Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program (2022)

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.

81   A P P E N D I X B State DOT Survey Responses Appendix B provides individual state DOT responses to the survey, including links to a list of HSIP resources and documentation that the state DOTs provided as part of the survey. Other state DOTs provided HSIP resources and documentation directly because the information is not publicly available online. The following are links to HSIP resources by state DOT with an indication of the relevance (i.e., spot, systemic, systematic): • Alabama included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divTed/TrafficSOS/index.html • Alaska included documentation for systemic safety approach: – – www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/pop_hsip.shtml • Delaware included documentation for systemic safety approach and an attachment showing HSIP structure: – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2019/de.pdf • The District of Columbia included documentation for systemic safety approach as part of the annual HSIP report: – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/ • Illinois included documentation for systemic safety approach: – • Kansas referenced documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach as part of the annual HSIP report: – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2020/ks.pdf • Louisiana included documentation for systemic safety approach, while noting the document is currently being updated: – http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Highway_Safety/Misc%20 Documents/FINAL_REVISED_HSIP%20Infrastructure%20State%20Routes%20Project%20 Selection%20Guide%20v17_REV.pdf • Maine uploaded current documentation and noted that it is developing a more comprehensive HSIP manual that more accurately reflects actual processes. • Maryland included documentation for systemic safety approach as part of the annual HSIP report: – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/ • Michigan included documentation for the call for projects, project call letter, standard plan R-127 for installing delineators, sign treatments per SIGN-145-A, crosswalk markings per PAVE-945, crosswalk guidance document, gateway treatments as per the R1-6 user guide, time of return spreadsheet, state-specific SPFs, a state-specific HSM spreadsheet, and local agency before-after study: – https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides- &-Handbooks/Safety/Systemic%20Safety%20Improvements%20Analysis,%20Guidelines %20and%20Procedures.pdf https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=32540bd8-fcfa-4cf8- 9c22-6c3d551184cd&fileName=mdot_pave-945c.pdf

82 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program • Minnesota included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: • Missouri included documentation for systemic safety approach, systematic safety approach, and guidance specific to countermeasures: • New Hampshire included documentation for systemic safety approach, while noting the document is undergoing comprehensive revision: • New Jersey included documentation for systemic safety approach: • New York included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: • North Dakota included documentation for systematic safety approach: • Ohio included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: – – https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/FY_2013_Before-After_Study_684630_7.pdf – http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/ – https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/hsip/localfall17announcement.pdf – http://epg.modot.org/index.php/907.1_Safety_Program_Guidelines – http://epg.modot.org/index.php/903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_ .28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29 – https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:619_Pavement_Edge_Treatment – https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/61910.pdf – https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/ documents/hsip_nhguidance_122013.pdf – https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/hsip.shtm – https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/strategic-plan – https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/psap – https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/trafficsafety.htm#safetyprogram – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_case_studies_OD OT%20PSIP.pdf – https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmdotjboss.state.mi.us %2FTSSD%2FgetTSDocument.htm%3FdocGuid%3D29acdb28-6da4-46d6-9115-8890ca554 bda%26fileName%3DFINAL%2520MDOT%2520ped%2520crosswalk%2520guide%2520 March%25202020.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CSpanglerH%40michigan.gov%7C4aabe43badf 54bfbcd6508d812c38610%7Cd5fb7087377742ad966a892ef47225d1%7C0%7C0%7C637279 978270864897&sdata=GCh12mv%2FgdlZtJP5BhIYCiVnRxx9dbYUbM3vqeOk4uo%3D& reserved=0 – – – – – https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-485481--,00.html https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=8d37f047-d6a2-43ae-b1d0- e7adc57cd1c6&fileName=mdot_user_guide_gateway_treatment_2018_0503_Final_ UPDATED%20CDM%20Edgeline%20Clarification.pdf https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?docGuid=30b16e2f-7295-4b3e- 8ef3-0aa643b61977&fileName=SIGN-145-A.pdf https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/stdplan/getStandardPlanDocument.htm?docGuid=c4fad339- e5b7-4025-a57d-e2b774537475 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/FY_2023_Time_of_Return_TOR_spreadsheet_ 714754_7.xlsx https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/Highway_Safety_Manual_HSM_Analysis_ Spreadsheet_525892_7.xlsm – https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/local-funding- opportunities/resources/township-safety-sign-grant-program

State DOT Survey Responses 83   • Pennsylvania included documentation for systemic safety approach: • Vermont included reference for systemic safety approach and documentation for systematic safety approach: – https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/ARTS_FAQ.pdf – https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Pages/Safety-Infrastructure-Improvement- Programs.aspx – http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf – https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2017- 101%20-%20Guidelines%20For%20Milled%20Rumble%20Strips.pdf – https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2016- 101%20-%20Safety%20Edge%20Implementation.pdf Q3: Does your state distinguish between spot, systemic, and systematic projects, and, if so, are the definitions consistent with those provided below? Spot: identifying locations based on crash experience (e.g., a high number or rate of crashes) and addressing the unique safety issues at each location. Systemic: addressing crash types that result in fatalities and serious injuries by identifying risk factors for those crashes and implementing countermeasures widely across the network at locations where the risk factors are present. Systematic: treating all eligible locations by incorporating safety countermeasures in design policies or implementing a proven countermeasure at all feasible locations. State DOT Yes, and the definitions are consistent. Yes, but the definitions are different. No Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas – https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_00-Full- Report.pdf – https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/ARTS_Key-Facts.pdf • Oregon included documentation for systematic safety approach and funding allocation: – https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Traffic-Manual-2020.pdf

84 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, and the definitions are consistent. Yes, but the definitions are different. No Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q3a: If yes, but the definitions are different, please provide the definition or brief description: Approach Definition Systemic State uses other data, such as crash data, to support a systemic approach. This allows the state to prioritize projects. Systemic State utilizes a more hybrid version of systemic programs by combining risk factors and crash data, including pattern recognition, to determine specific countermeasures. Field reviews are also utilized to confirm roadway characteristic data. Systematic State program does not specifically address or define systematic projects. Q4: Does your state HSIP include a systemic safety component? State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented. No Alabama √

State DOT Survey Responses 85   State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented. No Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming

86 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q4a: If yes, and it is documented, please provide a link or reference to the document: Responses Documentation is provided in the HSIP Annual Report: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/ Getting to Zero: WSDOT's HSIP Implementation Plan 2020 (draft). The attached file is the near final draft from last year. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/ https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-&- Handbooks/Safety/Systemic%20Safety%20Improvements%20Analysis,%20Guidelines%20and%20Proc edures.pdf https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_case_studies_ODOT%20PSIP.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/strategic-plan https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divTed/TrafficSOS/index.html https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/documents/hsip _nhguidance_122013.pdf Please note that this document is outdated and now undergoing comprehensive revision. The document explains the advantage of systemic safety and NHDOT's intended focus on systemic improvements. MaineDOT is currently developing a more comprehensive HSIP Manual that more accurately reflects our processes, but the attached document is our current documentation. MoDOT has an online Engineering Policy Guide. Details regarding our safety program can be found in EPG 907.1. The following is a link to this information. http://epg.modot.org/index.php/907.1_Safety_Program_Guidelines We also try to incorporate some systemic solution in other areas of our guidance that are specific to certain safety countermeasures, such as chevrons. EPG 903.6.11 Chevron Alignment Sign http://epg.modot.org/index.php/903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_.28W1- 8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29 Our annual HSIP Report submitted to FHWA documents systemic safety component obligated in a given year. The Report can be found on FHWA's website at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Our safety website: https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Pages/Safety-Infrastructure- Improvement-Programs.aspx and in our Publication 638: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf Page 12 of 2016 NJ HSIP Manual https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/hsip.shtm The Manual will be updated in the coming years. See attachment for HSIP structure. Also, see page 5: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2019/de.pdf Vermont Local Road Safety Program We reference project development process for systemic type projects in our HSIP Infrastructure State Routes Project Selection Guide. It is in the process of being updated but latest version is posted online at: http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Highway_Safety/Misc%20Documents/FI NAL_REVISED_HSIP%20Infrastructure%20State%20Routes%20Project%20Selection%20Guide%20v1 7_REV.pdf www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/pop_hsip.shtml We do not have a program manual, but what we consider systemic sub-programs in HSIP (Lighting, Marking, Guardrail, and elements of HRRR) are documented in our annual HSIP Report.

State DOT Survey Responses 87   Q4b: If yes, but it is not documented, please briefly explain: Responses State considers and gives preference to systemic studies informally. Steps are being taken to formalize this stance. Don’t have any specific documents but recent systemic projects would include signing/marking improvements at 2,000 intersections with highest crash rate and FYA upgrades on all state-maintained signal systems. HSIP guidelines to be updated to include systemic safety component. Local Road Safety Initiative addresses safety on statewide local roads outside of MPO areas. State will be documenting a systemic process this year. State safety committees and HSIP project processes identify systemic projects. For example, the High- Risk Rural Roads team identified a systemic curve sign project based on rural road departures at curves. The focus of State’s systemic programs typically varies from year-to-year. In 2021, our lane departure program will be reviewing end unit devices and rural two-lane roads. Frontal impact crashes will be addressed by considering all-way stop at some rural intersections. Corridors that have Pedestrian and Bicycle risk factors will also be studied. The Systemic component will be discussed in the pending rewrite of the State SHSP. This is documented on a case by case basis when a systemic project is nominated. An actual process to determine percentages or types to be installed is not established. We do systemic projects but don’t have a formal procedure/process documented. We develop the idea for a systemic project in house and move it forward with a data driven process. We fund some systemic projects with HSIP, but we don’t have a specific program set up for them. We have done several systemic projects but do not have set asides for hot spots vs. systemic. It is just based on whether a project comes up. We have done sign and marking upgrades at stop-controlled intersections that met certain criteria for risks. Upgrade several interchange signage and markings for high risk interchanges to reduce wrong way crashes is another example. Adding centerline rumble strips to specific rural roads that met certain risks is another example. We have projects specifically addressing systemic safety, but we don’t set a specific dollar amount for these projects. We have specific systemic projects that are done statewide on scheduled basis We are testing and practicing systemic applications in HSIP, but our official guidelines have not been updated to reflect specific criteria and those have not been definitively set yet. Working with FHWA Division Office to publish FHWA guide for State. Q5: Does your state HSIP include a systematic safety component? State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented. No Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware

88 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented. No District of Columbia √ Georgia √ Hawaii √ Idaho √ Illinois √ Indiana √ Iowa √ Kansas √ Louisiana √ Maine √ Maryland √ Massachusetts √ Michigan √ Minnesota √ Mississippi √ Missouri √ Montana √ Nebraska √ Nevada √ New Hampshire √ New Jersey √ New Mexico √ New York √ North Carolina √ North Dakota √ Ohio √ Oregon √ Pennsylvania √ Puerto Rico √ Rhode Island √ South Carolina √ South Dakota √ Tennessee √ Vermont √ Washington √ Wisconsin √ Wyoming √ Q5a: If yes, and it is documented, please provide a link or reference to the document: Responses Any example of this is the implementation of Safety Edge treatment in our standard plans. EPG 619 Link - https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:619_Pavement_Edge_Treatment Standard Plan 619.10 Link - https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/61910.pdf Guidelines for Milled Rumble Strips: https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2017-101%20-

State DOT Survey Responses 89   Responses %20Guidelines%20For%20Milled%20Rumble%20Strips.pdf Safety Edge Implementation: https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2016-101%20- %20Safety%20Edge%20Implementation.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/psap https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divTed/TrafficSOS/index.html https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/local-funding- opportunities/resources/township-safety-sign-grant-program MaineDOT is currently developing a more comprehensive HSIP Manual that more accurately reflects our processes, but the attached document is our current documentation. NDDOT had a consultant put together local road safety plans for all the counties, major cities, and tribal lands in ND. https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/trafficsafety.htm#safetyprogram Rumble stripes and Safety Edge We do not have a program manual, but what we consider a systematic sub-program in HSIP (Signing) is documented in our annual HSIP Report. We have multiple county and District Safety Plans. One of our HSIP Guides is located here: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/hsip/localfall17announcement.pdf Yes, we address selected safety countermeasures in design policies in order to implement these proven countermeasures at all feasible locations. For example: *Rumble Strips- per our guidance “Longitudinal rumble strips shall be installed on STIP projects” (see Traffic Manual https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Traffic-Manual-2020.pdf, section 303.1) *Safety Edge: per our guidance, “On paving projects with shoulder widths of 6 feet or less and new pavement thickness of two inches or more, Safety Edge will be included in the project and shown on the typical sections. Details for Safety Edge are shown on Oregon Standard Drawing RD610.” (https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_00-Full-Report.pdf, Ch. 4, section 4.2.3) Q5b: If yes, but it is not documented, please briefly explain: Responses As mentioned previously, systematic projects are considered though usually prioritized behind systemic. Steps are being taken to formalize this stance. Centerline rumble strips are installed everywhere set criteria is met on state routes. Horizontal curve warning signs were systematically updated on all state routes. It is our endeavor to include this in the updates to the existing HSIP Manual, approved through internal State Policy. Low cost countermeasures such as safety wedge and rumble strips are considered standard for most projects involving rural 2 lane roads. We also have internal guidance to consider cable median barriers for high speed rural controlled access facilities with median between 10' and 100'. State has had several types of systemic projects launching them systematically. These improvements include rumble/mumble strips, cable median barrier, enhanced roadside delineation, 6" wide edge lines, and most recently 6" wide lane lines for State roadways. A delineation template was created in 2018 for $1.5M per year to help deploy this strategy. A new Stop and Stop ahead detail sheet was created in 2020 to help deploy the systematic upgrades of State intersections. See Attached in question 4. State just deployed mumble strips for shoulder use to be used systematically. State DOT has customarily devoted a large portion of our annual HSIP funding to systematic improvements such as curve warning signs, guardrail modernization, flashing yellow arrow conversions, etc. Current State HSIP guidance does not distinguish between systemic and systematic improvements, although most of our recent focus has been on the latter rather than the former.

90 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Responses Our safety committees have identified some safety countermeasures that are always eligible to be implemented systematically. One example is adding should rumble strips in shoulder already exist. We have projects specifically addressing systematic safety, but we don't set a specific dollar amount for these projects. Working with FHWA Division Office to publish FHWA guide for State. Sign (specifically guide signs) upgrades are an example of systematic projects that we do statewide or upgrading all horizontal curve warning signs is another example since it is ALL horizontal curves (well only on state highway to start). But these projects are not listed as systematic projects just HSIP projects. Statewide resurfacing program on National Highway System qualifying routes The Systemic component will be discussed in the pending rewrite of the State SHSP. Things like safety edge for pavements and proper end treatments for guiderail are part of our construction standards. Our construction standards do not call them out as systematic safety. We allow agencies to apply systematic improvements such as sign reflectivity improvement, crosswalk upgrades, left turn arrows, etc. based on systemwide crash prevalence over specific types of locations without running individual B/C such as would be necessary for hot-spot improvements. We apply the Highway Safety Manual and other standards in highway designs. We do systemic projects but don’t have a formal procedure/process documented. We develop the idea for a systemic project in house and move it forward with a data driven process. We have a median barrier and rumble strip standards for freeway facilities. The safety edge designs are included in the resurfacing program. We have specific systemic projects that are done statewide on scheduled basis. Q6-1: How does your state identify potential locations for spot HSIP projects on the state system? State DOT Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

State DOT Survey Responses 91   State DOT Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q6-1a: If other (spot), please explain? Responses Substantive vs nominal index calculations. Focus on fatal and serious injury crashes along with fixes based on crash types and patterns. This can be based on number of K/A crashes at a hot spot location as well as using the approved systemic project list. Critical crash rate method. Q6-2: How does your state identify potential locations for systemic HSIP projects on the state system? State DOT Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut

92 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q6-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Responses Focus on fatal and serious injury crashes along with fixes based on crash types and patterns. This can be based on number of K/A crashes at a hot spot location as well as using the approved systemic project list.

State DOT Survey Responses 93   Responses We use our tort settlement data to identify options for safety improvements. This is especially helpful for issues that don't fit in the category of a reportable crash. These include a bike only crash, pedestrian only related incidents, and others. One of the things we are working on now based on torts is inlet grates. We know from our tort data these are an issue when it comes to bikes and pedestrians, but would never figure out how big of an issue they are by using traditional crash based methods or even HSM based methods since the predictive methods relate to vehicular involved related crashes only. Q7-1: Does your state have different processes for identifying spot HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, (select all that apply). State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes

94 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q7-1a: If other (spot), please explain? Responses The local system is covered by our HRRRP. We are developing LRSP to identify projects for the program, including spot and systemic that include different levels of analysis--some simple some complex. For local systems, most improvements are systemic. The projects are submitted by local agencies to State DOT and we review and select projects for implementation. Critical crash rate method for federal aid roads only. Q7-2: Does your state have different processes for identifying systemic HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, (select all that apply). State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes

State DOT Survey Responses 95   State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Basic crash- based approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic risk- based approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q7-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Responses The local system is covered by our HRRRP. We are developing LRSP to identify projects for the program, including spot and systemic that include different levels of analysis--some simple some complex. For local systems, most improvements are systemic. The projects are submitted by local agencies to State DOT and we review and select projects for implementation. AADT/rates are often not available on the local system. The State uses the rate quality control method. Although there are some exceptions the local governments do their own analysis to identify systemic and hot spot HSIP projects. The State is in the process of implementing a new safety management system which will incorporate many of the more advanced predictive models in the HSM. The system is scheduled for production in Fall 2021 and will be available for State and local governments.

96 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q8-1: How does your state identify potential countermeasures for spot HSIP projects on the state system?

State DOT Survey Responses 97   Responses Discussion and collaboration with others within state DOT, law enforcement, MPOs, Office of Highway Safety, etc., via an annual site review meeting We utilize CMF Clearinghouse for countermeasure evaluation when multiple options present themselves at times. State DOT uses their safety management system to identify spot and systemic treatments at each given location. Q8-2: How does your state identify potential countermeasures for systemic HSIP projects on the state system? State DOT Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Q8-1a: If other (spot), please explain.

98 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q8-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Responses Discussion and collaboration with others within State DOT, Law Enforcement, MPOs, Office of Highway Safety, etc. via an annual site review meeting. We utilize CMF Clearinghouse for countermeasure evaluation when multiple options present themselves at times. State DOT uses their safety management system to identify spot and systemic treatments at each given location. Q9-1: Does your state have different processes for identifying potential countermeasures for spot HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, (select all that apply). State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana No Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No

State DOT Survey Responses 99   State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q9-1a: If other (spot), please explain? Responses For local systems, most improvements are systemic. The projects are submitted by local agencies to state DOT and we review and select projects for implementation. Q9-2: Does your state have different processes for identifying potential countermeasures for systemic HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, (select all that apply). State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No

100 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana No Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q9-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Responses For local systems, most improvements are systemic. The projects are submitted by local agencies to state DOT and we review and select projects for implementation. Q10: Does your state implement systemic countermeasures to address specific focus areas or risk factors? State DOT Roadway departures Intersections Pedestrians Bicycles Other Alabama

State DOT Survey Responses 101   State DOT Roadway departures Intersections Pedestrians Bicycles Other Alaska Arizona √ Arkansas √ √ Colorado √ √ √ √ √ Connecticut √ √ √ Delaware √ √ District of Columbia √ √ √ √ √ Georgia √ √ √ √ Hawaii √ √ √ √ Idaho Illinois √ √ √ Indiana √ √ Iowa √ √ Kansas √ √ Louisiana √ Maine √ √ Maryland √ √ √ Massachusetts √ Michigan √ √ √ √ Minnesota √ √ √ Mississippi √ √ Missouri √ Montana √ Nebraska √ √ Nevada New Hampshire √ New Jersey √ √ √ √ New Mexico New York √ √ North Carolina √ √ √ √ North Dakota √ √ Ohio √ √ Oregon √ √ √ √ Pennsylvania √ √ √ Puerto Rico √ Rhode Island √ √ √ √ South Carolina √ √ √ √ South Dakota √ √ Tennessee √ √ √ √ Vermont √ Washington √ Wisconsin √ Wyoming √ √ √ √ √

102 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q10a: Please identify typical risk factors related to roadway departures and systemic counter- measures that your State implements to address roadway departures. State DOT Response Arizona Risk factors: curves, narrow shoulders, no median, etc. Arkansas Risk factors: Cross-centerline crashes, curve crashes, wet crashes Countermeasures: Rumble strips, ultrathin bonded wearing course/high friction surface treatment (HFST), signage Colorado Rural 2-lane undivided: Centerline rumble strips Interstates with open medians: Median cable rail Rural Highways and Interstates: 6-inch edge striping Connecticut Risk factors: speeds, functional class, roadway width, degree of curvature, and annual average daily traffic (AADT). Delaware Risk factors: lane width, operating speed vs. speed limit, rural vs. urban, horizontal curves, etc. Installation of rumble strips, high-friction surface treatment, raised pavement markers, safety edge, curve warning signage, guardrail, etc. District of Columbia Countermeasures: median barrier and skid hazard program. Georgia Prioritize based on roadway and lane departure crashes. Other factors include side-friction and sharp curves. Hawaii Run off road and cross centerline crashes addressed with shoulder and centerline rumble strips, HFST, safety edge, etc. Illinois Risk factors: width/type of shoulder and edge drop off. Countermeasures: widen shoulder and install centerline rumble strips. Indiana Risk factors: curved alignments, narrow lanes, and narrow shoulders. Iowa Risk factors: lane width, shoulder width, paved shoulder width, and traffic volume. Countermeasures: centerline rumbles, shoulder rumbles, paved shoulders, and wider edgelines. Kansas Marking-related risk factors: retro-reflectivity. Guardrail-related risk factors: end-treatments and general condition. HRRR-related risk factors: antiquated culverts/headwalls, steep fore-slope, and trees. Louisiana Risk factors: highway class, traffic volume, lane width, curve radii, and shoulder width. Maine Deploy centerline rumble strips on rural corridors with posted speed limits greater than or equal to 45 mph that meet certain AADT ranges. First “batch” of corridors includes 8,000 AADT or higher, and now determining the next targeted AADT range after nearing completion of those over 8,000. Maryland Risk factors: horizontal curve, presence of fixed objects, etc. Countermeasures: HFST, guardrails, and raised pavement markers. Minnesota Risk factors: traffic volume, horizontal curves (these have set of criteria as well), access density, prior target crash history, edge risk assessment (1,2,3), and visual traps. Mississippi Risk factors: posted speed, lane width, shoulder width, curvature, median width, etc. Countermeasures: rumble strips/stripes, audible pavement markings, cable barriers, clear zone improvements, etc. Missouri Associate risk factors to specific countermeasures to treat risks.

State DOT Survey Responses 103   State DOT Response Chevrons: use AADT and advisory speed for a curve to determine locations for proactive treatments. Median Guard Cable: use AADT and median width to determine value for a proactive treatment. Montana Use systemic countermeasures to address roadway departure crashes on a broad scale across the State (i.e., centerline rumble strips). Nebraska Rural curves were identified as a risk factor for roadway departures. Programmed systemic curve sign project to address roadway departures. Crossover median crashes on freeways were identified as a roadway departure type for systemic improvement. Installing cable median barrier at higher risk locations. New Hampshire Most common systemic treatment is rumble strips. Risk factors for prioritization of rumble strips include traffic volume and posted speed limit. New Jersey Horizontal curve crash mitigation: centerline rumble strips program and HFST pilot program. New York Roadway departure plan is in development and has not been released as of March 2021. Expected risk factors include but are not limited to curves, number of lanes, access control, median width, speed limit, AADT, shoulder width, shoulder type, county, radius, and friction demand. Expected countermeasures include but are not limited to oversized and optional signs, pavement markings, reflectorized sleeves on posts, doubling signs, clear zone improvements, and rumble strips. North Carolina Emphasis will be on 2-lane, rural roadways above 40 mph. Countermeasures will include long-life pavement markings, rumble stripes, and enhanced signs for curves. North Dakota Risk factors: curve radius, shoulder width, and traffic volumes. Ohio Risk factors: width (surface, lane, and shoulder), functional class, and speed. Oregon Roadway Departure Plan identifies crash types and specific countermeasures. Select clusters of locations that have targeted crashes at or above a designated threshold level. Countermeasures include curve treatments, rumble strips, delineation, HFST, tree management, and alcohol/speed enforcement. Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) list includes countermeasures specific to roadway departure: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRF- Appendix.pdf Pennsylvania Risk factors: wet road crashes, lane departure crashes, single-vehicle run-off- road, fixed objects, curves without signs that are less than the design standard radius based on the super elevations, clear zone factors, and drainage issues. Countermeasures: shoulder widening at curves, rumble, strips, curve warning signs, pavement markings, HFST, adjusting super elevations, flashing warning devices, realignments. Puerto Rico Risk factors: drivers exceed regulatory speed limit and pavement conditions. Countermeasures: high friction surface, inspections of roadside elements, curves radius, sign conditions, and education to create awareness to reduce crashes. Rhode Island Risk factors: 85th percentile speed, curve radii, and available clear zone. Countermeasures: warning signage, striping, rumble strips/stripes, guardrail, HFST, lane narrowing, center median buffer, speed feedback signs, increased enforcement, and road diets. South Carolina Installation of rumble strips and 2-foot paved shoulder on all resurfacing projects. South Dakota Risk factors: Average daily traffic (ADT), curve advisory speed, shoulder width, posted speed, and crashes.

104 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response Tennessee Countermeasures: edge-line, shoulder rumble strips, chevrons, guardrail and post delineation, signage, and 6-inch pavement markings. Vermont Risk factors: curve radii + functional class. Wyoming Countermeasures: guardrail, winter weather road conditions, distracted driver and impaired driver countermeasures, signs, rumble strips, and pavement markings. Q10b: Please identify typical risk factors related to intersections and systemic countermeasures that your state implements to address intersections. State DOT Response Arkansas Risk factors: unsignalized, Y-intersection Countermeasures: channelization, signage/striping Colorado Signalized intersections: reflective backplates Left-turn approach crashes: fully protected left turns Connecticut Risk factors: speeds, functional class, intersection traffic control (signal vs stop control), AADT, geometry Delaware Risk factors and crash types: red light and/or STOP sign running, failure to yield right-of-way at signalized intersections, wrong way turning movements (ramps & divided highways). Countermeasures: conversion to all-way stop control, intersection warning signage, thermoplastic transverse rumble strips approaching STOP signs, DO NOT ENTER & WRONG WAY signage along ramps and divided highways. District of Columbia Implementing left-turn hardening to address left-turn crashes (i.e., use of bollards and rubber curbs to prevent drivers from cutting the corner and to encourage drivers to make left turns at slower speeds). Implementing red light cameras to address red light running crashes. Georgia Ranking based on EPDO ranking. Risk factors include intersection geometry and sight distance. Hawaii Head-on crashes addressed with retroreflective backplates. Illinois Established guidance for left turn crashes over-represented at signalized intersections. Risk factors include speed 45 mph and greater, roadway curvature and skewed intersections affecting gap acceptance, sightlines below standard, obstructed visibility by opposing left turn vehicles and negative offset medians, and inadequate capacity of left-turning vehicles. Countermeasures include changing to protected left-turn arrow only, upgrading to double left-turn lanes, changing negative to positive left-turn lane offset, and converting signals to roundabouts. Iowa Risk Factors: entering volume, skew, proximity to a curve, and proximity to an access or another intersection. Countermeasures: doubled-up/larger signs, flashing beacons, and improved pavement markings. Kansas Risk factors to target with lighting: dark interchanges/intersections and traffic volumes. Intersection risk factors: bypass lanes (target for removal), too-wide approaches as they relate to sight distance, lack of turn lanes, lighting, proximity to railroad crossing. Maine Use excess crash methodology with EB adjustment to identify excess crashes (and costs) at nearly all intersections on public highways. There are a few facility types (roundabouts) that are not currently in this tool. Program enhanced

State DOT Survey Responses 105   State DOT Response signage packages for 3-legged, rural, stop-controlled intersections to address those with the highest excess crash experience. Countermeasures include reflective backplates to signal heads on corridors. Maryland Risk factors: traffic control, collision type, etc. Countermeasures: Traffic signal, sign, and pavement marking upgrades. Minnesota Risk factors: on/near horizontal curve, skew, railroad crossing, commercial development, traffic volume (ratio, cross product, etc.), previous stop control, distance > 5 miles, prior target crash history, speed limit, traffic control device, and land use type. Mississippi Risk factors: traffic control, skew, major/minor volumes, number of lanes, etc. Countermeasures: basic, intermediate, and enhanced intersection signage upgrades, installation of ‘Be Prepared to Stop’ warnings, reflectorized backplates (targeted use), etc. Nebraska Intersections with permissive left turns may have right angle crashes due to driver’s failing to yield. Implementing flashing yellow arrows at intersections with these risk factors. New Jersey Countermeasures: roundabout program and backplates program North Carolina Risk factors: intersection of two-lane rural roads that are two-way stop-sign control. Examine major and minor street volumes to determine if intersection can be converted to all-way stop. North Dakota Risk factors: speed limits, skew angle, approaching lanes, commercial development, and traffic volumes. Oregon Intersection Plan incorporates a comprehensive approach that includes: Traditional approach (identifying and analyzing individual high-crash intersections from the crash data system, defining crash patterns, determining appropriate countermeasures, and then implementing those countermeasures) . Systematic application of large numbers of cost-effective, low-cost countermeasures. Comprehensive application of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted education and enforcement initiatives on a corridor basis. Table 5 (page 7) in our plan summarizes intersection countermeasures and CRF list includes countermeasures specific to intersections. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRF-Appendix.pdf Pennsylvania Risk factors for rear-end and angle crashes: turning movement issues, rear-end issues due to lack of turning movement accommodations, traffic signal phasing, merge lanes, access points near intersections, and drainage issues. Countermeasures: converting signals from post mounted to mast arms, enlarging signal heads, backplates, adding pedestrian countdown timers, bracketing stop signs where we have right curves leading in to a stop controlled intersection, advance warning signs, pavement markings, flashing warning devices, lane narrowing pavement marking on through lanes to help distinguish intersections, traffic signal coordination and adjusting phases, adopting new signal technology like adaptive signals. Rhode Island Risk factors: 85th percentile speeds, number of approach lanes, existing signal phasing and timings, sight distance, and traffic volumes. Countermeasures: update yellow and red times, signal backplates, protected or protected-permissive left turn phasing, brush clearing, warning signs in advance of and at intersection, widening to provide exclusive turn lanes, additional pavement markings for guidance, and optimize signal timings. South Carolina Upgraded 2,000 intersections based on crash experience using signal, signing, and marking enhancements.

106 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response South Dakota Risk factors: traffic volume, posted speed, location to vertical and horizontal curves, and crashes. Tennessee Countermeasures: oversize signs, solar-powered flashing beacons, double advance warning signs, and double stop signs. Wyoming Risk factors: site distance, terrain, driver impairment, distracted driver, road condition, and winter weather. Countermeasures: advance warning signs, transverse rumble strips, pavement markings, and signals. Q10c: Please identify typical risk factors related to pedestrians and systemic countermeasures that your state implements to address pedestrians. State DOT Response Colorado Risk factors: urban corridors with high pedestrian volumes and crashes Countermeasures: median refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bulb outs, and pedestrian crossings. Connecticut Risk factors: speeds, crossing width, presence of median, presence or lack of enhanced pedestrian signs and markings, midblock vs. intersection locations, signalization, area type, and pedestrian volumes. District of Columbia Implementing left-turn hardening to address left-turn crashes (i.e., use of bollards and rubber curbs to prevent drivers from cutting the corner and to encourage drivers to make left turns at slower speeds). Implementing red light cameras to address red light running crashes. Implementing leading pedestrian intervals to address pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Georgia Risk factors: transit data, exposure data using video, crash data, connectivity, surrounding land use, and nearest crossing distance. Hawaii Pedestrian-involved crashes are addressed with pedestrian warning signs, appropriate crosswalk/crossbar locations, pedestrian phases, etc. Indiana Pedestrian risk factors include traffic volume and identifiable pedestrian generators. Maryland Risk factors: crosswalk, sidewalk, etc. Countermeasures: provide and upgrade sidewalks Minnesota Risk factors: commercial development, traffic volume, traffic control, corridor speed limit, skew, on/near horizontal curve, land use type, and target crash history. New Jersey Countermeasures: midblock crosswalk program New York Risk factors: urban, uncontrolled crosswalks, signalized intersections, and top 20 focus communities. Countermeasures: Signs and pavement marking packages, pedestrian signals, countdown timers, curb bulb outs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, and signal timing. North Carolina Risk factors for bicycle and pedestrian safety corridors: demographic information, roadway characteristics, and vulnerable user crash data. Ohio Risk factors: functional class (arterials), urban area type, speed, and low auto ownership. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Implementation Plan was updated following the steps outlined in NCHRP Research Report 893. See pages 13-14: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Bike-Ped-Safety-

State DOT Survey Responses 107   State DOT Response Implementation-Plan.pdf. CRF list includes countermeasures specific to bike and pedestrian: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRF- Appendix.pdf. Pedestrian risk factors include: Roadway data: functional class (principal arterial), number of lanes, high-access density, presence of sidewalk, and posted speed. Context: zoning (mixed use or other general), proximity to schools, and transit stops. Demographics: high population over the age of 64. Other risk factors not used in screening due to lack of availability include high turning volumes at intersections, left-turn phasing, lighting, propensity for mid- block crossings, and exposure Pennsylvania Risk factors: pedestrian traffic generators that induce mid-block crossings (housing development on one side of the road and a park, shopping, college facilities, etc. on the other side), transit stops, crosswalks, utility access points, inlet grates, curb types and condition, and pavement condition at walking paths and mass transit transition points (has the pavement been shoved causing tripping hazards). Countermeasures: rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bulb outs, pavement markings, and lights. Rhode Island Risk factors: Number of lanes to cross, 85th percentile speed of traffic, presence of lighting, sight distance, volume of traffic, and volume of pedestrians. Countermeasures: signage and striping enhancements for crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, enforce motorist and pedestrian violations, make sure pushbuttons and pedestrian signals are working properly, exclusive pedestrian phasing, and leading pedestrian interval. South Carolina Non-motorized project identified 10 corridors with highest density of bike and pedestrian crashes. Countermeasure are typical at all corridors. Tennessee Countermeasures: refuge islands, crosswalks, lighting, curb ramps, and signage. Wyoming Risk factors: unlit roadways, impaired drivers/pedestrians, and site distance when crossing. Countermeasures: signals, lighting, advance warning signs, and crosswalks. Q10d: Please identify typical risk factors related to bicycles and systemic countermeasures that your state implements to address bicycles. State DOT Response Colorado Risk factors: urban corridors with high bicycle volumes and crashes. Countermeasures: crossings and bicycle lanes. District of Columbia Implementing left-turn hardening to address left-turn crashes (i.e., use of bollards and rubber curbs to prevent drivers from cutting the corner and to encourage drivers to make left turns at slower speeds). Implementing red light cameras to address red light running crashes. Implementing sign replacement and improvement to address other crashes. Georgia Risk factors: Transit data, exposure data using video, crash data, connectivity, and surrounding land use. Hawaii Countermeasures: bicycle warning signs, bike lanes, etc. North Carolina Risk factors for bicycle and pedestrian safety corridors: demographic information, roadway characteristics, and vulnerable user crash data. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Implementation Plan was updated following the steps outlined in NCHRP Research Report 893. See pages 13-14:

108 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Bike-Ped-Safety- Implementation-Plan.pdf. CRF list includes countermeasures specific to bike and pedestrian: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRF- Appendix.pdf. Bicycle risk factors include: Roadway data: functional class (principal/minor arterial), number of lanes, high- access density, presence of sidewalk, posted speed (>=35 mph), and presence of bike lanes. Context: zoning (mixed use or other general), proximity to schools, and transit stops. Demographics: high population over the age of 64. Other risk factors not used in screening due to lack of availability include scenic bikeways, time of day, and lighting. Rhode Island Risk factors: type of roadway, number of lanes, traffic volume, speeds, bicycle volume, and pavement width for vehicle and bicycle lanes. Countermeasures: buffers between bike lanes and vehicle lanes, warning signs and striping, high visibility crossings, education on rules of the road for bicyclists, bicycle detection at traffic signals where appropriate, and bike route signing. South Carolina Non-motorized project identified 10 corridors with highest density of bike and pedestrian crashes. Countermeasure are typical at all corridors. Tennessee Countermeasures: pavement markings, route designation (signage), and bike friendly rumble strips. Wyoming Risk factors: unlit roadways, impaired drivers/bicyclists, and site distance when crossing. Countermeasures: signals, signs, bike paths, wider shoulders, and narrow rumble strips. Q10e: Please indicate the focus area(s) and identify typical risk factors related to the focus area(s) and systemic countermeasures that your state implements to address the focus area(s). State DOT Response Colorado Risk factors (animal crashes): rural highways with high wildlife activity. Countermeasures: wildlife fencing or crossings. Illinois Horizontal curves are an area for systemic improvement. Risk factors: high speed, tight radius, and presence of curve signage. Countermeasures: install chevrons/advance warning signs, install/widen shoulder, and install shoulder rumble strips. Massachusetts Developing risk factors for nearly all emphasis areas of SHSP including all of the above, motorcycle, truck involved, younger drivers, older drivers, speeding, impaired driving, distracted driving, and occupant protection. New Jersey Wrong way crash mitigation. Wisconsin No current systemic projects.

State DOT Survey Responses 109   State DOT Preliminary engineering is not required for countermeasures with standard drawings. Preliminary engineering is required but only for certain spot projects (e.g., those that impact right-of-way or exceed a dollar threshold). Preliminary engineering is required for all spot HSIP projects. Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q11: Which of the following best describes your state’s requirements for developing spot HSIP projects?

110 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Response State requires all spot HSIP projects to have plans of the proposed countermeasure, although they don’t have to be highly detailed or complete. This is helpful for locals who might contract out for a project and cannot be reimbursed for any Phase I work. A very basic concept of what the District or MPO would like to do. Involves a basic HSM analysis with different project options. Sometimes a detailed preliminary engineering study is completed, but many times it isn’t. We do not have a dollar threshold which has led to many issues with initial estimates way under what the actual cost will be. Feasibility study is required as first step for HSIP project regardless if it is identified as spot or systemic. PE is usually always required. For a small set of countermeasures, we may let a construction project with proposal only plans developed in-house. The first box is typical. However, some applicants have progressed further to have a better understanding of costs, scope, and project timeline. Thought not required, these things can help with the selection process. Q12: Which of the following best describes your state’s requirements for developing systemic HSIP projects? State DOT Preliminary engineering is not required for countermeasures with standard drawings. Preliminary engineering is required but only for certain systemic projects (e.g., those that impact right-of-way or exceed a dollar threshold). Preliminary engineering is required for all systemic HSIP projects. Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Q11a: If other, please explain.

State DOT Survey Responses 111   State DOT Preliminary engineering is not required for countermeasures with standard drawings. Preliminary engineering is required but only for certain systemic projects (e.g., those that impact right-of-way or exceed a dollar threshold). Preliminary engineering is required for all systemic HSIP projects. Other New Jersey √ New Mexico New York √ North Carolina √ √ North Dakota √ Ohio √ Oregon √ Pennsylvania √ Puerto Rico √ Rhode Island √ South Carolina √ South Dakota √ Tennessee √ √ Vermont √ Washington √ Wisconsin √ Wyoming √ Q12a: If other, please explain. Response State requires all systemic HSIP projects to have plans of the proposed countermeasure, although they don’t have to be highly detailed or complete. This is helpful for locals who might contract out for a project and cannot be reimbursed for any Phase I work. Feasibility study is required as first step for HSIP projects regardless if it is identified as spot or systemic. No Plans Contract (NPC) method of delivery with projects under several of its current programs. These projects are characterized by having recommendations easily implemented and requiring no acquisition of Right of Way. The main purpose of the No Plans Contract delivery method is to enable safety projects to be let to construction in the most efficient manner possible, thus allowing the improvements to get on the ground in a greatly reduced time over that anticipated under a traditional design/bid/build delivery method. Key NPC Review Elements: Constructability of the recommended improvements; Accurate description of improvements provided within the NPC and associated functional plans; Accurate and complete estimated quantities; Presence of the appropriate general notes and State DOT Standard Drawings; Accurate and complete sign schedule. Preliminary engineering is required for all systemic HSIP projects. Some systemic projects can be created using a log approach, but still needs funding for a PE phase to create this type of project. Some projects that are completed with State DOT forces, under $100k can be completed without PE, however, this process is only allowed for certain projects and State DOT forces have been reduced over the years so this non-letting process is becoming rarer each year.

112 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, for spot projects Yes, for systemic projects Yes, for both spot and systemic projects No, we do not allow for any shortcuts. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q13: Does your state allow for any shortcuts to implement spot or systemic HSIP projects (e.g., not requiring all steps of the typical planning and development process for certain safety projects, purchasing products to be installed by maintenance forces to skip going out to bid for construction)?

State DOT Survey Responses 113   Response Approved systemic countermeasures do not require a benefit-cost analysis at locations with risk factors. Certain spot initiatives such as HRRR and Cross-Median Crashes are not required to complete a project evaluation factor as long as certain minimum crash thresholds are met. Concept Development process is limited to a CD Checklist for systemic projects, which then move directly to Final Design (skipping PE). Finally, the design is completed in-house to save on the time required for procurement of consulting services. District quick response projects, District maintenance forces, local government forces, developed condensed project delivery process for safety projects that do not need ROW, have a PCE, and limited risks. Working on an IDIQ low-cost safety project delivery mechanism. Force account is eligible for low cost projects on state system with preauthorized program IDIQ, but have not been able to use it yet due to an insufficient number of sign contractors In certain situations, where installations can be done in-house to achieve an expedited delivery and a construction cost savings, we will allow force account projects. State DOT has used M&O forces to convert some rural 4-leg intersections with 2-way stop control to all- stop intersections by procuring hardware such as flashing led stop signs or speed feedback signs. We also have a program for municipalities to install RRFB for mid-block crosswalks using hardware procured by the Department. Marking: We use our streamlined 402 process. Materials only. No foundations. Pavement markings (flow arrows, wider markings). Modifications to existing signals (pedestrian features, placement or number of signal heads). We have a few contracts to furnish and install materials. Minor preliminary design, standard plans, shortened schedule Most follow the development process. Used maintenance forces to upgrade select warning signs to Type 11 sheeting. We have a Traffic Safety Assessment Program (TSAP) that identifies low cost improvements that are forwarded to Maintenance office for funding and installation. No Plans Contract (NPC) method of delivery with projects under several of its current programs. These projects are characterized by having recommendations easily implemented and requiring no acquisition of Right of Way. The main purpose of the No Plans Contract delivery method is to enable safety projects to be let to construction in the most efficient manner possible, thus allowing the improvements to get on the ground in a greatly reduced time over that anticipated under a traditional design/bid/build delivery method. Key NPC Review Elements: Constructability of the recommended improvements; Accurate description of improvements provided within the NPC and associated functional plans; Accurate and complete estimated quantities; Presence of the appropriate general notes and State DOT Standard Drawings; Accurate and complete sign schedule. Projects from the approved systemic project list do not need extra analysis for cost and crashes. These crash countermeasures are already proven fixes. Spot locations require extensive crash analysis and a Time of Return (TOR) analysis which includes crash costs, crash analysis, and project costs. Signing improvements are done by in-house crews; pavement marking, signal, and guardrail improvements are done by open-ended maintenance/construction contracts Streamlined environmental review process. Systemic project on local roads have been implemented by purchasing the products using HSIP funds, with the local forces installing the products. Urgently needed safety improvements may be implemented on an emergency basis. We allow the purchase of signing to be installed by maintenance forces. We utilize Maintenance forces when we can to install signing and minor signal improvements to address systemic issues along curves/corridors and intersections. Q13a: If other, please explain.

114 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q14-1: How does your state prioritize spot HSIP projects on the state system?

State DOT Survey Responses 115   Response Deliverability, project duration, and cost fitting also influence ranking. State DOT also considers crashes per mile during the study period and recent year KA crashes Economic model also affects BCR. Priority Deliberation buses a combination of a points system that includes cost effectiveness along with safety asset team deliberation to consider non-monetized site considerations. Some of the above including cost effectiveness and moving to some benefit-cost (the cost uses the crash severity in the equation), but a lot of the prioritization is readiness and geographic distribution and project type politics For the State system, we use of Time of Return (TOR) which focuses on the K/A crashes but can also include all other crashes. For State system spot projects, at least 2 K/A crashes need to occur or a pattern of B crashes over a 3 to 5-year period. For systemic projects, these projects are chosen based on Region priorates and where total crashes are occurring. If a K/A crash occurs, those systemic locations are prioritized. See previously attached Call Letter. Each of the 7 Regions gets an allocated amount of money and they prioritize their projects as long as they meet the requirements of the Safety Program. Pavement markings ($24M) and delineation ($1.5M) for State roadways have their own templates to be used every year. This is a large amount of HSIP funds. State DOT also tries to determine the lives saved and serious injuries reduced as a result of the project. Benefit-Cost Ratio (based on societal crash costs of total crashes by crash type) State DOT follows an FHWA approved Capital Delivery Process, wherein all asset categories are weighted in prioritizing the projects. Safety Management System is one of the many management systems that provide information towards the decision-making process. We are moving towards fatal and serious injury crashes only however the current network screening and B/C analysis processes use all crashes. Currently we do not prioritize. We have been accepting projects that follow our SHSP and are HSIP eligible. Perform a High Crash Location Analysis. Prioritize on excess fatal/serious crash frequency. Project Evaluation Factor that provides a comparison of the estimated crash reduction potential with the overall cost of the project. This is very similar to a benefit cost ratio but does not include all the elements of a traditional B/C analysis and therefore is not technically defined as a benefit cost ratio. Q14-2: How does your state prioritize systemic HSIP projects on the state system? State DOT Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Q14-1a: If other (spot), please explain.

116 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q14-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Response Deliverability, project duration, and cost fitting also influence ranking. State DOT also considers crashes per mile during the study period and recent year KA crashes If locations do not have B/C ratio greater than 1, project can still be approved as long as locations have common characteristics and the appropriate treatment for said characteristics and targeted crashes is selected. Locations/projects receiving 50 percent or more of the possible risk factor points in their safety plan qualify for funding. For systemic, this only applies to Lighting.

State DOT Survey Responses 117   Response Some of the above including cost effectiveness and moving to some benefit-cost (the cost uses the crash severity in the equation), but a lot of the prioritization is readiness and geographic distribution and project type politics For the State system, we use of Time of Return (TOR) which focuses on the K/A crashes but can also include all other crashes. For State system spot projects, at least 2 K/A crashes need to occur or a pattern of B crashes over a 3 to 5-year period. For systemic projects, these projects are chosen based on Region priorates and where total crashes are occurring. If a K/A crash occurs, those systemic locations are prioritized. See previously attached Call Letter. Each of the 7 Regions gets an allocated amount of money and they prioritize their projects as long as they meet the requirements of the Safety Program. Pavement markings ($24M) and delineation ($1.5M) for State roadways have their own templates to be used every year. This is a large amount of HSIP funds. State DOT also tries to determine the lives saved and serious injuries reduced as a result of the project. Prioritization is based on rankings developed from relevant risk factors. State DOT follows an FHWA approved Capital Delivery Process, wherein all asset categories are weighted in prioritizing the projects. Safety Management System is one of the many management systems that provide information towards the decision-making process. We are moving towards fatal and serious injury crashes only however the current network screening and B/C analysis processes use all crashes. Currently we do not prioritize. We have been accepting projects that follow our SHSP and are HSIP eligible. We might be switching to BC based on fatal and all injury crashes with human capital costs. Systemic is based on average cost to install thresholds and projects submitted for funding. This is still developing. Perform a High Crash Location Analysis. Systemic programs are not based on an economic evaluation and B/A is not conducted due to size of projects. Prioritize on excess fatal/serious crash frequency. Q15-1: Does your state have different processes for prioritizing spot HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana Yes

118 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland No Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming No Q15-1a: If other (spot), please explain. Response Final project selection is also based on local agency project delivery history. Our MPO partners seek approval from their board, and program the funds within the Local Safety Program allocations in the STIP. The MPOs administer the Local Safety Program, and the project selection is through a collaborative Technical Review Committee. Project HSIP edibility applications are submitted by LPAs and use B/C ration to demonstrate cost effectiveness. the Local Assistance Division also scores and prioritizes projects using other non-safety related factors. The Local HSIP/HRRR program accepts all crashes and does not have a minimum K/A requirement. If a proposed project does include K/A crashes, additional funding is provided (90/10 vs. 80/20).

State DOT Survey Responses 119   Response We don't have a policy for local roads. We have some LTAP programs set up to help identify locations. However, our legal agreement process for contracting work on local roads is ineffective and keeps us from using HSIP funds on local roads. We use a scoring rubric and can make it available upon request. Q15-2: Does your state have different processes for prioritizing systemic HSIP projects on the local system? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia No Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland No Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No

120 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits Cost- Justification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming No Q15-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Response Final project selection is also based on local agency project delivery history. Not all local public agencies have completed a safety plan, so they lack risk factor scores. In those cases, projects are prioritized based on a written justification. Our MPO partners seek approval from their board, and program the funds within the Local Safety Program allocations in the STIP. The MPOs administer the Local Safety Program, and the project selection is through a collaborative Technical Review Committee. Sign project at risk curves are not prioritized. Projects are done among a predetermined number of volunteer towns The Local HSIP/HRRR program accepts all crashes and does not have a minimum K/A requirement. If a proposed project does include K/A crashes, additional funding is provided (90/10 vs. 80/20). Using the safety planning process, projects that are systemically applied, lower cost, and applied at higher risk sites are automatically assumed to meet these thresholds above. To get greater county participation, many of these steps have been done statewide and allowing the counties only to send in simplified pre-selected projects by type and locations. We don't have a policy for local roads. We have some LTAP programs set up to help identify locations. However, our legal agreement process for contracting work on local roads is ineffective and keeps us from using HSIP funds on local roads. We use a scoring rubric and can make it available upon request. Q16-1: Does your state quantify expected safety benefits for spot HSIP projects? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed) Crash modification factors Other Alabama Yes Alaska Yes Arizona Yes Arkansas Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut No

State DOT Survey Responses 121   State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed) Crash modification factors Other Delaware No District of Columbia Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri Yes Montana Yes Nebraska Yes Nevada Yes New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oregon Yes Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico Yes Rhode Island Yes South Carolina No South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming Yes Q16-1a: If other (spot), please explain. Response It depends on the project and if we or HSM have SPFs that apply (or CMFs that apply) or if we have to use crash history or some other method. We just tried quantifying Safe Systems approach to understand expected safety benefits. But that was just tried twice. But we look into various options. We are moving towards state developed safety performance functions.

122 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Response We created State-specific SPFs for rural roadways as part of a research project recently. We have our own HSM Spreadsheet for analysis. Q16-2: Does your state quantify expected safety benefits for systemic HSIP projects? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed) Crash modification factors Other Alabama Yes Alaska Yes Arizona Yes Arkansas Yes Colorado Yes Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Yes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts Yes Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri Yes Montana Yes Nebraska Yes Nevada Yes New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oregon Yes Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico Yes Rhode Island Yes South Carolina No South Dakota Yes Tennessee Yes Vermont Yes

State DOT Survey Responses 123   State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed) Crash modification factors Other Washington Yes Wisconsin Yes Wyoming Yes Q16-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Response Do not quantify expected benefits for systemic projects. For systemic, this only applies to Lighting. It depends on the project and if we or HSM have SPFs that apply (or CMFs that apply) or if we have to use crash history or some other method. We just tried quantifying Safe Systems approach to understand expected safety benefits. But that was just tried twice. But we look into various options. Not for systemic. Q17: Beyond project costs and crash-based benefits, does your state consider non-crash-based factors in prioritizing HSIP projects? State DOT Consider non- crash-based factors SHSP priority Social equity Geographic equity (region/district or urban/rural) State/local equity Project readiness Other Alabama Yes Alaska Yes Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware Yes District of Columbia Yes Georgia Yes Hawaii Yes Idaho No Illinois Yes Indiana No Iowa No Kansas No Louisiana No Maine Yes Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri Yes Montana No

124 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Consider non- crash-based factors SHSP priority Social equity Geographic equity (region/district or urban/rural) State/local equity Project readiness Other Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island Yes South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q17a: If other, please explain. Response As noted above, local agency delivery history is also a factor. Bundling with other projects in the area, construction conflict with adjacent projects, HSIP Implementation Plan funding goals Each project needs to be within one of the SHSP emphasis areas. If the project is part of recent initiatives from BSPE (such as guardrail in 2014) or innovative intersection designs (roundabouts, diverging diamond, j-turn) for the first time in a district. Level of municipal support and/or legislative interest are factors considered in addition to Benefit/Cost and SHSP priority. State DOT seeks local agency/public buy-in prior to moving forwards with some of our more impactful safety treatments, such as J-Turns (RCUTs) Risk factors for Bicycle and Pedestrian projects. SHSP emphasis area. Statewide Traffic & Safety Engineer has discretion to adjust awards for cost fitting or to ensure the use of restricted funding pools. Tort liability issues TSMO priorities State DOT is in the process of implementing a new project selection and prioritization processes for the development of the capital program for all its transportation programs based on eight criteria: Safety, Asset Condition, Mobility & Connectivity, Economic Access, Resiliency, Regional, Environment and Health Access. We also look at prior planning efforts. If the location has been identified in either data-driven safety analysis or as part of larger regional and/or corridor level planning, this can add points to the projects

State DOT Survey Responses 125   Response total for selection. We also have an HSIP Selection Committee that can give some additional weight to a project being selected (or denied). Q18: How does your state balance HSIP funds among spot, systemic, and systematic projects? State DOT All projects compete for the same funds. There is a set-aside for each program type, and projects compete within the designated program. Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

126 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT All projects compete for the same funds. There is a set-aside for each program type, and projects compete within the designated program. Other Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q18a: If other, please explain. Response 400K is used yearly for systemic safety projects on local roads. This is the set-aside amount that was established by SAFETEA:LU for the HRRR program. State DOT continued to program the same amount after MAP-21 eliminated the set-aside. Now it is actually more of a readiness issue. The HSIP funds are distributed 75% State and 25% Local. For State system each Region needs to use 25% of their funds on systemic projects. For Local, a certain amount it not set aside, but the application process is streamlined for systemic projects - see attached Letter in #4. Pavement markings and delineation are considered as systemic projects. We have the following statewide funding goals: Spot - 50% Systemic - 50% (this portion is further split to Roadway departure 50%, Intersection 35%, and Bike/Ped 15%) While all projects compete for the same funds, we are working on strategically aligning HSIP funds in the future to delineate the Systemic and Spot HSIP funding. Q18b: If there is a set-aside for each program, how does your state determine the set-aside amount for each program? State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Alabama Alaska Arizona We cap the amount of money we are willing to commit to systemic projects at 20% of the total HSIP dollars that are available. Arkansas Colorado State DOT starts with a set percentage (i.e., 25% for local agency projects), but that is subject to change based on demand. Connecticut Delaware Estimates for short-term hot-spot improvements are generated, and those projects are funded. Remaining funds roll into the systemic program, which are normally coupled with other types of funding. District of Columbia

State DOT Survey Responses 127   State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana The Safety Asset Team seeks to approach a 50/50 split of total spot and systemic project funding allocation. Systematic improvements are achieved via road standards. Iowa Kansas Based on need and scheduling Louisiana Maine HSIP funding has a pavement marking retroreflectivity set-aside each year, with the remainder being used for systemic and spot improvement projects. Although we theoretically target 50% each for systemic and spot improvements, it can vary each year depending on the candidates being considered in each grouping and an assessment of priority by our Safety/Mobility Committee. Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina In September 2020, state DOT developed an HSIP Implementation Plan, which reviewed crash data trends, SHSP emphasis areas, existing HSIPs/processes, and historical countermeasure selections. A funding allocation model was developed after the data within the document were reviewed. North Dakota Ohio Frequently balance funding to ensure we are fully programmed. Oregon

128 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island I think it’s a combination of quantitative and qualitative. We do look at the percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes based on locations and adjust accordingly. However, we take professional judgment into account, as due to the low number of fatal and serious injuries, patterns are harder to find, and we tend to now put more emphasis on systemic improvements. South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Based on previous experience and cost Q19: Does your state have a certain goal for funding systemic projects? State DOT Yes, based on documented formula or process Yes, but not based on documented formula or process No Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

State DOT Survey Responses 129   State DOT Yes, based on documented formula or process Yes, but not based on documented formula or process No Other Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q19a: If there is a set-aside for each program, how does your state determine the set-aside amount for each program? State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Alabama Alaska Arizona We cap the amount of money we are willing to commit to systemic projects at 20% of the total HSIP dollars available. Arkansas Colorado State DOT starts with a set percentage (i.e., 25% for local agency projects) but that is subject to change based on demand

130 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q20-1: How does your state evaluate spot HSIP projects on the state system post-implementation? State DOT Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before– after Regression cross- section Other We don’t. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming

State DOT Survey Responses 131   Q20-1a: If other (spot), please explain. Response Before after with volume correction. Spot locations are evaluated in a case-by-case manner. It depends on what data is available and how much. We try EB but sometimes that isn’t possible so look at other options. As an example, in the past, some systemic projects did not have accurate traffic volumes, so we tried alternatives like before-after but controlling for reporting. In some cases, we do not evaluate because we simply do projects because of EDC (Every Day Counts initiatives) or other known “effective measures.” Q20-2: How does your state evaluate systemic HSIP projects on the state system post- implementation? State DOT Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before– after Regression cross- section Other We don’t. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina

132 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before– after Regression cross- section Other We don’t. North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q20-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Response Before after with volume correction. State DOT plans to hire consultant to conduct B/A studies for all safety projects. Haven’t determined methodology for systemic projects yet. It depends on what data is available and how much. The approved systemic projects have been previously researched nationwide or State DOT specific research. B/A studies are completed with State and local projects separately. We try EB but sometimes that isn’t possible so look at other options. As an example, in the past, some systemic projects did not have accurate traffic volumes, so we tried alternatives like before-after but controlling for reporting. In some cases, we do not evaluate because we simply do projects because of EDC (Every Day Counts initiatives) or other known “effective measures.” Q21-1: Does your state have different processes for evaluating the safety performance of spot and systemic projects on the local system post-implementation? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before–after Regression cross-section Other We don’t. Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No

State DOT Survey Responses 133   State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before–after Regression cross-section Other We don’t. Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota No Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Vermont No Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q21-1a: If other (spot), please explain. Response Currently we are still developing a program to allocate HSIP fund to locals and will start to support local projects in FY22. There have been no evaluations done yet. We have a Post-Implementation Evaluation system which is only available to evaluate local roads. Our new safety management system scheduled for implementation in Fall 2021 will be able to evaluate state and local road projects.

134 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q21-2: How does your state evaluate systemic HSIP projects on the state system post- implementation? If yes, select all that apply. State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Simple before– after Empirical or full Bayes before– after Comparison group before–after Regression cross- section Other We don’t. Alabama No Alaska No Arizona No Arkansas No Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware No District of Columbia No Georgia Yes Hawaii No Idaho No Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachu- setts No Michigan Yes Minnesota No Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No

State DOT Survey Responses 135   State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Simple before– after Empirical or full Bayes before– after Comparison group before–after Regression cross- section Other We don’t. Tennessee Yes Vermont No Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q21-2a: If other (systemic), please explain. Response Currently we are still developing a program to allocate HSIP fund to locals and will start to support local projects in FY22. There have been no evaluations done yet. Local Agency B/A Study guidance. Systemic projects are measured in a larger scale way (often agency wide) in a simple before-after comparison. We have a Post-Implementation Evaluation system which is only available to evaluate local roads. Our new safety management system scheduled for implementation in Fall 2021 will be able to evaluate State and local road projects. Q22: Does your state have documented HSIP policies, practices, manuals, and/or protocols for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects? State DOT Yes No Link (if yes, and available online) Alabama Alaska http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml Arizona https://azdot.gov/business/transportation-systems-management-and- operations/operational-and-traffic-safety/arizona-0 Arkansas Colorado https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety/assets/hsip/docs/procedure Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia https://wiki.ddot.dc.gov/display/COMP/Safety Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois https://idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/local-transportation- partners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/funding- opportunities/highway-safety-improvement-program Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana https://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/ltap/local-road-safety.html Maine

136 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes No Link (if yes, and available online) Maryland Massachusetts Older version, which is in the process of being updated: https://www.mass.gov/doc/highway-safety-improvement-program- criteria/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-safety-alternatives- analysis-guide/download Michigan Minnesota https://www.dot.state.mn.us/projectselection/lists/greater-minnesota-highway- safety-improvement-program.html Mississippi Missouri https://epg.modot.org/index.php/907.1_Safety_Program_Guidelines#:~:text=E ach%20year%2C%20Missouri%20receives%20federal,serious%20injuries%2 0on%20Missouri%20roads Montana Based on internal legal opinion, these are internal documents that are not available for distribution. Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/hsip.shtm New Mexico New York https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/accident-analysis- toolbox North Carolina https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/pdf/2020/nc.pdf https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety- Program-and-Projects.aspx https://spatial.vhb.com/ncdotshsp/assets/Reports/NC%20SHSP%20Guide%20 Web%20Single.pdf https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Safety- Evaluation.aspx North Dakota Ohio https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/highway+sa fety/highway-safety-manual-guidance/12-highway-safety-manuals-guidance- landing Oregon https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Pages/ARTS.aspx Pennsylvania http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington http://sharedot/pd/cpdm/copbd/scpr/Documents/2020%20Scoping%20Instructi ons/2020I2ScopingInstructions.pdf https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/design/ASDE/Safety-Analysis- Guide.pdf https://wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm Target Zero: https://targetzero.com/ Wisconsin https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce- pgms/highway/hsip.pdf Wyoming

State DOT Survey Responses 137   Q23: If you have additional comments or details you would like to share, please enter them here. Response A consultant is currently working with State DOT to evaluate its HSIP process. It is hoped that this evaluation will lead to future improvements in the use of more advanced methods to identify potential locations for both spot and systemic projects, in a more strategic approach to HSIP investment between hot spot and systemic, including a more comprehensive systemic program and in prioritization and project delivery of spot and systemic projects. HSIP manual does not currently reflect all of currently used practices, especially those related to systemic applications. HSIP report is being updated to include current guidelines. State DOT is about a year away from delivery of a new safety analysis management system that will provide all of the tools included in the HSM. The new software will likely (and hopefully) change some of the project selection and prioritization procedures. State DOT is currently working to update scoring for spot locations and to create a more adaptable systemic program. State DOT is in the process of updating our HSIP guides so please keep this in mind. State HSIP is evolving and has made much progress over the last few years. State HSIP structure is unique, and the project process does not always fall under one section, i.e., HSIP funds for projects are also delegated to our Project Development sections (Highway Design) after the HSIP Section determines a need.