Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies (2014)

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.

32 Many factors are involved in making safety decisions on roadways. The primary safety decisions include identifying locations for treatment, prioritizing the locations, identifying how they will be treated, and, when possible, evaluating the effectiveness of the treatments. Making safety decisions on local roads can be challenging. High crash locations can be difficult to isolate through the traditional site analysis because severe crashes can be spread over a wide area. The systemic approach to safety provides agencies with an alternative to traditional crash data analysis. The systemic approach reviews crash history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics. Although the traditional site analysis approach results in safety invest- ments at high-crash locations, the systemic approach leads to widespread implementation of projects to reduce the potential for severe crashes. The systemic approach does not replace the site analysis approach; it is a complementary technique intended to supplement site analysis and provide a more com- prehensive and proactive approach to safety management efforts (32). LOCAL SURVEY RESULTS Twenty-four of 25 local agencies responded that they engage in safety for roadways; that is, they implement counter- measures and/or treatments on their roadways for the purpose of improving safety. Eighteen of 25 local agencies responded that they have staff assigned to conduct safety analysis and/ or implement safety improvements; however, it is only part of their responsibilities. For the remaining seven agencies, two reported that they contract for these services, four that they do not have dedicated staff but would like to or need to, and one responded that it does not have or need dedicated staff, as shown in Figure 29. The survey looked at whether agencies are implementing safety improvements on a site-specific or systemic approach. Of the 24 local agencies that engage in safety, nine pre- dominantly implement site-specific countermeasures and/or improvements and 16 implement both site-specific and sys- temic improvements. Twelve agencies responded that fund- ing for improvements on local roads is divided between the state and the local agency, seven responded the local agency completely funds all of the improvements, and six responded “Other,” which included: • “It depends on the cost of the countermeasure being applied. Low costs are covered by the county and high-cost improvements are done using HSIP funds, if available.” • “Local, state and federal funds from a variety of sources [are] used for spot, systemic, and maintenance related safety improvements.” • “Majority is funded by our department, some from other sources.” Figure 30 provides the responses from local agencies on the types of methods they use to conduct location identification. These agencies were asked to include all that apply. Twenty- two agencies responded they use crash-based analysis (e.g., frequency, rate, etc.) and 22 also responded that they use the concerns of citizens, law enforcement, or other members of the community to identify locations that need treatment. Fourteen agencies responded they use RSAs, four that they use crash- based comparisons of expected crashes to observe using Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) or similar methods, and four responded they use risk-based methods. Risk-based methods consider the location characteristics (e.g., inter- section, segment, curve, etc.) instead of crashes. Examples of risk-based methods include an intersection index or risk score. One agency responded “Other” and noted that they use maintenance records (i.e., sign maintenance history). Of the 24 local agency respondents that engage in safety, 20 use GIS tools for analysis, nine use the HSM, six use tools provided by the state, and 11 use “Other” tools or resources for analysis. Twenty-one of 24 local agencies responded that they use roadway data in safety analyses. Twenty-one of 24 local agencies mentioned that guidance and training on how to use roadway data in safety analysis would be helpful. Nineteen local agencies reported that they use traffic data in safety analyses, and 19 that guidance and training on how to use traffic data in safety analysis would be helpful. In addition, the local agencies were asked about which type of support the state provides for each of the analysis types. The majority of these agencies responded that they conduct their own analyses and would continue to do so in the future, as shown in Table 10. For those that responded that the state provides assistance to their agency, the assistance comes in the form of guid- ance (7 state agencies), funding (6), training (4), staff (3), chapter four SAFETY DECISION MAKING

33 FIGURE 29 Local agency safety decision making. FIGURE 30 Local agency location identification methods. 22 22 14 4 4 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Citizen, law enforcement concerns Crash based analysis Road safety audits Safety performance functions Risk based methods Maintenance records N um be ro fL oc al Re sp on se s Methods Level of State Support Location/ Project Identification Project Prioritization Countermeasure Selection Countermeasure Evaluation State conducts and provides results 2 0 0 0 State provides assistance to our agency 5 4 3 5 We conduct our own analysis and would like to continue doing so 19 18 19 15 We conduct our own analysis but would like assistance from the state 5 5 4 7 TABLE 10 LEVEL OF STATE SUPPORT PROVIDED TO LOCALS FOR SAFETY ANALYSIS

34 and software (2) (respondents were given the option to check all that apply). Similarly, the states were asked which types of support they provide to local agencies for safety improve- ment efforts. Forty-one of the 43 state agencies provide some type of support in the form of guidance (36), funding (29), training (26), staff (12), software (13), and “Other” (respon- dents were given the option to check all that apply). Some examples of the “Other” responses included: • “We are now just starting this year to provide fund- ing, but have always provided assistance with data analysis.” • “High crash lists (including urban intersections) are pre- pared by the state. The state provides crash data to local engineers for studies.” • “HSIP funds the Safety Circuit Rider who provides sup- port to Local Public Agencies.” STATE AGENCY SURVEY RESULTS State agencies also reported on how they make decisions in implementing safety improvements on local roads. The number of states that responded to each scenario is shown in parenthesis. The responses were as follows: • State identifies locations, prioritization, countermeasures, and implements improvements on local roadways (16). • State identifies locations for improvements, prioritiza- tion, and potential countermeasures and provides funding for local agencies to implement the countermeasures (15). • State identifies potential locations for improvements, prioritization, and funding, but local agency is respon- sible for identifying countermeasures and installing the improvements (13). • State identifies potential locations for improvements and prioritization, but local agency is responsible for identi- fying countermeasures, securing funding, and installing the improvements (8). • Local agencies identify locations for improvements, pri- oritization, and potential countermeasures, and submit applications to the state for funding (26). • Local agencies are responsible for safety improve- ments on roadways in their jurisdiction; state is not involved in safety improvement implementation on local roadways (7). • Other, please describe (9). Examples of “Other” method- ologies included: – “The state works with the local government to deter- mine appropriate countermeasures and obtain ‘buy in’ for projects.” – “We have initiated a process to assist local agencies in identifying roadway segments with higher crash severity rates.” – “Safety projects both off-system and on-system can be developed and delivered in a variety of ways. We have a standardized program for identifying improve- ments and countermeasures to be led by local gov- ernments but are open to all the potential methods discussed above.” For those that responded that the state identifies loca- tions for improvement, additional information was requested regarding how those improvements are identified for rural and urban roadways. Based on the states’ responses, the methods do not significantly differ based on rural or urban roadways, as shown in Table 11. CONFLICTING RESPONSES There were some inconsistencies among responses from state and local agencies in the same states regarding mak- ing safety decisions for local roads, as shown in Table 12. Method Urban Rural Crash-based analysis of frequency, rate, or similar 30 29 Crash-based comparison of expected crashes to be observed using SPFs or similar methods 7 8 Risk-based method that considers the location (e.g., intersection, segment, curve) characteristics instead of crashes such as an intersection index or risk score 7 7 Road safety audits or other proactive review of a location 23 24 Concerns of citizens, law enforcement, or other members of the community 21 21 Other 3 3 TABLE 11 LOCATION IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY FOR URBAN AND RURAL ROADWAYS Question Number of Conflicting Responses How are safety improvements implemented on local roads? 2 TABLE 12 CONFLICTING RESPONSES BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES FOR SAFETY DECISION MAKING MERGING RELATED SURVEY QUESTIONS

35 identify a specific set of low-cost systematic safety projects that is linked directly to the causation factors associated with the most severe crashes on the county’s system of highways. The initial effort began around 2004 during the development and implementation of the (SHSP) (formerly the Comprehen- sive Highway Safety Plan) and HSIP. MnDOT recognized the need to apply a greater share of state safety funds to local roadways in a data-driven system-wide approach if they were to be truly committed to eliminating fatal crashes. To meet this commitment, MnDOT created a new position dedicated to traffic safety on the local system. Through their outreach work, including conducting more than 30 RSAs throughout the state, a proof of concept was developed that focused on more intersections and segments in each county and crash data and research at a regional and/or state level. Next, a pilot county was evaluated using the idea of risk factors based on crash data trends at the regional and state levels and applied to segments, curves, and intersections across the entire system of county roads. In addition to the risk-based approach, a large group of stakeholders were involved in the plan. This concept evolved into the CRSP and was then applied to the remaining 86 counties. There were multiple champions for the plans within the state DOT and from county engineers. Leadership supported the safety plan effort as well. Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) is a flagship initiative for MnDOT that is heavily supported by leadership. The CRSP provided clear and concise direction for increasing safety on local roadways, helping to further support the TZD initiative. The CRSP took approximately 6.5 years to complete; three years of ground work before plan development and 3.5 years to develop a plan for each county. The total cost of the project was approximately $3.5 million and was funded using NHTSA 164 funds. MnDOT realized several key benefits from the CRSPs, including an increase in the quality and quantity of submit- ted and funded HSIP projects and a risk-based assessment of all county roadways, allowing for the prioritization and evaluation of safety investments. This project also strength- ened relationships with the local units of government, as well as their understanding of crash data, crash modification fac- tors, and the use and application of low-cost systemic safety improvements. The biggest challenge was getting buy-in from a vast majority of the counties before moving for- ward with the project. To overcome this challenge, MnDOT worked with safety champions at the county level to gather support; the agency assured the counties there would be benefits to completing the plan (i.e., safety funds for imple- mentation) and provided consistent messaging related to the plans and following through with agreed upon obligations. One of the lessons learned from the CRSP effort was the need for technical support regarding safety at the local level. However, not all of the counties need the same level or type of support, and some counties have chosen to not implement their plan. In addition, for states interested in undertaking a There was also some duplication of effort, with several states reporting that they conduct analysis on local roads and the local agencies from these sates noting that they also conduct analysis on these same roads. DOCUMENTED PRACTICES According to the RSDPCA, 33 states reported that they are implementing the HSM, 12 they are implementing Safety- Analyst, and six that they are using the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) to help them make safety decisions. There are various levels of implementation, from testing the capabilities of the tools to full deployment, includ- ing integration into analysis practices. However, the RSDPCA did not specify the level of implementation of these tools beyond that some states are using them. In addition, 37 states reported using the FHWA Crash Modification Factors Clear- inghouse website, and at least ten are developing their own safety performance functions. Furthermore, 47 states reported in the RSDPCA that their network screening analysis has the ability to cover all state- maintained roadways; however, only 21 reported that their network screening analysis has the ability to cover all local roadways. In some states, the number of local agencies can be over- whelming. Also, it is often difficult for some state DOTs to identify the appropriate person to work with at the local level (18). Conversely, it can be difficult at the local level to find the appropriate state contact. However, there are sev- eral states that have developed programs to work with local agencies. Some highlights from the FHWA Local Safety Data Domestic Scan include (2): • Alabama requires counties to participate in roadway safety training to be eligible for federal funds. • Georgia funds off-system (local) coordinator positions, as well as off-system projects. • Illinois provides HSIP funds to local agencies to collect and geo-locate crash data and presents safety workshops that highlight the application process for safety funds. • Michigan’s Local Safety Initiative provides technical assistance to local agencies. • New Jersey’s local safety program is administered through regional planning agencies. • Minnesota develops county-level road safety plans to encourage low-cost countermeasures and creates fund- ing targets for local agencies to use HSIP funding. Minnesota has 142,485 miles of public roadways in the state, of which 130,606 miles (92%) are local roads. The Minnesota County Roadway Safety Plans (CRSP) provide safety decision-making support for local agencies. MnDOT has developed a roadway safety plan for each of the 87 coun- ties in the state. Severe and fatal crashes in most counties are spread over many miles of roadways, resulting in a low density of crashes. The primary objective of the CRSP is to

36 for the entire road network using CARE. Local agencies can access CARE once they sign a confidentiality agree- ment. CARE is web-enabled, is being integrated with GIS, and has the ability to analyze data and generate reports and crash diagrams (2). The New Jersey DOT has also developed a useful tool for local agencies. It contracted with the Rutgers University Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC) to develop a roadway safety decision-support tool for safety stakeholders. The resulting tool, Plan4Safety, is a web-based application that enables public agency personnel to quickly analyze safety data (see Figure 31). The tool supports the collection, analy- sis, and distribution of transportation safety data and has been instrumental in the development and implementation of the SHSP. Approximately 500 agencies use the analysis software and have easy access to transportation safety data to perform analyses that support their local safety initiatives, as well as those at the state level. TSRC also provides engineering, plan- ning, training, and outreach services to local governments and assists with crash data analysis to support SHSP implemen- tation. NJDOT funds TSRC work through the HSIP. Broad dissemination of safety data and the availability of this tool has encouraged participation in the SHSP by safety partners at all levels (17). Ohio is one of the national leaders in the implementation of SafetyAnalyst; however, implementing SafetyAnalyst can be resource intensive (29). Ohio has also developed the GIS Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT) to provide a convenient highway safety crash analysis tool for Ohio DOT and local agencies. Although GCAT does not have all of the analytic capabilities of SafetyAnalyst, it does provide a GIS-based tool that allows users to spatially query crash data more quickly and easily. GCAT was developed in-house by Ohio DOT and is available to MPOs, cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies. Users can query crash data by time, attributes, driver and vehicle detail, and location. Users can also search within a specific jurisdiction (e.g., county or city) or within an area defined by a polygon or circle. Although only 80% to 90% of the crashes are geo-located, GCAT con- tains all reported crashes so the data still show up in queries that are based on non-locational attributes (29). Illinois DOT (IDOT) also provides analysis and tools to support local agencies. IDOT analyzes crash types, severity, and contributing factors on all public roads. In developing its safety analysis methodologies, IDOT faced challenges in com- municating the purpose and function of the new methodologies with district staff. In particular, it was important to convey that the methodologies may at first have some shortcomings, but would gradually improve. IDOT offers a benefit–cost tool on its website that districts can use to develop HSIP projects. IDOT maintains a SharePoint site for districts to upload doc- umentation and applications for HSIP projects. In the future, IDOT also plans to use the site to manage funds. IDOT wants to make sure that it has tools in place for its partners at all similar effort, each one needs to consider its traffic safety cul- ture, resources, partnerships, stakeholders, and construction project planning and delivery process. The MnDOT project was built around strengths in Minnesota, strong partnerships between MnDOT and our local units of government, known risk factors, and construction projects that could be planned, administered, and delivered by the local unit of government. Information on this practice is based on an interview with MnDOT. For more information, see the complete interview summary in Appendix F. One example of a Minnesota county that has benefited from the CRSP is Dodge County, which is using its CRSP to implement countermeasures within the county, including the installation of chevron signs, guardrails, and rumble stripes. The plan has also made Dodge County more competitive for federal HSIP funding. According to the county engineer, the county now has justification for its improvement projects, estimated project costs, and estimated crash reductions (20). At the 2012 RSDP Peer Exchange in Indiana, practitio- ners discussed how to get more local agencies involved in network screening. Iowa responded that it performs network screening for the entire state. They are having an issue with getting local agencies involved in applying for funds for which they are eligible. Iowa is working on partnering with counties to help local agencies apply for funding. The state may also group projects from local agencies to make it easier to take advantage of HRRRP funds. It is working on submit- ting an application to the state fund/Transportation Safety Improvement Program for matching funds (33). California is also providing support to local agencies. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)–Division of Local Assistance developed a local roadway safety manual for local road owners to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to pro actively iden- tify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in future Caltrans’ statewide, data- driven call-for-projects. The goal of the manual is to provide an easy-to-use, straightforward, comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. The manual provides practitioners with an understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure federal safety funding dur- ing Caltrans calls-for-projects (34). In addition to developing plans and manuals, many states provide data analysis tools to aid the safety decision mak- ing local agencies. Alabama DOT uses a data analysis soft- ware package, Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE), which was developed by the University of Alabama. CARE is a free, user-friendly, statistical analysis software package designed for problem identification and counter- measure development. Alabama DOT analyzes crash data

FIGURE 31 Plan4Safety front screen (top) and GIS mapping (bottom).

38 programs that address their roadway safety and share information among local agencies. In addition, Min- nesota’s TZD community coalitions develop safety awareness at the local level through collaboration of multi-discipline stakeholders addressing safety in their communities. LEGAL LIABILITY CONCERNS Some states have expressed concerns regarding legal liability issues with safety data, particularly with sharing crash data. Twelve local agencies responded that crash data are available to lawyers and other legal professionals upon request, while six agencies reported that they did not provide access. Of the 43 state respondents, 31 reported that crash data are available to lawyers and other legal professionals upon request and 12 that they do not provide access to crash records to lawyers and other legal professionals. At the RSDP Peer Exchanges, several states discussed whether there are any liability issues involved in providing crash data. Alaska took that question to their Department of Law, which responded that if there is a question on a spe- cific crash, then it goes to the regional traffic safety staff. If the information is going to be used for a lawsuit, then the request is sent to the Department of Law. In Nebraska, if someone can name the location and date of a crash or the driver’s name, then they will be provided with the report for that crash. However, they would not provide report(s) for more general requests such as for all crashes at a specific intersection (22). Liability concerns were further explored in Research Results Digest 306: Identification of Liability-Related Imped- iments to Sharing §409 Safety Data Among Transportation Agencies and A Synthesis of Best Practices (35), which identi- fies liability risks associated with sharing safety data among transportation agencies pursuant to Section 409 of Title 23, U.S.C.; identifies best practices; reviews the Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen decision and its potential impact on managing state liability risk; and describes strategies for over- coming the impediments to data sharing, specifically those related to liability. Section §409 was enacted to protect from disclosure in litigation data compiled and collected by state DOTs pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. §152. On January 14, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen, that §409 is a constitutional exercise of Congres- sional power. Section 409, as upheld by Guillen, seemingly provides significant protection to states in the proper sharing of data. Many states, however, continue to question whether §409 provides sufficient protection, particularly concerning supposedly protected data that eventually finds its way into the hands of the public or the media through the use of free- dom of information or public records act requests, and from there, at least indirectly, into court. levels. IDOT has helped local agencies conduct RSA and, as it implements HSM, it wants to ensure that they under- stand how it fits in as a tool for analyzing safety issues. IDOT recently conducted a survey among local agencies to assess data accessibility and analysis. It also conducts system-wide data analysis on curves, intersections, and segments, and will assist with safety field reviews upon request. Illinois has local safety committees that are developing local SHSPs, and IDOT is attempting to incorporate safety throughout the agency’s business model (22). In many states, LTAP/TTAP centers can also be an impor- tant resource. In August 2012, the FHWA Office of Safety sponsored the Northwest Safety Data Peer Exchange in cooperation with the Idaho LTAP in Boise, Idaho. This peer exchange provided a forum for attendees to share information on safety data collection, analysis, warehousing, and access to improve existing data practices and safety on local roads. There were 39 participants, representing FHWA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, state DOTs, LTAP and TTAP centers, and local and tribal representatives from California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington State, Illinois, Louisiana, and Minnesota. Attendees shared their noteworthy safety data practices. The key take-aways from the peer exchange include (18): • It is much more useful to local and tribal agencies if the raw crash and roadway data are accompanied by an interpretation and recommendations for remedial action. In general, they do not typically have staff capacity and/ or expertise to access and analyze the data. • Surrogate measures of risk on the local and tribal system can help alleviate the issue of a lack of data that may prevent appropriate data analysis that can lead to safety improvements on local and tribal roads. • Systemic approach to countermeasures implementa- tion within a corridor or jurisdiction needs to be con- sidered when specific crash location information is not available. • Smaller agencies can jointly pool funds to install simi- lar crash mitigation strategies across multiple jurisdic- tions using a systemic approach. In addition to LTAPs and TTAPs, many states have ben- efited from partnerships and outreach efforts with other regional organizations and between multi-disciplinary groups, including engineering, planning, education/universities, law enforcement, emergency services, and political representa- tives. Specific existing practices in states include (2): • In New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois, MPOs are safety champions that provide coordination and public outreach to local agencies. • In Minnesota, the Minnesota County Engineers Asso- ciation Highway Safety Committee is uniquely posi- tioned to impact local road safety policies and funding. As a collective group it is able to lobby for policies and

39 ning agencies. Other states enter into interagency agreements, with MPOs allowing them to use the crash data strictly for planning purposes. Many agencies have developed strategies for mitigating the risks associated with sharing these data, including removing personal identifiers prior to sharing (35). A summary of the documented safety data decision mak- ing practices, including contact information and websites when available, is provided in Table 13. Although there are still concerns and questions surround- ing this issue, state DOTs and MPOs can use the practices described in Research Results Digest 306 to immediately review and improve the manner in which they are managing the risk associated with the sharing of safety data. For exam- ple, some state DOTs enter into memorandums of understand- ing with the agency that stores the data regarding how the data will be used and disseminated. Such cooperative agreements also are possible between DOTs and MPOs and local plan- State Practice Description Contact Information Alabama Roadway Safety Training Alabama requires counties to participate in roadway safety training to be eligible for federal funds. Waymon Benifield Safety Management Section Administrator Alabama DOT benefieldw@dot.state.al.us 334-353-6404 Alabama Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) CARE is a statistical analysis software package designed for problem identification and countermeasure development. ALDOT analyzes crash data for the entire road network using CARE. Local agencies can access CARE once they sign a confidentiality agreement. Waymon Benifield Safety Management Section Administrator Alabama DOT benefieldw@dot.state.al.us 334-353-6404 http://caps.ua.edu/care.aspx Georgia Funds Off-system Georgia funds off-system (local) coordinator positions as well as funding for off-system projects. Kathy Zahul State Traffic Engineer Georgia DOT kzahul@dot.ga.gov 404-635-2828 Michigan Technical Assistance Michigan’s Local Safety Initiative provides technical assistance to local agencies. Tracie Leix Safety Programs Unit Manager Michigan DOT leixt@michigan.gov 517-373-8950 Michigan Partnership with Regional Organizations MPOs are safety champions that provide coordination and public outreach to local agencies. Tracie Leix Safety Programs Unit Manager Michigan DOT leixt@michigan.gov 517-373-8950 New Jersey Local Safety Program New Jersey’s local safety program is administered through regional planning agencies. Robert A. DeSando Director/Acting Manager Bureau of Transportation Data & Safety New Jersey Department of Transportation 609-530-3474 Robert.DeSando@dot.state.nj. us New Jersey Partnership with Regional Organizations MPOs are safety champions that provide coordination and public outreach to local agencies. Raymond S. Tomczak, PP, AICP MPO Liaison New Jersey Department of Transportation Division of Statewide Planning, Bureau of Statewide Strategies raymond.tomczak@dot.state.n j.us TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED SAFETY DATA DECISION MAKING PRACTICES (continued on next page)

40 State Practice Description Contact Information New Jersey Plan4Safety NJDOT developed Plan4Safety for local agencies, which is a web-based application that enables public agency personnel to quickly analyze safety data. Dr. Mohsen Jafari Dept of Industrial & Systems Engineering CAIT Rutgers University 848-445-2980 jafari@rci.rutgers.edu http://cait.rutgers.edu/tsrc/plan 4safety Minnesota County-level Road Safety Plans Minnesota DOT is developing a roadway safety plan for each of the 87 counties in the state to encourage low- cost countermeasures and creates funding targets for local agencies to use HSIP funding. Mark E. Vizecky, P.E. State Aid Program Support Engineer Mn/DOT State Aid Division Mark.Vizecky@state.mn.us 651-366-3839 http://www.dot.state.mn.us/sta teaid/sa_county_traffic_safety _plans.html Minnesota Partnership with Regional Organizations Minnesota County Engineer Safety Association impacts local road safety policies and funding. Minnesota’s Toward Zero Deaths community coalition develops safety awareness at the local level through collaboration of multi-discipline stakeholders addressing safety in their communities. Kristine Hernandez Statewide Toward Zero Deaths Coordinator MnDOT Public Affairs 507-286-7601 Kristine.Hernandez@state.mn. us Iowa Partner with Counties Applying for the Funds Iowa is trying to evaluate the counties, and suggests requesting counties to partner and they will help them apply for funding. Terry Ostendorf Program Planner III Office of Traffic and Safety, Iowa Department of Transportation Terry.Ostendorf@dot.iowa.gov 515-239-1077 California Local Roadway Safety Manual Caltrans–Division of Local Assistance developed a local roadway safety manual for local road owners to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways. Jesse Bhullar Chief, Office of Bridge and Safety Programs Division of Local Assistance California Department of Transportation Jesse.bhullar@dot.ca.gov 916-651-8257 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Loc alPrograms/hsip.htm Ohio GIS Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT) GCAT is a GIS-based tool that allows users to spatially query crash data. GCAT was developed in-house by the Ohio DOT and is made available to MPOs, cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies. Michael McNeill Transportation Engineer ODOT Office of Systems Planning Michael.McNeill@dot.state.oh.us 614-387-1265 http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Div isions/Planning/SPPM/System sPlanning/Pages/GCAT.aspx Illinois HSIP Funds Illinois provides HSIP funds to local agencies to collect and geo-locate crash data and conducts safety workshops that highlight the application process for safety funds Priscilla A. Tobias, PE State Safety Engineer Illinois DOT Priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov 217-782-3568 Illinois Support to Local Agencies IDOT provides analysis and tools to support local agencies. Illinois has local safety committees that are developing local SHSPs and IDOT is trying to incorporate safety throughout the agency’s business model. Priscilla A. Tobias, PE State Safety Engineer Illinois DOT Priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov 217-782-3568 Illinois Partnership with Regional Organizations MPOs are safety champions who provide coordination and public outreach to local agencies. Priscilla A. Tobias, PE State Safety Engineer Illinois DOT Priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov 217-782-3568 TABLE 13 (continued)