and implement road safety projects and programs. Nationwide, the LTAP programs have developed, with their respective DOTs, training programs to overcome both education and knowledge limitations of local government agencies. Examples include the SCR program and Road Safety Audits (RSAs). • Local agencies vary greatly in population and organiza- tion. As such, a one-size-fits-all situation does not exist and it is important that safety programs be tailored to the needs of that agency. SURVEY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • Most states (27) reported that local road programs and/or projects are implemented by the state DOT through both central offices and district office staff. Fifteen state DOTs indicated that only central office staff is involved in implementing local road programs and/or projects. Forty-one state DOTs reported that the local road pro- grams and safety programs that include local roads fall under the same state organization. Many states are mak- ing local road safety improvements a priority through increased funding and resource allocation. • State DOTs were the agency most frequently cited for pro- viding technical assistance and support to local agencies at all project stages. MPOs provide assistance to local agen- cies, most notably during project planning and applica- tion preparation stages, and share a similar assistance level with LTAP centers in providing information resources. For local agency training on federal-aid procedures, the LTAP program was identified as the foremost agency providing assistance to local agencies. • Federal funding was identified as the major source of support in most states (more than 80%) for the local safety programs. In Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Ohio local funding was more than 10% of the fund- ing source for the local safety programs. The responses supplied by 47 departments of transportation (DOTs) provided valuable insight into how state coordinated safety programs impact local road safety. Detailed inter- views were conducted with DOTs and local agencies in ten states. The information obtained in the interview sessions was used to acquire a more precise idea of the concerns and effective practices for addressing local road safety. Based on the literature review, state survey, and detailed in-depth interview and study of ten states, the following conclusions and observations can be made. LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • MAP-21 has positively affected states in their ability to, through significantly increased funding levels, address local road safety and the need for data-driven decisions that implement proven countermeasures to reduce crashes on local roads. • States are using a variety of approaches to engage local government agencies. Many states are holding summits, conferences, workshops, and meetings to help educate and train local agencies in applying for safety funds and discussing safety requirements. For example, the Ohio DOT held a series of Safety Conscious Planning forums for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to help them identify safety needs. • State DOTs are coordinating with their Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) centers to address issues with local agencies on local road safety. The Michigan LTAP developed a GIS-based integrated roadway man- agement system to analyze and report on local roadway safety, while most LTAP centers assist local govern- ment agencies in managing and maintaining safe local roads by providing training and technical assistance. In addition, the Safety Circuit Rider (SCR) program is being implemented by LTAP centers in many states. • Owing to limited funds for local road safety, many states have developed low-cost treatment options that improve the safety on local roads. • Many states are assisting local agencies in develop- ing Local Road Safety Plans, locally focused plans that both build on a state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and provide a framework for local practitioners to identify factors that contribute to crashes and proposes counter measures to eliminate crashes. • Local agencies rely on a crash database to determine safety improvement focus areas. The Louisiana Depart- chapter five CONCLUSIONS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS

41 • Survey results indicated that state DOTs employ multi- ple criteria in determining the funding allocation for local safety programs. Crash data and risk analysis were identified as the most commonly applied criteria. • For program fund selection, SHSP emphasis area (35 states) and a competitive application process (28 states) were identified, followed by technical crite- ria (23 states) that were mostly represented by benefit/ cost analysis. • Thirty-four states reported that 25% or fewer of their local agencies participate in developing local road safety (or equivalent) plans. In terms of a funding source for local road safety (or equivalent) plans, federal or state funds were used by 27 states. • Most states (32) include an element in their SHSP that identifies and addresses goals and initiatives to improve the safety on local roads. Regarding the 4E approach in local safety, many of the engineering approaches focused on systemic approaches to improving signage and rumble strips. Thirty-three states reported that local agencies receive education and training on local road safety through the state LTAP or other DOT programs. In the enforcement area, a key partnership for the DOTs in promoting safety on local and state roads is with the state law enforcement or public safety office. • For safety analysis, 16 states reported using the appli- cation of the FHWA systemic safety project selection tool, whereas many states are assisting local agencies in conducting RSAs. The majority of the responding states reported using a combination of reactive and proactive practices, mostly crash data analysis and risk analysis, to identify local road safety problems. Cost-benefit analy- sis and the fatal/serious crash reduction rate were the most frequently identified factors in local safety projects prioritization and evaluation, respectively. • In many cases, for local safety project submittals, each local jurisdiction and MPO/regional planning organiza- tion processes the submittal to the state and the applica- tion process follows a similar procedure to that of the state. Twenty-eight states noted that local safety proj- ects are not competitive with state road safety projects. • Thirty-four states reported that the state assists local agencies in the procurement and contracting of local road safety projects, and 23 states indicated that the assis- tance is provided through an established local public agency (LPA) program. Most states (38) have similar bid- ding processes for local federal-aid projects of smaller dollar value. • To assist local agencies, 29 states reported that their DOT conducts post-project audits in compliance with federal regulations on those projects funded with federal-aid dollars. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as stipulated by the federal or state agency providing the funding for the project, was the most commonly used audit procedure as reported by the majority of DOTs. • Many states (30) responded that the administration and reporting requirements for the use of federal-aid dollars have been a deterrent to the participation of local agen- cies. Practices identified to encourage local agencies’ involvement were a year-round fund application time- frame, streamlining and consolidating the solicitation process [e.g., a universal application (one application) for federal safety funds], lowering local match require- ment (e.g., providing a state fund to match federal funds so that a local match is not required), and providing training, technical assistance, and certification programs for LPAs. • Several states provide an incentive for the LPA’s par- ticipation in state safety programs by either reducing the local funding match on safety projects or by creating state programs that completely fund local safety projects without the use of federal dollars. • Several states have improved state and local collabora- tion through partnership agreements [e.g., the County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO) and Minne- sota Association of Townships (MAT)], along with the LTAP centers (e.g., Connecticut, Louisiana, and Ohio), in the planning and implementing of statewide safety initiatives. • Key challenges for many state DOTs in addressing local safety projects were the lack of local agency resources (44 states), followed by the limit of state DOT resources (29 states). Tools identified to address these chal- lenges were providing workshops, training and techni- cal assistance, enhancing communication, outreach and engagement with local agencies, procedures documented in local road manuals, and comprehensive guidance and policy for local agencies. • Since the implementation of the MAP-21 legislation, 19 states have observed an increase in the number of local agencies taking part in state coordinated local safety programs. Most states attributed additional fund- ing through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the implementation of SHSPs, and the estab- lishment of dedicated local road safety programs as pri- mary contributing factors for this increase. • Thirty-three states experienced a reduction of fatal and serious injury crashes since the implementation of MAP-21, and reported the promotion of systemic low- cost safety improvements, the initiation or expansion of state coordinated local road safety programs, and partner- ships as key factors in crash reduction. Increased HSIP funding and improved access to crash data for local agen- cies were also identified as elements that contributed to crash reductions. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The following section outlines knowledge gaps that stemmed from the DOT survey and agency interviews. The responses indicated a need for future research in the following areas: • Development of a cost-effective traffic and roadway inventory database system to facilitate the implementa- tion of a data-driven systemic safety approach. Advances in sensor technology (e.g., Utah DOT’s LiDAR pilot

42 study) and research initiatives on effective traffic counts on local roads (e.g., traffic count estimation based on small-scale sample counts and land-use variables) are reported as possible solutions to address the lack of a roadway inventory system. Iowa DOT’s Statewide Traf- fic Records Coordinating Committee-supported traffic record program and Ohio’s Geographic Information Sys- tem Crash Analysis Tool are examples of GIS applica- tions that could contribute to the data-driven systemic safety approach. • Development of new performance indicators for pro- gram and practice evaluation, in addition to the cur- rently used crash fatality and serious injury numbers and rates. The corresponding research results will also assist in establishing an effective methodology to docu- ment and estimate the level of safety enhancement at the project location or program level other than one based on crash numbers or rates. Research results will also provide a guide toward proactive safety methods for enhancing safety on local roads. Possible future per- formance measures for further study have been addressed in the Minnesota SHSP entitled “Minnesota’s Traffic Safety Tracking Indicators by Focus Area” (presented in web-only Appendix D). • Further analysis is needed on driver behavior on all roads to identify countermeasures and/or strategies that would have significant impacts on human behavior. For example, there is a need for detailed observations of vehicle speeds on local roads in order to establish and post realistic speeds and driver behavior changes as they transition from interstate, state, and local roads. Research results will help provide guidelines for imple- menting safety programs targeted at reducing human factor attributed crashes. • The use of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) by local agencies has been limited. Although Michigan, through the LTAP, developed and has been implementing a train- ing program to educate local agencies in the use of the HSM, future efforts could be explored to determine ways of making this important safety tool more readily usable by local agencies. • Investigation on the impacts of various advances in technology, such as autonomous vehicles and the use of low-cost intelligent transportation system technology [e.g., Advanced LED Warning system for Rural inter- sections (ALERT) rural two-way stop control inter- section warning system by the Minnesota DOT and Local Road Research Board] to improve local road safety.