National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details

« Previous: Appendix B - State DOT Survey Responses
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Literature Review Resources and Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26666.
×
Page 196

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.

138 A P P E N D I X C Literature Review Resources and Details Appendix C provides a list of resources reviewed as part of the literature review and a summary of state DOT practices with respect to spot, systemic, and systematic approaches to HSIP project identification, prioritization, and evaluation. Resources Reviewed The following is a list of resources included in the literature review. In general, the information provided in the summary of the literature review is based on the listed agency HSIP and Safety Program manuals unless otherwise noted. 1. Alabama Department of Transportation. HSIP Management Manual, October 2015. https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divted/TrafficSOS/pdf/ALDOTHSIPProgramManagement Manual_02%2003%2016.pdf. 2. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Alaska HSIP Handbook, March 2020. http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/dcstraffic/assets/pdf/hsip/2020_hsip_handbook.pdf. 3. Arizona Department of Transportation. Arizona HSIP Manual, December 2018. https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/2015-hsip-manual.pdf. 4. Arkansas Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 5. California Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 6. California Department of Transportation. Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP), February 2016. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/ hsip/2018/ssarpguidelines2016feb.pdf. 7. California Department of Transportation. HSIP Guidelines, April 2016. 8. California Department of Transportation and FHWA and SafeTREC. Local Roadway Safety: A manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Version 1.5, April 2020. 9. Colorado Department of Transportation. Colorado HSIP, September 2016. https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety/assets/hsip/docs/procedure. 10. Connecticut Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 11. Delaware Department of Transportation. HSIP Memorandum, December 2018. 12. District of Columbia Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 13. FHWA. CMF Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/. 14. Florida Department of Transportation. HSIP Guidelines, August 2020. 15. Georgia Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021.

Literature Review Resources and Details 139   16. Gross, F., T. Harmon, M. Cynecki, R. Dittberner, and C. Chestnutt. Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize HSIP Performance. Report No. FHWA-SA-20-001, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2021. 17. Gross, F. HSIP Evaluation Guide. Report No. FHWA-SA-17-039, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2017. 18. Hawaii Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 19. Idaho Transportation Department. HSIP Standard Planning Process, 2017. 20. Illinois Department of Transportation. Safety Engineering Policy Memorandum, 2006. https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-&- Handbooks/Safety/SAFETY%201.06%20- %20Safety%20Engineering%20Policy%20Memorandum.pdf. 21. Iowa Department of Transportation. HSIP Manual, May 2017. 22. Kansas Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 23. Kentucky Department of Transportation. Kentucky FAST Act Investment Plan. https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Pages/Highway-Safety-Improvement- Program-(HSIP).aspx. 24. Louisiana Department of Transportation. HSIP Infrastructure Project Selection Guide for State Routes, 2017. 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. 25. Maine Department of Transportation. Maine HSIP, 2018. https://www.maine.gov/mdot/safety/docs/2018/Highway_Safety_Improvement_Program.pdf? v=2. 26. Maryland Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 27. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. HSIP Project Selection Criteria, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/highway-safety-improvement-program. 28. Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan HSIP Implementation Plan, 2021. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MI_HSIP_Implementation_Plan_709645_7.pdf. 29. Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan HSIP, 2017. https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/hsipp/Attachments/97ec38ea-1165-447c-9543- c735a83441ac_MDOT%20HSIP%20Manual%20FY%202018.pdf. 30. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Local Solicitation for HSIP Funding, 2019. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/hsip/2019localannouncement.pdf. 31. Minnesota Department of Transportation. District Solicitation for HSIP Funding, 2019. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/hsip/2019districtannouncement.pdf. 32. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Traffic Engineering Manual, 2015. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/tem/2015/chapter11.pdf. 33. Mississippi Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 34. Missouri Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 35. Montana Department of Transportation. Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan HSIP. https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/forms/hsip_application.pdf. 36. NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx. 37. Nebraska Department of Roads. HSIP website. https://dot.nebraska.gov/business-center/lpa/ projects/programs/hsip/.

140 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program 38. Nebraska Department of Roads. HSIP Process Document, 2015. 39. Nevada Department of Transportation. HSIP Manual, 2020. https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=17982. 40. New Hampshire Department of Transportation. HSIP–Manual and Guidance, 2013. https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/doc uments/hsip_nhguidance_122013.pdf. 41. New Jersey Department of Transportation. New Jersey HSIP Manual, 2016. https://www.nj.gov/transportation/about/safety/pdf/2016hsipmanual.pdf. 42. New Mexico Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 43. New York State Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 44. New York State Department of Transportation. HSIP Procedures & Techniques, 1989. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repository/Red%20Book.pdf. 45. North Carolina Department of Transportation. North Carolina HSIP: 2020 Implementation Plan, 2020. 46. North Dakota Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 47. North Dakota Department of Transportation. Local Road Safety Program, 2013. https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/docs/LSRP/LSRP_PhaseI_NE_Region.pdf. 48. Ohio Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 49. Ohio Department of Transportation. HSIP Procedures Manual, 2017. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/ProgramManagement/HighwaySafety/HSIP/S afety_Study/HSIP%20Procedures%20Manual.pdf. 50. Oklahoma Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 51. Oregon Department of Transportation. Highway Safety Improvement Guide: A Guide to Developing Highway Safety Projects, 2021. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Safety_HSIP-Guide.pdf. 52. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. District Highway Safety Guidance Manual. Chapter 6, Pennsylvania HSIP Guidance, 2019. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf. 53. Preston, H., R. Storm, J. Bennett, and B. Wemple. Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, Report No. FHWA-SA-13-019, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013. 54. Puerto Rico Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 55. Rhode Island Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 56. South Carolina Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 57. South Dakota Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 58. Tennessee Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 59. Texas Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 60. Texas Department of Transportation. HSIP Guidelines. https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot- info/trf/hsip/hsip-guidance-june-2020.pdf.

Literature Review Resources and Details 141   61. Torbic, D. J., J. M. Hutton, K. K. Silverman, and D. W. Harwood. NCHRP Research Report 955: Guide for Quantitative Approaches to Systemic Safety Analysis. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2020. 62. Utah Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 63. Utah Department of Transportation. HSIP Manual, 2020. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUH1FAnPkj-ccJ0SfcqEIGHYkc4PDvLg/view. 64. Vermont Highway Safety Alliance. HSIP Implementation Manual, 2016. 65. Virginia Department of Transportation. HSIP Implementation Guidelines. http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/FINAL_VDOT_HSIP_Implementation_ Manual.pdf. 66. Washington State Department of Transportation. HSIP website. https://wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/FedSafety.htm. 67. Washington State Department of Transportation. Safety Analysis Guide, 2020. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/design/ASDE/Safety-Analysis-Guide.pdf. 68. West Virginia Department of Transportation. 2020 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 69. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. HSIP General Information Slides. https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/highway/hsip.pdf. 70. Wyoming Department of Transportation. 2019 HSIP Annual Report. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/. Accessed July 29, 2021. 71. Wyoming Department of Transportation. HSIP Execution. Document saved in project folder. Summary of Spot Project Identification Methods This section provides an overview of approaches used in spot project identification and whether or not the approach applies to both state and local projects. Table 35 provides a summary by state DOT based on information from the HSIP manuals and annual reports. The following sections provide further details, which are categorized by: • Same Spot Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads • Different Spot Project Identification Methods for State and Local Roads Table 35. Summary of spot project identification methods. State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) for Local Roads Source(s) Alabama Crash frequency or probability of specific crash types Crash frequency HSIP Annual Report Alaska Crash costs per mile Crash costs per mile HSIP Manual Arizona Establish expected averages and find statistically significant anomalies. Establish expected averages and find statistically significant anomalies. HSIP Manual Arkansas Crash frequency or crash rate Not applicable HSIP Annual Report California Crash frequency or crash rate Crash frequency or crash rate HSIP Manual, HSIP Annual Report Colorado Level of service of safety Level of service of safety HSIP Manual Connecticut Crash frequency Crash frequency HSIP Annual Report

142 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Delaware Segments: critical rate method and minimum fatal and/or injury crash frequency Intersections: Crash Severity Index Segments: critical rate method and minimum fatal and/or injury crash frequency Intersections: Crash Severity Index HSIP Manual District of Columbia Weighted combination of crash frequency, rate, and severity Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Florida Expected fatal and injury crash frequency or observed fatal and injury crash frequency Expected fatal and injury crash frequency or observed fatal and injury crash frequency HSIP Manual Georgia Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, equivalent property damage only, excess Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, equivalent property damage only, excess HSIP Annual Report State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) for Local Roads Source(s) proportions of specific crash types, Relative Severity Index proportions of specific crash types, Relative Severity Index Hawaii Crash frequency and crash rate Project proposals HSIP Annual Report Idaho Safety scores based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fatalities, and serious injuries within comparable roadway categories Safety scores based on VMT, fatalities, and serious injuries within comparable roadway categories HSIP Manual Illinois High-severity crash locations High-severity crash locations HSIP Manual Indiana Crash frequency, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, Relative Severity Index Call for candidate projects HSIP Annual Report Iowa Risk factors indicative of increased likelihood of serious or fatal injury crashes Risk factors indicative of increased likelihood of serious or fatal injury crashes HSIP Manual Kansas Crash frequency and expected crash frequency with EB adjustment Crash frequency, expected crash frequency with EB adjustment, call for projects HSIP Annual Report Kentucky Overrepresentation of target crashes, crash-based safety performance, and road safety audits Overrepresentation of target crashes, crash- based safety performance, and road safety audits HSIP Manual Louisiana Number-Rate Method for state- owned controlled-access segments and state intersections LOSS using state-specific SPFs for state non-controlled-access segments Crash frequency HSIP Manual Maine Excess expected average frequency or critical crash rate Excess expected average frequency or critical crash rate HSIP Manual

Literature Review Resources and Details 143   Maryland Crash frequency and Relative Severity Index Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Massachusetts Expected crashes or EPDO Index, focusing on fatalities and injuries Expected crashes or EPDO Index, focusing on fatalities and injuries HSIP Manual Michigan Time-of-return analysis, HSM analysis, safety studies, road safety audits, and call for projects Regional/local Traffic Safety Plans and call for projects HSIP Manual Minnesota Critical crash rate County Road Safety Plan, road safety audit, or other safety plans, focusing on fatal or serious injury crashes HSIP Manual State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) for Local Roads Source(s) Mississippi Crash frequency, crash rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, and Relative Severity Index Crash frequency, crash rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, and Relative Severity Index HSIP Annual Report Missouri Crash frequency and severity Crash frequency and severity HSIP Annual Report Montana Crash frequency, crash rate, and crash severity Unknown HSIP Manual Nebraska Rate Quality Control Method Rate Quality Control Method HSIP Manual Nevada Intersections: EPDO, crash rate, and average crash frequency Segments: crash rate and EPDO Bicycles: bicycle level of service (BLOS) Pedestrians: Pedestrian Experience Index (PEI) Intersections: EPDO, crash rate, and average crash frequency Segments: crash rate and EPDO Bicycles: BLOS Pedestrians: PEI HSIP Manual New Hampshire Excess expected fatal or injurious crashes Excess expected fatal or injurious crashes HSIP Manual New Jersey Safety Management System (SMS) Network screening lists that rank high-crash locations HSIP Manual New Mexico Crash frequency, rate, and excess expected crashes Crash frequency and rate HSIP Annual Report New York Critical crash rate Unknown HSIP Manual North Carolina Safety warrants Safety warrants HSIP Manual North Dakota Crash frequency and equivalent property damage only Crash frequency and equivalent property damage only HSIP Annual Report Ohio Excess predicted crash frequency and severity Excess predicted crash frequency and severity HSIP Manual Oklahoma Excess expected crash frequency, expected crash frequency, probability of specific crash types, and crash frequency Not applicable HSIP Annual Report

144 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Oregon Crash frequency, rate, and severity Crash frequency, rate, and severity HSIP Manual Pennsylvania Excess expected crashes, crash clusters, or crash rate Crash clusters or crash rate HSIP Manual Puerto Rico Crash frequency, Relative Severity Index Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Rhode Island Excess expected crash frequency, crash frequency (fatal and serious crashes only), and Relative Severity Index Crash severity and frequency/exposure HSIP Annual Report South Carolina Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess expected Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess expected crash frequency HSIP Annual Report State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) for Local Roads Source(s) crashes, and Relative Severity Index using SPFs, and Relative Severity Index South Dakota Crash frequency, crash rate, excess expected crashes Crash rate HSIP Annual Report Tennessee Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, Relative Severity Index, and probability of specific crash types Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, and Relative Severity Index HSIP Annual Report Texas Crash frequency and excess proportions of specific crash types Crash frequency and excess proportions of specific crash types HSIP Annual Report Utah Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, hierarchical Bayesian model, usRAP, and Relative Severity Index Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, hierarchical Bayesian model, usRAP, and Relative Severity Index HSIP Annual Report Vermont Crash frequency and/or severity greater than similar sites Crash frequency and/or severity greater than similar sites HSIP Manual Virginia Potential for safety improvement and Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) Potential for safety improvement and PSAP HSIP Manual Washington Excess expected fatal and serious injury crashes LRSP and fatal or serious injury crash history HSIP Manual West Virginia Crash frequency and crash rate Crash frequency and crash rate HSIP Annual Report Wisconsin Data-driven crash-based analysis Data-driven crash-based analysis HSIP Manual Wyoming Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, and Relative Severity Index Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, and Relative Severity Index HSIP Annual Report

Literature Review Resources and Details 145   Same Spot Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads The state DOTs summarized in this section use the same method for identifying potential spot projects on state and local roads. Alabama Alabama identifies HSIP projects from a variety of sources, including the analysis of crash data by Alabama DOT and field observations by Alabama DOT, local governments, law enforcement agencies, EMS, and others. The Office of Safety Operations periodically updates the list of high-crash locations, including intersections and roadway segments on state-maintained roads and distributes the list to the Alabama DOT regional offices. HSIP project sponsors review the list and determine whether it should move forward as a potential project location. Alabama uses tools to assist HSIP project sponsors in identifying project locations and determining appropriate countermeasures. Alabama DOT’s Road Improvement Safety Evaluation (RISE) is a network screening tool for evaluating crashes and identifying appropriate safety enhancements. Alabama DOT also uses the U.S. Road Assessment Program (usRAP) to analyze suspected over-represented crash locations where traffic volumes are low and crash history data are insufficient. Alabama DOT has a list of approved cost-effective infrastructure countermeasures for funding under the HSIP to address spot or systemic highway safety issues. Other proposed improvements may be approved by Alabama DOT if they are demonstrated to be effective. A benefit-cost analysis must be completed to justify the cost-effectiveness of the countermeasure(s) to mitigate the safety issues for all spot projects. Alaska In Alaska, regional traffic and safety engineers screen crash data and consider other information to identify projects. Alaska uses the Spot Analysis tool to identify high crash locations. The Spot Analysis tool is a network screening tool to identify locations with higher crash ratings (i.e., Crash Cost/Mile) using the sliding window method. Once candidate locations are identified through the network screening, the agency explains what will be done to address the safety concern or, if nothing is planned, explain why not for each location. For locations without crash data, it is a judgment call to determine if the location is a high crash risk location. For the refined candidate projects, agencies then identify crash patterns, conduct field visits, and estimate project cost. Locations without clear crash patterns will be discarded from the list. There are two types of projects, ranked projects and non-ranked projects. Ranked projects are implemented at locations with high crash history. Non-ranked projects are implemented at locations with potential for severe crashes identified in SHSP strategies and may be spot or system-wide improvements. Applicants need to compute a benefit-cost ratio for each project of specific safety-related improvements using estimated CRFs and improvement costs. Ranked projects need to meet the minimum benefit-cost ratio threshold of 0.2. The State DOT provides a list of CRFs in its HSIP manual and applicants can also get approval for other factors from the State Traffic and Safety Engineer. For projects that are not ranked due to lack of an approved CRF, applicants perform a sensitivity analysis by computing two projected benefit-cost ratios assuming CRFs of 5% and 100% for crashes susceptible to correction by the planned countermeasures. In addition to the network screening process, agencies also solicit input on high crash locations from municipalities, other agencies, and regional planning. Arizona Arizona DOT uses network screening methods to identify candidate locations for spot and systemic improvements. Specifically, the State DOT uses crash, roadway, traffic, and vehicle data to identify trends, establish expected averages, find statistically significant anomalies, and anticipate areas of interest. Each year, Arizona DOT identifies fatal and serious injury crash locations on all public roads related to the SHSP

146 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program emphasis areas. Based on the crash data, Arizona DOT identifies candidate locations for safety improvement projects on the State highway system. MPOs, Councils of Government (COGs), and other public road owners identify candidate locations on the non-State highway system. The State DOT has a list of CMFs for countermeasure selection along with service life, which is limited to the injury severity of fatal and suspected serious injuries. Analysts identify countermeasures while considering the expected reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries, cost effectiveness of the projects, related emphasis area categories in the State SHSP and applicable MPO/COG strategic safety plan, and integration with the STIP. HSIP projects must use 4- or 5-star CMFs from Arizona DOT’s list or FHWA’s CMF Clearinghouse. Once countermeasures are determined, agencies calculate the benefit-cost ratio based on fatal and suspected serious injury crashes using the State DOT benefit-cost ratio calculation sheet. A project must have a KA benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 2.5 to be eligible for HSIP funding. Each engineering Region reviews the initial candidate listing of locations with higher potential for crash mitigation. The Regions use the listing along with other information such as their own operational reviews; input from citizens, staff, and city/county personnel; as well as other ongoing or scheduled construction activities in order to determine the most feasible and beneficial candidate safety project submittals. The Region may also choose to nominate other safety project locations not mentioned on the listing. Any regional nominations not on the list still need to meet the HSIP criteria for consideration. Colorado Colorado DOT identifies a majority of safety issues to be addressed by HSIP projects through two methods: (1) identification of correctible crash pattern(s) through statewide crash data analyses, and (2) confirmation of locally observed safety issue(s) using engineering analyses. Colorado DOT is divided into five engineering regions throughout the State. Regional planning and engineering staff work with local partners to analyze available data and identify potentially effective safety projects within each region. Data may include existing crash patterns, geometric or roadway conditions, weather patterns, comparative evaluations, and other local qualitative and quantitative data. Colorado DOT uses LOSS and Diagnostic Analysis for identifying locations with potential for crash reduction. Colorado DOT has calibrated and developed SPFs for all public roadways in the State. The SPFs are stratified by the number of lanes, terrain, environment, and functional classification for all roadway and intersection types. There are separate SPFs for total crashes and for injury and fatal crashes. The LOSS analysis is divided into four categories: • LOSS I - Indicates low potential for crash reduction; • LOSS II - Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction; • LOSS III - Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction; and • LOSS IV - Indicates high potential for crash reduction. Colorado DOT develops a list of candidate locations with LOSS III or LOSS IV. Subsequently, Colorado DOT uses direct diagnostic and pattern recognition techniques for diagnosis. The Direct Diagnostics and Pattern Recognition methods calculate a cumulative binomial probability of the crash types and related characteristics to identify overrepresented elements in the crash data (e.g., dark conditions, overturning vehicles) that may be related to abnormal crash patterns and crash causation. Pattern Recognition compares normative percentages of different crash parameters for highway segments and Direct Diagnostics focuses on intersections or a single point on a road and compares those particular normative averages to identify patterns. The region staff use the candidate listing of locations along with other information such as operational reviews, input from citizens, staff and city/county personnel, and other ongoing or scheduled construction activities to determine the most feasible and beneficial candidate HSIP projects. The region staff can also nominate safety project locations not on the candidate location list.

Literature Review Resources and Details 147   Connecticut Connecticut DOT employs a balanced safety management approach that includes a spot improvement approach and a systemic approach to identify, select, and implement HSIP projects. The spot improvement approach, also known as High Frequency Crash Locations, results in safety investments at specific locations. The HSIP annual report indicates the use of crash frequency to identify spot locations (31). Connecticut DOT also developed the Connecticut Roadway Safety Management System to support the six-step safety management process. This includes a network screening module to identify and rank sites with a higher than predicted crash frequency. A diagnosis module helps create collision diagrams and crash trees as well as conduct a test of proportions. Delaware Delaware DOT considers 3 years of fatal and injury crash data in the HEP site selection process. The modified Segment HEP excludes PDO crashes from the site selection process; however, these crashes are considered once a site is selected for study. Only segments with a minimum of five fatal and/or injury crashes within a three-year period are considered for study. Delaware DOT ranks and prioritizes segments based on the critical ratio. The critical ratio method is a statistical test to determine whether the crash rate at a particular location is significantly higher than the average crash rate for locations with similar characteristics. Critical ratios equal to or greater than 1.0 indicate a location with a crash rate that is statistically significantly greater than other similar roadways. The 10 segments with the highest critical ratios are selected for safety studies. Delaware DOT ranks and prioritizes intersections based on a crash severity index. The intersection crash severity index uses three years of crash data and weights crashes by severity as shown in the equation below: Crash Severity Index=(Number of Fatal Crashes×40)+(Number of Injury Crashes×4.5)+(Number of Property Damage Only Crashes×1) The five signalized and unsignalized intersections (including at least one intersection per county) with the highest crash severity index are considered for study. For candidate locations, Delaware DOT’s Traffic Section reviews crash data, performs a field review, and identifies potential safety improvement alternatives. For candidate locations where improvements are in project development, design, or construction, a safety audit is performed to confirm that the proposed improvements are expected to address the identified crash problem. District of Columbia The District of Columbia does not distinguish between State and local roads, so the methods are considered the same on both. The District uses a weighted combination of crash frequency, rate, and severity to identify spot locations for further investigation (32). This network screening process considers all roadway classifications. Locations are also identified through citizen and road user requests. Florida In general, HSIP projects follow the roadway safety management process in the HSM. Florida DOT is decentralized with a Central Office and seven District Offices. Each District Office and the Turnpike Enterprise is responsible for identifying HSIP projects on all public roads (on the State highway system and off the State highway system). Districts rely on MPOs, Transportation Planning Organizations, local agencies, and citizen requests to identify priority issues and initiate effective safety projects. Annually the Florida DOT State Safety Office (SSO) provides Districts and the Turnpike Enterprise with an initial statewide network screening as a starting point for spot project identification. District Offices and the Turnpike Enterprise may elect to conduct their own network screening analyses to determine locations with high potential for safety improvement with respect to specific crash types and contributing factors of

148 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program regional significance. Up to five consecutive years of roadway and crash data are used in network screening. When HSM methods are applicable, the SSO uses the peak searching method based on expected fatal and injury crash frequency. The Florida DOT Traffic Engineering and Operations office recommends using SAFE STRIDES 2 Zero for signalized intersections on the State highway system. When HSM methods are not applicable, Districts and the Turnpike Enterprise use simple queries or GIS analysis based on observed fatal and injury crash frequency. Network screening typically produces spot projects; however, the results are applicable to systemic and systematic projects. Next, analysts diagnose the safety concerns at sites identified in the network screening to determine correctable crash patterns and contributing factors. Once safety problems are understood, Districts select appropriate countermeasures with input from local stakeholders. When identifying potential projects, Districts omit sites recently improved. Districts can identify potential projects through investigating locations where fatal crashes occur, especially if the fatality has not been reported. Other sources of HSIP projects include LRSPs, requests originating from local agencies and citizens, and other planning and engineering studies with a safety review. Idaho Idaho’s HSIP is comprised of projects proposed by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Districts and the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC). ITD and LHTAC follow similar processes for project identification. ITD screens locations using safety scores. Safety scores are calculated based upon the VMT, fatalities, and serious injuries within comparable Inventory for Client Agency and Plan categories. ITD identifies crash patterns and the physical features for each location. ITD calculates needs scores for locations where density and severity of crashes is the highest in a district. Needs scores are used to evaluate one-tenth mile segments within the longer high priority segment. Subsequently, ITD selects countermeasures from the HSM and CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse. Illinois Illinois DOT identifies projects through systemwide improvements recommended by the Bureau of Safety Engineering (BSE), district documentation of high severity crash locations, and materials provided by BSE and/or Division of Traffic Safety, which include a GIS map of the top 5% of public roadways with the most severe safety needs in the State (although it is unclear how BSE develops the top 5% locations). Districts then review locations through various methods such as road safety audits and crash records review. Countermeasures are selected based on feasibility and effectiveness. Iowa Iowa identifies projects from District Road Safety Plans (DRSPs), which identify district-specific needs. As part of the DRSP development process, Iowa identifies candidate locations for safety improvement using a set of risk factors (e.g., traffic volume, crash history, and roadway and intersection characteristics) that are indicative of an increased likelihood of serious or fatal injury crashes. Once candidate locations are identified, the State DOT identifies prospective countermeasures based upon NCHRP Report 500 series. Iowa districts also identify projects that are not included in DRSP. Kentucky Kentucky HSIP projects are broken down into five categories: Roadway Departure, Intersections, Non- motorized, Commercial Motor Vehicle, and Other. Under each category, there are initiatives that involve spot projects and/or systemic projects. Kentucky uses different methods for project identification depending on the specific initiatives. The following initiatives involve spot projects and describe the related methods to identify project locations.

Literature Review Resources and Details 149   High Friction Surface: The State DOT uses HSM method to evaluate the roadway network for wet pavement condition crashes and provides analysis to indicate overrepresentation of target crashes. Intersection Emphasis: The State DOT conducts a network screening to prioritize intersections statewide based on safety performance. Each district reviews the top 20 intersections on the prioritized list and refines the list to 5-10 intersections. For selected intersections, the State DOT performs field reviews to document exiting conditions and potential areas of improvement. Lastly, the State DOT performs a crash analysis and refines the list of potential safety improvements. Localized Risk Mitigation Projects: Projects under this initiative are identified through road safety audits. Maine Maine DOT identifies spot project locations for intersections and roadway segments based on HSM excess expected average frequency or by selecting from the HCL list. HCLs are locations that exhibit a crash rate greater than one would expect for similar locations (same functional class and urban/rural rating) after adjusting for traffic volume and have at least eight crashes in the three-year reporting period. The excess expected average crash frequency is the difference between the EB adjusted average crash frequency and the predicted average crash frequency from an SPF. Along with excess expected crash frequency with EB adjustment, excess expected crash costs are calculated for the different facilities and ranked. The intersections are screened using a simple ranking method. They are ranked by excess total crashes, excess crash costs, and excess expected to predicted ratio. From the ranked lists, more detailed investigations are performed on the top 50 crash costs, top 50 expected to predicted crash costs ratio, top 20 rural crash costs, and top 20 rural expected to predicted crash costs ratio. Once locations are identified, Maine DOT performs diagnosis and selects countermeasures to refine candidate projects. The HSM and CMF Clearinghouse serve as resources in this process. Maine DOT also identifies potential projects through other sources such as reported complaints, staff concerns, previous studies or plans, and road safety audits. Massachusetts Massachusetts DOT originates spot project locations from a comprehensive list of high crash locations, SHSP Strategy, top 5% list, or other data-driven process in a region. The high crash location report includes intersections as well as pedestrian and bicycle crash clusters based on weighted severity of crashes that have been geolocated. For the top 5% list, Massachusetts DOT uses the expected crashes or EPDO index, focusing more on fatalities and injuries. When feasible, expected crashes is preferred to rank locations. If not, crash rate (EPDO per million entering vehicles or per million vehicle miles traveled) is used to rank locations while accounting for exposure as well. All potential HSIP spot projects require a road safety audit or similar report. Massachusetts DOT has a State-preferred CMF list for project development. Mississippi Mississippi uses several methods to identify spot locations, including crash frequency, crash rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, and relative severity index. Mississippi also holds informal meetings with HSIP staff and the Districts to discuss locations of concern. These locations are revealed through data analysis as well as calls from the public, local law enforcement, emergency responders, community leaders, and elected officials. These meetings have aided in the identification of spot locations that might not have been found as quickly by data analysis alone. As a part of Mississippi’s statewide safety efforts, local roads are given consideration for HSIP funding during each federal fiscal year. Potential projects are scrutinized under the same set of criteria set forth for State highway safety projects (33).

150 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Missouri Each district identifies how their share of HSIP funds will be programmed in accordance with Missouri's SHSP and the latest safety research and guidance. In general, Missouri screens for both intersection and non-intersection locations with an emphasis on locations that have experienced a higher frequency of severe crashes (34). Nebraska Nebraska uses the Rate Quality Control Method to identify hazardous locations on the State highway system. This computerized procedure integrates crash, traffic, and highway information to produce a series of reports that list and prioritize selected sites. The Rate Quality Control Method involves the use of a statistical test to determine whether the crash rate at a particular location is significantly higher than a predetermined average rate for locations with similar characteristics. The statistical tests assume that traffic crash occurrence approximates the Poisson distribution. In addition to projects identified by the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), projects proposed by local governments are also considered for safety funding. These projects must go through the same process as NDOR-initiated projects and compete for funding. Nevada Nevada DOT districts are responsible for the development and implementation of HSIP projects on State and local roads. Districts perform network screening to review the network and identify and rank locations. For intersections, performance measures include the EPDO, crash rate, and average crash frequency. For roadway segments, performance measures include crash rate and EPDO. Nevada references the State bicycle plan and local plans to provide guidance on bicycle safety projects. BLOS, which classifies streets according to the stress they impose on cyclists from A to F, is used for bicycle project identification and prioritization. PEI is used for selecting and prioritizing pedestrian projects. Additionally, Nevada DOT uses road safety assessments as another tool in identifying safety projects. New Hampshire New Hampshire DOT uses the peak searching network screening methodology in AASHTOWare Safety Analyst™ to perform the screening and identify sites with fatal or injurious crashes. A transparency report is then sent to regions and stakeholders for further review and investigation. Beyond the network screening list, agencies can submit potential locations for consideration. Non-infrastructure HSIP projects must be approved by the New Hampshire DOT HSIP Committee in competition with all other projects. Road safety audits are one method to identify safety improvements once a location is identified. New Mexico Traditionally, New Mexico used crash frequency and rate for network screening. Now, New Mexico is able to identify sites with high potential for safety improvement using excess expected crash frequency with Empirical Bayes adjustment as a performance measure. This is based on a recent effort to develop seven SPFs that represent the most common urban and rural, non-freeway roadway facility types (35). North Carolina North Carolina DOT develops a system of safety warrants to identify locations that are possibly deficient. The focus crash patterns are lane departure, frontal impact, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Locations

Literature Review Resources and Details 151   that meet warrant criteria are categorized as potentially hazardous locations. Crash analysis is performed, and collision diagrams are created for locations with the most severe and correctable crash patterns. This process results in a quantitative approach to identifying HSIP projects. Once a location has been identified for treatable crash patterns, the crash analysis and collision diagrams are sent forward to the Regional Traffic Safety Engineers for site investigation, safety countermeasure recommendation, project development, and submission for funding consideration. North Dakota There are limited details in the 2020 HSIP annual report, but it appears that North Dakota uses crash frequency and equivalent property damage only to identify spot locations (36). Ohio Ohio DOT uses AASHTOWare Safety Analyst to rank safety locations across the State, which flags locations that have higher than predicted crash frequencies. Each district or local agency then studies and addresses any location within the Top 50 of the safety priority list for each emphasis area. Each district or local agency conducts an engineering analysis, including a review of roadway condition and crash reports to identify the problem and potential alternative countermeasures. Oregon Oregon DOT uses SPIS as a network screening tool. A SPIS score is calculated for tenth-mile segments based on frequency, rate, and severity of crashes that occurred within each segment over the previous three years. Regions typically investigate the top 5% of locations to identify safety issues and possible corrective actions. The detailed diagnosis helps to better understand crash contributing factors and physical site constraints in order to identify potential countermeasures. Countermeasures are selected from Oregon DOT’s CRF List. Either “spot” or “systemic” countermeasures can be selected for high-priority locations. Potential projects can also be identified through other sources such as reported complaints, staff concerns, and previous studies or plans. Pennsylvania As part of the problem identification process, the Pennsylvania DOT, MPOs, and RPOs identify a list of candidate sites using crash data, traffic volumes, roadway data, and local input. Further, consideration is given to systematic improvements, sites with potential for reducing average crash frequency, county network screenings, corridors, and other guidance. The sites are then diagnosed to identify countermeasures and estimate the cost for improvement. A minimum benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 is required for all hot spot projects. Benefit-cost ratios are calculated using CMFs from the CMF Clearinghouse (7), the HSM (2), or the Pennsylvania CMF Guide (37). South Carolina The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that South Carolina uses crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess expected crash frequency using SPFs, and relative severity index to identify spot locations (38). It also notes that the vast majority (~96%) of fatal crashes occur on State-maintained roadways in South Carolina. As such, the primary focus for safety is on State-maintained roadways.

152 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Texas The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that Texas uses crash frequency and excess proportions of specific crash types to identify spot locations (39). However, it also notes that Texas DOT implemented Highway Safety Manual methods to perform network screening, including the use of the sliding window method with the following seven performance measures: crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess predicted average crash frequency using method of moments, excess predicted average crash frequency using SPFs, probability of specific crash types exceeding threshold proportion, and excess proportion of specific crash types. Utah Utah DOT begins with problem identification through collection and evaluation of crash, roadway, and traffic data. These data are supplemented by input from Utah DOT regions and other safety partners. The data and input are then screened to identify potential safety project locations. The State DOT also uses spot modeling to pinpoint locations where crashes have occurred or are likely to occur in the future based on the model. After specific sites are identified, crash characteristics are analyzed and potential countermeasures to mitigate the characteristics are selected. According to the 2020 HSIP annual report, Utah uses various methods and measures to identify spot project location, including crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, Hierarchical Bayesian models, usRAP, and relative severity index (40). Vermont Network screening is used to identify and prioritize sites with convincing promise for improved safety (i.e., sites where the crash frequency and/or severity is greater than other similar sites). Stakeholder input is also used to identify potentially hazardous locations. This can augment the screening process for where near-miss situations may not result in crashes but are occurring. Projects are selected via quantitative and qualitative factors. Qualitative factors include ease of implementation, consistency with agency goals and priorities, and public/political acceptability. Quantitative factors include project costs (design, construction, and maintenance), operational impacts (e.g., level of service, delay, and speed), environmental impacts, right-of-way impacts, and safety impacts. Virginia Virginia DOT’s HSIP efforts consist of three programs: (a) Highway Safety Program [inclusive of the systemic safety improvement (SSI)], (b) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, and (c) Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Program. As part of the Highway Safety Program, Virginia DOT uses network screening to identify locations with potential for safety improvement with State-specific SPFs. Engineering studies further advance projects into a scoping phase where potential countermeasures are identified and analyzed. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program project identification is guided by the Virginia DOT PSAP. Virginia DOT utilizes the Federal Rail Administration Accident Prediction Model to establish a statewide crossing improvement priority listing for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Program projects. West Virginia West Virginia identifies spot locations using crash frequency and crash rate. Specifically, the State DOT looks for locations where the crashes are higher than the statewide average for similar classifications. West Virginia DOT maintains approximately 94% of the roads in the State, including all secondary or county

Literature Review Resources and Details 153   routes. As such, HSIP funds are typically used for highway safety projects on the State System. City streets are typically lower volume and do not have significant numbers of fatal or serious injury crashes; however, projects on a municipal street are eligible to compete for available HSIP funds. All routes, including locally owned routes, are included during annual screening. Ranking is based on classification, so the lower volume routes compete against other lower volume routes (41). Wisconsin State HSIP projects include spot, corridor-level, and the HRRR Program. Projects are identified through “data-driven crash-based analysis,” although the particular methodology is unclear (42). Applicants submit projects through an HSIP application form, which includes a sketch of the proposed project, collision diagram, crash history, site photos, cost estimate, and Project Evaluation Factor (PEF). The PEF calculation includes estimated costs of the proposed project, crash history of the project location, identification of target crash frequency and/or severity of the proposed project, and estimated crash reduction potential of proposed improvements. Different Spot Project Identification Methods for State and Local Roads The State DOTs summarized in this section use different methods for identifying potential spot projects on State and local roads. Note in some cases, it is not clear if the State DOT uses a different process for State and local roads because either one or both methods are undefined in the online documentation. Arkansas State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates the primary method for project identification is based on total and fatal and serious injury crash rates. Arkansas also identified high-risk locations through requests from Arkansas DOT officials, Arkansas DOT Divisions and District Offices, public officials, and other interested parties (43). Local Projects Arkansas is in the process of developing a local road safety program policy to guide the allocation and use of HSIP funds for safety projects on local roads. Of the HSIP funds allocated for local projects, half of the funds will be awarded to systemic/systematic projects and half will be awarded to spot projects (43). California State Projects The State safety manual does not specify methods Caltrans uses for project identification. The HSIP annual report indicates that California uses crash frequency and crash rate to identify projects on the State system (44). Local Projects Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP funding. Local agencies start with network screening using crash frequency or crash rate to identify the top 10 (or 20) intersections and roadway segments in their jurisdiction. In addition, qualitative analysis considering the physical characteristics of the roadway network through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments is also recommended.

154 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program For countermeasure selection, the State DOT developed a list of countermeasures along with crash types, CRFs, expected lives saved, and HSIP funding eligibility for use in Caltrans’ Local HSIP Program. The last step is to use the Transportation Injury Mapping System benefit-cost Calculation Tool to calculate the benefit-cost ratio for candidate projects. Local agencies can also identify projects through information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and EMS personnel. Public notification (e.g., community or regional newspapers) is also a source for local agencies to identify projects. Georgia State Projects Based on the 2020 Annual HSIP Report, Georgia identifies projects using standard ranking criteria, including equivalent property damage only (EPDO), Relative Severity Index (RSI), and crash rate. The report also notes that other measures may be used for specific programs within the HSIP. For instance, crash frequency is used for pedestrian and bicycle programs. Similarly, crash frequency and excess proportion of specific crash types are used for the horizontal curve program (45). Local Projects Based on the 2020 Annual HSIP Report, Georgia is continuing the HRRR program as part of the HSIP. Georgia has also established an Off-System Safety (OSS) Program that works through the District coordinators. District coordinators work with the local agencies to identify safety deficient roads that are not part of the State highway system. The District coordinators use a data-driven approach to identify potential safety enhancements on off-system roads and intersections. Each county develops a scorecard that ranks named roads based on a weighted scale (45). Hawaii State Projects Hawaii uses the Number-Rate method based on a three-year analysis period to identify spot locations on the State system. This method establishes a minimum crash frequency and accounts for exposure through the rate component. Non-intersection locations on State roadways are based on sliding 0.3-mile segments. Hawaii DOT provides the county offices with the list of spot locations and crash data for internal design use (46). Local Projects Local agencies can submit project proposals for consideration (46). Indiana State Projects Indiana uses several measures to identify spot locations on the State system, including crash frequency, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, and relative severity index (10). Local Projects Local agencies can submit project proposals for consideration. The proposals must identify either high crash locations with demonstrated overrepresentation of severe crashes or a systematic application of proven countermeasures to address system-wide safety needs (10).

Literature Review Resources and Details 155   Kansas State Projects Kansas uses crash frequency and expected crash frequency with EB adjustment to identify spot locations on the State system (47). Local Projects For local projects, the process is generally the same except local road projects include a periodic solicitation letter to all cities with population of 5,000 or greater requesting project proposals (47). Louisiana State Projects Louisiana uses two methods for identifying potential safety spot projects on State roads depending on facility type: The Number-Rate Method is used for State-owned controlled-access segments and State intersections. The output is a list of locations that have at least five crashes per year and the crash rate is at least twice the statewide rate for similar classifications. LOSS using State-specific SPFs is used for State non-controlled-access segments. The State DOT has two sets of SPFs: one for total crashes and another for fatal and injury crashes. A location is considered to have a high potential for safety improvement if the fatal and injury crash rate is above the 80th percentile compared to the SPF and there are at least three fatal or serious/moderate injury crashes over a three-year period. Additionally, projects can be identified through other means such as federal-aid programs, Department of Transportation & Development (DOTD) Districts, MPOs, local/elected officials, regional safety coalitions, media, and the public. Local Projects For local roads, Louisiana uses crash frequency to generate a prioritized listing of routes and corresponding analysis that indicates prevalent crash types at each site. Maryland State Projects Maryland uses crash frequency and relative severity index to identify spot locations on the State system (48). Local Projects Local roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State (48). Michigan State Projects Michigan DOT uses a variety of resources including time of return analysis, HSM analysis, safety studies, road safety audits, and more to identify projects. The State DOT uses RoadSoft to analyze crash data. Trunkline/State projects consist of four programs: Safety, Sign (not funded by HSIP), Pavement Markings, and Delineation. The Safety program uses a spot approach and selects projects based on the State

156 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program trunkline call for projects. Locations are identified through the latest Transparency Report, high crash lists and maps, safety reviews, customer concerns, and pavement friction analysis. Local Projects The non-trunkline/local projects consist of three programs: HSIP Safety Program, HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program, and the HRRR Program. The HSIP Safety Program uses a spot approach and selects projects on the non-trunkline system through a call for projects. The call for projects process identifies several financial goals and includes projects that directly correct areas with concentration of fatal and serious injury crashes, project locations corresponding to high priority locations identified in Regional/Local Traffic Safety Plans, safety edge, non-motorized facilities/pedestrian improvements, high friction surface areas, road safety audits, guardrail upgrades and clear zone improvements, and general safety funds per Michigan DOT Region. Target crash type, facility type, and improvement type vary by project. Minnesota State Projects For State projects, crash locations are identified through network screening using a critical crash rate. Local Projects Local projects are identified from the County Road Safety Plan (CRSP). Higher priority sites documented in any CRSP will be given priority. Projects can also be identified through road safety audits or other safety plans, must have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one, and include a fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years. Montana State Projects State level spot projects are identified through analyzing crash trends based on the number of crashes, crash rates, severity of crashes, or a combination of these factors. Local Projects Local agencies can submit up to five locations annually, but it is unclear the method local agencies use for project identification. New Jersey State Projects New Jersey DOT identifies locations for spot projects through the SMS. Locations are then categorized into four lists: Intersection Improvement, Segment, Pedestrian, or Fixed Object. New Jersey DOT then uses crash data to diagnose problems and select countermeasures. Projects with a benefit-cost ratio less than 1.0 are not eligible for HSIP funding. Local Projects New Jersey DOT has developed network screening lists for all local roadways, which identify and rank high crash locations. Local agencies and MPOs identify potential projects from the network screening list.

Literature Review Resources and Details 157   New York State Projects State projects are primarily identified through a network screening process called the State Accident Surveillance System. This process identifies locations with higher than average crash rates for a particular facility type. These locations are placed on a high priority location list. Additionally, locations can be identified through public or political complaints, inquiries, police hazard reports, or observation by Regional staff. Local Projects The State DOT does not define the method used for local project identification. Oklahoma State Projects Oklahoma uses excess expected crash frequency, expected crash frequency, probability of specific crash types, and crash frequency to identify spot locations on the State system (49). Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (49). Puerto Rico State Projects Puerto Rico uses a Crash Cost Factor and a Frequency Index, corresponding to the Crash Frequency and Severity Index presented in the Highway Safety Manual to identify spot locations on the State system (50). Puerto Rico has not been able to use the more reliable methods in the Highway Safety Manual because the KABCO injury classification was not implemented and the traffic data was very limited. Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (50). Rhode Island State Projects Rhode Island uses a variety of performance measures to identify spot locations on the State system, including excess expected crash frequency, crash frequency (fatal and serious crashes only), and relative severity (51). For site-specific locations, Rhode Island developed SPFs for urban and rural 2- and 4-lane highways. For network screening, RIDOT uses societal crash cost ranking using the KABCO scale to identify top spot locations as well as systemic type issues statewide. Local Projects Most of the State system and some of the local system are mapped to a Linear Referencing System; however, the majority of the local system is not referenced and requires manual review to identify spot locations. This is again based on societal crash cost ranking (51).

158 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program South Dakota State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that South Dakota uses crash frequency, crash rate, and excess expected crash frequency to identify spot locations (52). Local Projects South Dakota DOT administers a county-wide signing program. Counties are prioritized by crash rate based on serious injury and fatal crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. Routes are also identified for improvements by conducting road safety studies and by an over representation of crash clusters and higher than average crash rates (52). Tennessee State Projects Tennessee’s Spot Safety Program addresses safety concerns identified by Regional request and approved by the Spot Safety Committee. Candidate projects identified by a Spot Safety Request from the Regional Traffic Engineers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All requests are presented to a Spot Safety Committee for initial approval. The projects initially approved by the committee must then receive final approval by the Chief Engineer prior to inclusion into the Spot Safety Program. The spot projects are based on crash data, but the details are unclear. The following criteria are used to qualify for road safety audit (53): • Segments - Spot, Section, or Corridor Analysis Period: 3 years Length: less than 5 miles Minimum number of crashes: 5 1 fatal or incapacitating injury crash and ratio of severe crash rate > 1.0, or at least 25% lane departure type crashes • Non-signalized (rural or urban) Intersections 1 fatal crash, or 2 or more incapacitating crashes, or one 1 incapacitating pedestrian or bicycle crash • Signalized (rural or urban) Intersections 1 fatal crash or 1 incapacitating pedestrian or bicycle crash • Non-signalized Rural Collector or Rural Local Only Intersections 1 fatal and/or one 1 incapacitating injury crash, or 3 or more crashes, or 5 or more crashes with 50% other than rear end crashes • Non-signalized (Urban only) Intersections 15 or more crashes with 50% other than rear end crashes • Signalized Intersections 1 or more incapacitating angle crashes, or urban, twenty-four (24) or more crashes with 50% other than rear end crashes, or rural, seven (7) or more crashes with 50% other than rear end crashes Local Projects Tennessee’s Local Road Safety Initiative addresses a safety concerns on local roads located outside an urban and MPO boundary experiencing crash rates higher than statewide averages. To qualify as a spot location, the location must experience a minimum of five crashes with at least one of the crashes classified as a severe crash (fatal or incapacitating injury) during the most recent six-year period. Further, the severe crash rate and average crash rate for the location must be greater than or equal to the statewide averages for similar facilities (53).

Literature Review Resources and Details 159   Washington State Projects Washington’s safety program includes the Crash Reduction Program. The Crash Reduction Program focuses on locations that experience fatal and injury crashes at intersections or along corridors. The State highway system is screened to identity segments and intersections where the expected number of fatal and serious injury crashes are greater than similar sites. Local Projects The State of Washington has a County Safety Program and a City Safety Program for local projects. The County Safety Program identifies projects through each county's LRSP. Projects can be at intersections, spot or mid-block locations, and/or on corridors throughout a county or over wide areas within a county. The City Safety Program provides funding for projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on city/town streets and State highways using engineering countermeasures. Projects must be at a specific intersection, spot or mid-block location, or corridor and must address at least one fatal or serious injury crash in the most recent five-year period. Wyoming State Projects Wyoming uses a variety of measures to identify spot projects, including crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, and relative severity index (54). Local Projects Wyoming uses a separate methodology developed through the University of Wyoming LTAP Center to identify and address spot locations on local roads. Performance measures used on local roads include crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess proportions of specific crash types, probability of specific crash types, and relative severity index (54). Summary of Systemic Project Identification Methods This section provides an overview of approaches used in systemic project identification and whether or not the approach applies to both State and local projects. Table 36 provides a summary by State DOT based on information from the HSIP manuals and HSIP annual reports. The sections that follow provide further details, which are categorized by: • Same Systemic Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads • Different Systemic Project Identification Methods for State and Local Roads Table 36. Summary of systemic project identification methods. State DOT Method for State Roads Method for Local Roads Alabama In-house tools and methodology (RISE program) and usRAP In-house tools and methodology (RISE program) and usRAP Alaska Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

160 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Method for State Roads Method for Local Roads Arizona In-house methodology In-house methodology Arkansas Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool No apparent systemic program California In-house methodology In-house methodology Colorado No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Connecticut In-house methodology In-house methodology Delaware Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool No apparent systemic program District of Columbia Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Not applicable Florida FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Georgia In-house methodology In-house methodology Hawaii In-house methodology In-house methodology Idaho In-house methodology In-house methodology Illinois Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Indiana In-house methodology In-house methodology Iowa In-house methodology In-house methodology Kansas In-house methodology In-house methodology Kentucky In-house methodology In-house methodology Louisiana FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Maine FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Maryland No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Massachusetts Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Michigan In-house methodology In-house methodology Minnesota FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology Mississippi Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Missouri In-house methodology In-house methodology Montana No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Nebraska In-house methodology In-house methodology Nevada No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program New Hampshire FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool

Literature Review Resources and Details 161   State DOT Method for State Roads Method for Local Roads New Jersey In-house methodology In-house methodology New Mexico In-house methodology In-house methodology New York In-house methodology In-house methodology North Carolina In-house methodology In-house methodology North Dakota No apparent systemic program FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Ohio In-house methodology In-house methodology Oklahoma In-house methodology In-house methodology Oregon FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Pennsylvania In-house methodology In-house methodology Puerto Rico In-house methodology In-house methodology Rhode Island In-house methodology In-house methodology South Carolina In-house methodology In-house methodology South Dakota In-house methodology In-house methodology Tennessee In-house methodology In-house methodology Texas FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Utah usRAP usRAP Vermont FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology Virginia FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Washington Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology West Virginia In-house methodology In-house methodology Wisconsin In-house methodology In-house methodology Wyoming In-house methodology In-house methodology Same Systemic Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads The State DOTs summarized in this section use the same method for identifying potential systemic projects on State and local roads. Alabama Alabama identifies systemic HSIP projects through safety studies, the use of the RISE program, and usRAP. However, it is unclear the methodology used to identify systemic projects. Alabama has a list of cost-effective infrastructure countermeasures permitted under the Alabama DOT HSIP program to address systemic or spot highway safety issues.

162 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Alaska Alaska does not specify the methodology the State DOT uses to identify systemic projects. It indicates that systemic projects should combine locations with similar characteristics, risk factors, and potential for crash types that will be addressed by planned countermeasures. Unlike spot projects, systemic projects do not have to meet the minimum benefit-cost ratio threshold of ranked projects. Instead, a net benefit-cost ratio and a project narrative describing the safety problem in terms of common characteristics or risk factors and the implications on safety of applying the selected countermeasures are required. Arizona In general, the State DOT follows the same process for identifying systemic projects as spot projects. The State DOT uses network screening methods to identify candidate locations for spot and systemic improvements. However, the manual does not specify the methodology used in network screening for spot and systemic projects. Colorado Colorado focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. If there is a systemic approach, it is not documented in the HSIP manual. Connecticut Connecticut DOT employs a balanced safety management approach that includes a spot improvement approach and a systemic approach to identify, select, and implement HSIP projects. The systemic approach leads to widespread implementation of treatments to reduce the potential for fatalities and serious injuries, whether or not crashes have occurred at a given site. The HSIP annual report indicates that fatal and serious injury crashes are dispersed across all public roads (31). As such, the systemic approach provides a targeted method to identify and implement low-cost safety countermeasures to address risk factors across the entire roadway network. Connecticut’s Roadway Safety Management System includes a diagnosis module to create crash trees and conduct a test of proportions, which both support systemic analysis. Delaware Delaware has a systemic safety improvement program. The state safety manual indicates that each of Delaware’s systemic safety improvement programs use a data-driven approach based on a number of factors, including traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, functional class, and crash history to identify and prioritize locations for implementing proven countermeasures. However, no details are provided to demonstrate the process Delaware DOT uses for systemic project identification. District of Columbia The District of Columbia does not distinguish between state and local roads, so the methods are considered the same on both. The District recognized the potential value of a systemic approach based on a high-level crash analysis. Specifically, non-motorized fatalities have accounted for roughly 50 percent of the District’s traffic fatalities since 2010 and the locations of these fatalities are relatively dispersed. The systemic approach identifies high-risk roadway features associated with a target crash type and then implements projects to target the underlying risk factors. Using a systemic approach, the District has identified and implemented pedestrian safety initiatives, including the elimination of dual turn conflicts, left turn hardening, and the targeted prohibition of right turn on red (32).

Literature Review Resources and Details 163   Florida Florida DOT uses the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (3) to identity systemic projects, which involves three steps. The first step is to identify focus crash types and focus facility types. Florida DOT uses the SHSP emphasis areas as a starting point for focus crash types. The next step is to identify and confirm potential risk factors, which include crash-related, operational, and geometric characteristics associated with the locations where the targeted crash types occur. Once there is an understanding of the underlying risk factors, Florida DOT develops a list or package of appropriate countermeasures to apply when specific risk factors are present. Additionally, Districts investigate locations where fatal crashes occur and consider whether improvements are warranted at fatality locations or whether a systemic or systematic project could address the underlying contributing factor(s) across many sites. Similar to spot projects, another source of HSIP projects is from LRSPs or requests originating from local agencies and citizens. Hawaii Hawaii developed a Systemic Roadway Departure Plan to address more systemic safety improvements with proven low-cost safety countermeasures (46). Idaho Idaho uses the same process for identifying spot projects and systemic projects. Illinois Illinois compiles crash information, identifies systematic problems or locations of severe crashes, determines contributing factors to the severe crash locations or system, and identifies integrated strategies to address fatal and severe injury crashes. While the Safety Engineering Policy Memorandum does not mention “systemic” specifically, it does mention “systematic.” Systematic improvements typically occur at a series of locations that present similar type of risk or recurring number of crashes of certain type. Iowa Iowa uses the same process for identifying spot projects and systemic projects. Kentucky Kentucky HSIP Projects are broken down into five categories: roadway departure, intersections, non- motorized, Commercial Motor Vehicle, and other initiatives. Instead of a single identification methodology, Kentucky adapts the method to each category and application as needed. The following are aspects of the systemic program. • Roadway Departure Corridors. The state DOT analyzes the entire roadway network to locate the greatest opportunities to reduce fatal and serious injury roadway departure crashes. • Cable Barrier. The state DOT evaluates the Interstate System in Kentucky where longitudinal barrier does not exist. • Horizontal Alignment Signing. The state DOT identifies candidate curves using crash data. Local roadways may qualify for the initiative. • High Friction Surface. The state DOT uses the HSM over-representation method to evaluate the roadway network for wet pavement condition crashes and provides analysis to indicate overrepresentation of target crashes. • Systemic Intersection Improvements. Projects under this initiative are identified through the HSM method for intersection attributes correlated with severe crash types.

164 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Louisiana The Louisiana DOTD Highway Safety Section is primarily responsible for performing statewide systemic studies and reviewing any systemic studies submitted by others for HSIP funding. The State DOT identifies high-risk features based on crash trends and selects and implements countermeasures at locations that possess those high-risk features. Like spot projects, potential systemic projects can also be identified through other federal-aid programs, Louisiana DOTD districts, MPOs, local/elected officials, regional safety coalitions, and the public. Maine Maine uses systemic and systematic approaches to complement the spot approach and address risk factors across the entire system. The systemic and systematic approaches use basic methods such as crash summaries and crash trees to identify risk factors and target SHSP emphasis areas. As a systemic example, Maine deploys centerline rumble strips to address head-on collisions on priority, high-volume, high-speed corridors (i.e., rural corridors with posted speed limits greater than or equal to 45 mph and traffic volumes greater than 8,000 vehicles per day). The area type, traffic volume, and posted speed were selected as risk factors based on an analysis of head-on crashes. Maine also employs a hybrid approach, using excess crashes to identify intersections with potential for safety improvement and then identifying and treating similar locations with enhanced systemic signage packages. Massachusetts Massachusetts’ systemic program addresses emphasis areas and strategies identified in the SHSP. Massachusetts’ HSIP Criteria cites FHWA regarding the systemic approach: “The systemic approach to safety involves widely implemented improvements based on high-risk roadway features correlated with specific severe crash types. The approach provides a more comprehensive method for safety planning and implementation that supplements and compliments traditional site analysis. It helps agencies broaden their traffic safety efforts and consider risk as well as crash history when identifying where to make low cost safety improvement locations. Rather than managing risk at certain locations, a systemic approach takes a broader view and looks at risk across an entire roadway system.” (55) As long as the systemic approach is addressing a safety concern raised in the SHSP and identified in one of the strategies, it is HSIP eligible. Further details are not provided on the specific systemic approach. Mississippi Mississippi prioritizes the use of systemic safety improvements such as Safety Edge and rumble stripe/strips as a part of larger construction and mobility projects. HSIP funding supports the installation of systemic measures such as cable barrier, edge line delineation enhancements (rumble stripe/strip, audible thermoplastic stripe, etc.), shoulder widening, and systemic access management. Mississippi has also increased focus on prioritizing shoulder and clear zone improvements. With lane departure crashes presenting an ongoing concern, Mississippi is moving more of its project focus toward those routes with higher percentages of lane departure crashes. For those locations, Mississippi DOT reviews for the presence of edge line delineation (rumble stripe, audible thermoplastic stripe), shoulder width and slope, and obstructions in the clear zone. The focus has been to make improvements along the entire route where narrow shoulders or clear zone hazards exist and where crash history shows patterns of vehicles leaving their lane at a higher than normal rate (33).

Literature Review Resources and Details 165   Missouri Missouri utilizes a large portion of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements (50% or more), but the process to identify these projects is unclear. HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements (34): • Cable Median Barriers • High friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/Improve Lighting • Install/Improve Pavement Marking and/or Delineation • Install/Improve Signing • Pavement/Shoulder Widening • Rumble Strips • Upgrade Guard Rails • Wrong way driving treatments Montana Montana focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. If there is a systemic approach, it is not documented in the Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan—HSIP. Nebraska The Strategic Safety Infrastructure Projects Team (SSIPT) handles projects where the cost estimate exceeds $400,000. The SSIPT searches for systemic safety projects that can be done on a statewide basis, such as rumble strip projects (both shoulder and centerline), projects to remove obsolete guardrail, and rumble stripe projects; however, the methodology for systemic project identification is undefined. New Hampshire New Hampshire DOT analyzes systemwide crash and roadway data to target crash types and associated roadway risk factors. Sites with risk factors that make a significant contribution to fatal and severe injury crashes are identified and prioritized by potential for future severe crashes based on AADT, crash predictions for roadway type, roadway characteristics, and other factors. New Hampshire DOT then selects appropriate low-cost countermeasures to effectively address the specific crash types on roads with the identified risk factors. New Hampshire DOT may also decide to incorporate projects identified through road safety audits into an active systemic improvement program. New Jersey New Jersey DOT has a State systemic safety program. Systemic projects follow the same approach as Spot Projects in that they necessitate consistency with the SHSP and involve countermeasure selection, HSM analysis, and benefit-cost analysis. The systemic approach begins by looking at the systemwide data to analyze and identify systemic safety problems. New Jersey DOT then conducts a risk assessment of locations across the network to select appropriate countermeasures. New York Based on the HSIP Procedures and Techniques, New York focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. However, according to the 2020 HSIP annual report, New York allocates

166 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program approximately 70% of HSIP funds to systemic projects. The process to identify these projects is unclear, but projects include the following systemic improvements (56): • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Pedestrian countdown timers • Pedestrian improvements identified in pedestrian safety action plan • Rumble strips • Wrong-way driving treatments Nevada Nevada focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. If there is a systemic approach, it is not documented in the HSIP Manual. North Carolina The systemic process follows the spot approach, including the analysis of crash data and roadway characteristics that identify economically effective countermeasures for a broad network application. Systemic approaches include the three program emphasis areas (lane departure, frontal impact, and pedestrian/bicycle). North Dakota North Dakota has a Local Road Safety Program for low-cost systemic safety projects as part of the HSIP. North Dakota conducts a detailed crash analysis for each focus crash type to identify risk factors. North Dakota then evaluates the local road system and prioritizes locations for safety investment. Ohio Based on the HSIP Procedures Manual, Ohio focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. However, according to the 2020 HSIP annual report, Ohio DOT spends approximately $15 million annually of the $159 million program on systemic and systematic safety improvements. Systemic safety improvements are those improvements that are constructed system-wide to reduce the likelihood of a crash of occurring based on roadway features, traffic volumes or other features such as speed limit or land use type (57). Oregon Oregon DOT has developed statewide systemic implementation plans for its three emphasis areas (roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle). The systemic network screening for emphasis areas uses risk factors. This process identifies potential locations where investments may yield good returns in terms of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. Countermeasures are selected from Oregon DOT’s CRF List. Only “systemic” countermeasures can be selected for systemic projects. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania uses the term “systematic” in the State safety manual, which align more with systemic projects by the FHWA definition. Pennsylvania DOT administers systemic-type safety projects under the

Literature Review Resources and Details 167   HSIP including cable median barriers, high friction surface treatment, wrong way exit ramp countermeasures, elimination of substandard cable guard rail, and rumble strips. Under the systemic approach, Pennsylvania identifies promising cost-effective strategies and then identifies sets of locations where it is cost effective to apply the strategy. To guide systemic projects, Pennsylvania developed safety plans, including an RDIP, an ISIP, and an SMAP. Analysts can also use systemic safety crash lists such as the Cross Median Crash and Wrong-Way Crash Priority Lists to identify opportunities for systemic safety improvements. Rhode Island Rhode Island uses a risk-based approach that examines roadway types that are susceptible to a specific crash type (roadway departure, intersection) and identified through high-level queries (51). HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements: • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Clear zone improvements • High friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Traffic control device rehabilitation • Upgrade guard rails South Carolina South Carolina uses approximately 33% of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements, but the process to identify these projects is unclear (38). HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements: • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Cable median barriers • Clear zone improvements • High friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Pavement/shoulder widening • Rumble strips • Safety edge South Dakota South Dakota uses approximately 50% of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements, but the process to identify these projects is unclear (52). HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements: • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Pavement/shoulder widening • Rumble strips • Upgrade guardrails

168 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Tennessee Tennessee utilizes approximately 40% of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements, but the process to identify these projects is unclear (53). HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements: • High-friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Retroreflectivity • Rumble strips Texas Districts refer to FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (3) as a resource for identifying systemic projects. Texas DOT provides a list of approved systemic safety countermeasures. Crash counts and Safety Improvement Index (SII) calculations are not required for systemic projects. The SII is the ratio of the annual savings in preventable crash costs that have occurred at a location to the cost of constructing the proposed improvement. Utah The identification process as described in the Spot section is augmented through the identification of systemic crash types. Utah DOT is continually working toward a systemic approach to problem identification. Utah DOT uses a statewide crash model to evaluate different roadway attributes and determine which variables cause an overrepresentation of expected crashes. Utah DOT also uses the usRAP safety model to assess risk based on crash data and roadway attributes. Virginia The SSI program addresses crash types that are not identified through crash frequency. The SSI program provides a consistent framework for addressing risk by focusing on systemwide roadway safety concerns. FHWA’s Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (3) helps in the identification of systemic safety projects through identification and analysis of risk factors, as well as identifying a threshold and resultant number of locations for the countermeasure selected. West Virginia West Virginia utilizes approximately 50% of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements, but the process to identify these projects is unclear. (41). HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements: • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Cable median barriers • High-friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve lighting • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Pavement/shoulder widening • Rumble strips

Literature Review Resources and Details 169   • Safety Edge • Traffic control device rehabilitation • Upgrade guardrails Wisconsin Wisconsin focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. If there is a systemic approach, it is not documented in the HSIP General Information. Wyoming During the district tours and asset review each fall, the Highway Safety and Traffic programs coordinate with the districts to identify locations with high-crash potential for systemic safety treatments. Different Systemic Project Identification Methods for State and Local Roads The State DOTs summarized in this section use different methods for identifying potential systemic projects on State and local roads. Note in some cases, it is not clear if the State DOT uses a different process for State and local roads because either one or both methods are undefined in the online documentation. Arkansas State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that systemic studies are based on specific types of crashes and/or facilities. The systemic studies take a broader view compared to spot projects, considering conditions across the entire highway system. Systemic studies could also target a specific crash type across the system (43). Local Projects Arkansas is in the process of developing a local road safety program policy to guide the allocation and use of HSIP funds for safety projects on local roads. Of the HSIP funds allocated for local projects, half of the funds will be awarded to systemic/systematic projects, and half will be awarded to spot projects (43). California State Projects The State HSIP manual does not specify the methods Caltrans uses for systemic project identification. The HSIP annual report indicates that the systemic approach is accomplished through various monitoring programs (e.g., cross median collision monitoring program or the 2- and 3-lane cross centerline collision monitoring program) for the State system (44). Local Projects Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. Local agencies start with network screening using crash frequency or crash rate to identify the top 10 (or 20) intersections and roadway segments. Additionally, Caltrans recommends qualitative analysis to consider the physical characteristics of the roadway network. As part of field assessments, local agencies identity common roadway and crash characteristics for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. For countermeasure selection, the State DOT develops a list of countermeasures along with crash types, CRFs, expected lives saved, and HSIP funding eligibility for use in Caltrans’ Local HSIP program. The countermeasure list ranks each in terms of the opportunity to

170 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program implement using a systemic approach from low to high. Local agencies can use this list to identify potential low-cost systemic countermeasures that mitigate the local agencies’ primary crash type trends. The last step is to use the Transportation Injury Mapping System benefit-cost Calculation Tool to calculate the benefit- cost ratio for candidate projects. Like spot projects, local agencies can identify projects through information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and EMS personnel. Public notification (e.g., community or regional newspapers) is also a source for local agencies to identify potential projects. Indiana State Projects Indiana utilizes a large portion of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements (approximately 50% annually), but the process to identify these projects is unclear. HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements (10): • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Cable median barriers • High friction surface treatment • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve signing • Pedestrian curb ramps and crosswalks • Rumble strips • Traffic control device rehabilitation • Upgrade guard rails Local Projects Local agencies can submit proposals for the systemic application of proven countermeasures to address system-wide safety needs. Justification for these proposals is based on two or more of the following criteria (10): • Crash history • Index of crash costs value • Traffic volume • Benefit-cost ratio Michigan State Projects Based on the Michigan HSIP Implementation Plan FY 2021, Michigan DOT uses a variety of resources including time of return analysis, HSM analysis, safety studies, road safety audits, and more to identify projects. The State DOT uses RoadSoft to analyze crash data. Trunkline/State projects consist of four programs: Safety, Sign (not funded by HSIP), Pavement Markings, and Delineation. None of these programs include systemic approaches. According to the 2020 HSIP annual report, Michigan does implement systemic projects on the State system, but the method for selecting locations is unclear. Local Projects The non-trunk-line/local projects consist of three programs: HSIP Safety Program, HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program, and the HRRR Program. The HSIP Streamlined Systemic Safety Program uses the systemic approach to select projects based on the local agency non-trunk-line call for projects. This call for projects is applicable to projects that incorporate proven low-cost countermeasures for addressing fatal

Literature Review Resources and Details 171   and serious injury crashes. These include horizontal curve delineation, edgeline pavement markings, rumble strips, signal backplates, and stop-controlled intersection sign upgrade projects. Minnesota State Projects The State DOT identifies systemic projects through systemic risk assessment. Local Projects Similar to spot projects, agencies identify systemic projects from CRSPs. Higher priority sites documented in any CRSP will be given priority. Other projects identified through road safety audits or other safety plans must have a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0 and include a fatal or serious injury crash within the last five years. Oklahoma State Projects Oklahoma utilizes a relatively small portion of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements (approximately 15%), but the process to identify these projects is unclear. HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements (49): • Cable median barriers • High friction surface treatment Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (49). Puerto Rico State Projects Puerto Rico utilizes a relatively large portion of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements (approximately 65%), but the process to identify these projects is unclear. HSIP funds are used to address the following systemic improvements (50): • Add/upgrade/modify/remove traffic signal • Clear zone improvements • Horizontal curve signs • Install/improve pavement marking and/or delineation • Install/improve signing • Rumble strips • Safety Edge • Traffic control device rehabilitation • Upgrade guardrails Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (50).

172 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Vermont State Projects There are three components of the systemic method: (a) Systemic State Road Safety, (b) Systemic Local Road Safety, and (c) HRRR. As part of the Systemic State Road Safety program, risk factors are identified based on an analysis of target crashes (e.g., fatal and injury crashes or crossover crashes) and the associated contributing factors. Those factors that are most prevalent in the target crashes are used to define sites with potential for improvement. Local Projects As part of the Systemic Local Roads Safety Program, Vermont conducts network screening and provides the analysis results to the 11 regional planning commissions (RPCs) with a list of common systemic measures that have been effective in addressing major crashes by roadway and crash type. Within their existing process, each RPC selects one or two jurisdictions annually based on program thresholds to provide Systemic Local Roads Safety funding based on the screening results. Under the HRRR program, Vermont uses a combination of spot, systemic, and corridor projects to address the identified issues as appropriate. Washington State Projects Washington’s safety program includes the Crash Prevention Program. The Crash Prevention Program takes a systemic approach to identifying engineering countermeasures that can be applied on a statewide, corridor, or localized basis to address contributing factors or crash types. Regions identify countermeasures and conduct benefit-cost analysis. Local Projects For the City Safety Program, projects are identified through a city/town LRSP. The LRSPs identify and prioritize projects based on the top crash type(s) in the city/town. Projects can be at intersections, spot or mid-block locations, and/or on corridors throughout a city/town or over wide areas within a city/town. Summary of Systematic Project Identification Methods This section provides an overview of approaches used in systematic project identification and whether or not the approach applies to both State and local projects. Same Systematic Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads Florida Results produced by network screening for spot and systemic projects are applicable to systematic projects as well. Districts review each site to determine whether the location could potentially benefit from a planned countermeasure and whether implementation is feasible within site constraints. If highly effective countermeasures are adopted in Department standards, the State DOT implements them through regular non-HSIP projects to the extent possible.

Literature Review Resources and Details 173   Idaho Idaho requires individual projects to mitigate highway safety concerns in an identified highway safety corridor or specific location or to address a highway safety problem utilizing a systematic approach. The systematic approach applies a known proven countermeasure to improve an expanded area, such as a corridor, multiple intersections, or a defined area. Kentucky Kentucky HSIP Projects are broken down into five categories: Roadway Departure, Intersections, Non- motorized, Commercial Motor Vehicle, and Other Initiatives. Instead of a single identification methodology, Kentucky adapts the method to each category and application as needed. The following highlights aspects of the systematic program. • Widening. The State DOT identifies potential project candidates utilizing the Highway Information System and resurfacing prioritization analysis or Roadway Departure Emphasis list. • National Highway System End Treatments. All end treatments that are located on the NHS (expanded to Federal Aid routes once NHS is complete) that are turndown style or spearing are eligible for this initiative. Maine Maine typically selects project locations in one of two ways: 1) using the spot approach, or 2) using the systemic/systematic approach. The systemic and systematic approaches are complementary to the traditional site analysis, which take a broader view of risk across the roadway system. The systemic and systematic approaches do differ. An example of a systematic improvement is sign upgrades. Examples of systemic strategies include new paved shoulders, rumble strips, median barrier, horizontal curve treatment, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons for crosswalks. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania specifically calls out “systematic” projects in the District Highway Safety Guidance Manual (21). The approach is described as “…identifying promising cost-effective countermeasures and then identifying sets of locations where it is cost effective to apply the countermeasure.” (21) Pennsylvania starts by selecting a low-cost countermeasure that is known to reduce target crashes at target location types and then implements the low-cost countermeasure at high-crash locations. The guide provides an approach and equation to determine the number of locations where the countermeasure can be deployed cost effectively. The analyst specifies (or is given) a desired benefit-cost ratio, and then computes the number of targeted crashes per location to meet that goal. The systematic improvements fall under the Low-Cost Safety Improvement Program (LCSIP) as well as the HSIP. The LCSIP is a state-funded highway safety program and, similar to the HSIP, focuses on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The LCSIP utilizes the Governors’ $10 Million Safety Fund – App. 582, Program 715 to implement low-cost safety improvements and to address high- crash locations for specific types of crashes. The LCSIP does appear to be truly systematic as described in the District Highway Safety Guidance Manual (21). For instance, the document instructs to start with higher volume roadways first and then work toward the lower volume roadways when planning systematic improvements. While it notes that “implementation will depend on the facility type, roadside, environment, urban/rural surroundings, pavement type, pavement age, lane/shoulder width, etc.,” it also notes that “all systematic safety improvements will be implemented at all viable locations in accordance with applicable design and construction criteria, regardless of crash history.” (21)

174 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program In the HSIP, some of the strategies appear to be related to systematic applications and others appear to be more systemic in nature. Examples of systematic project types listed in the documentation include rumble strips, curve ahead pavement markings and signs, high tension cable median barrier, high friction surface treatments, and wrong-way driving countermeasures. The wrong-way driving countermeasure application appears to be more systematic in nature as it includes repainting lines at gores and intersections on the ends of ramps, replacing missing or substandard signage, installing lane use arrows along ramps and along the legs of intersections at minor approaches, placing Do Not Enter and/or Wrong Way signs on both sides of the ramp and highway in two or three layers, and applying red reflectors to the posts of the signs. This application does not appear to be based on risk factors; simply apply the treatments to any locations that do not already have them. Different Systematic Project Identification Methods for State and Local Roads Arkansas State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report hints that systematic projects target specific SHSP emphasis areas and seek to implement proven safety countermeasures (e.g., installing shoulder rumble strips or stripes and upgrading to 6-in. markings to address roadway departure crashes) (43). Local Projects Arkansas is in the process of developing a local road safety program policy to guide the allocation and use of HSIP funds for safety projects on local roads. Of the HSIP funds allocated for local projects, half of the funds will be awarded to systemic/systematic projects, and half will be awarded to spot projects (43). California State Projects Both the State manual and the HSIP annual report do not specify the methods Caltrans uses for project identification. Local Projects For systematic project identification, the State DOT recommends that local agencies review infrastructure characteristics related to design standards and compliance issues that should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis. Like spot and systemic projects, local agencies can also identify projects through information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, EMS personnel, and public notification (e.g., community or regional newspapers). Maryland State Projects Maryland implements proven blanket safety improvements on a systematic basis. Safety improvements include the installation of rumble strips and median barriers; upgrading signs, signals, and markings; improving geometrics; and highway and bridge widening, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction (48).

Literature Review Resources and Details 175   Local Projects Local roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State (48). Michigan State Projects State system projects consist of four programs: Safety, Sign (not funded by HSIP), Pavement Markings, and Delineation. For the Pavement Markings and Delineation programs, project selection is based on pavement marking needs per Michigan DOT region. Local Projects No systematic projects are evident on local roads. Summary of Project Prioritization Methods Table 37 provides a summary of state DOT practices for project prioritization, indicating which state DOTs apply the same prioritization method to all projects and which state DOT s apply different prioritization methods for state and local projects or for spot, systemic, and systematic projects. Following the table are more details for several state DOT s, categorized by the following three subsections: 1. Same Approach Applied to All Projects: This section includes state DOT s that prioritize all projects together using a standard ranking method. 2. Different Approach Applied to State and Local Projects: This section includes state DOTs that use different approaches to prioritize State and local projects. 3. Different Approach Applied to Spot, Systemic, and Systematic Projects: This section includes state DOTs that use different approaches to prioritize spot, systemic, and systematic projects. Table 37. Summary of State DOT project prioritization and funding allocation methods. State DOT Project Prioritization Source(s) Alabama Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Alaska Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Arizona Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Arkansas Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report California Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Colorado Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Connecticut Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report Delaware Not identified HSIP Manual District of Columbia Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Florida Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Georgia Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report Hawaii Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Idaho Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Illinois Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Indiana Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report Iowa Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Kansas Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report

176 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Project Prioritization Source(s) Kentucky Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Louisiana Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Maine Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Maryland Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report Massachusetts Not identified HSIP Manual Michigan Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Minnesota Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Mississippi Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Missouri Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Montana Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Nebraska Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Nevada Different approach for spot, corridor, pedestrian, and bicycle projects HSIP Manual New Hampshire Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual New Jersey Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual New Mexico Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report New York Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual North Carolina Different approach for spot, systemic, and vulnerable user projects HSIP Manual North Dakota Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Ohio Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Oklahoma Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Oregon Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Pennsylvania Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Puerto Rico Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Rhode Island Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual, HSIP Annual Report South Carolina Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report South Dakota Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Tennessee Not identified HSIP Annual Report Texas Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Utah Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Vermont Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Virginia Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Washington Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual West Virginia Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Wisconsin Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Wyoming Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual

Literature Review Resources and Details 177   Same Project Prioritization Approach Applied to All Projects Alabama Alabama uses the benefit-cost ratio as the primary factor in setting project priorities. The State DOT also considers other factors to account for changing needs and conditions across the State. The weight factors depend on the State’s HSIP priories, as shown in Table 38. Projects with the highest scores indicate top priority projects. Table 38. Alabama HSIP Project Priority Criteria Alaska Alaska prioritizes projects based on each year’s available funding and quality of projects. There are two types of projects, ranked projects and non-ranked projects, in Alaska. Ranked projects are implemented at locations with high crash history. Non-ranked projects are implemented at locations with potential for severe crashes identified in SHSP strategies and may be spot or system-wide improvements. The State DOT uses the following set of criteria to prioritize all projects: • Lives saved and serious injuries eliminated per dollar spent. For ranked projects, this is indicated by benefit-cost ratio. For non-ranked projects, this is subjective judgment made after reviewing the narratives provided by the regions. Ranked projects are given higher priority for funding than non- ranked projects. The State Traffic and Safety Engineer prioritizes non-ranked projects based on relative expected reduction in risk to road users. The subset of systemic non-ranked projects is higher priority than the subset of spot non-ranked projects. For ranked projects, two tiers of ranked projects are considered with the first category taking precedence over the second: Projects with at least one fatal crash or two serious injuries in five years, then by benefit-cost ratio Projects without at least one fatal crash or two serious injuries in five years, then by benefit-cost ratio • Project deliverability based on a jurisdictions’ history in delivering projects. • Project duration. Quicker projects start saving lives and eliminating injuries sooner. • State Traffic and Safety Engineer’s discretion for project cost fitting within remaining funds and program balance between design and construction.

178 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Arizona All projects submitted by LPAs, COGs, MPOs, and State agencies are selected on the same funding levels with priority going to projects with highest benefit-cost ratio in terms of fatal and suspected serious injury crashes. The State DOT also considers other factors, including holistic effectiveness (4 E’s of Safety [engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services]), SHSP emphasis areas, FHWA focus areas for Arizona, and 20 proven countermeasures for project prioritization. Colorado Colorado DOT performs technical evaluations of candidate projects, including safety elements of larger projects, submitted by the Regions and local agencies. Colorado DOT also calculates the benefit-cost ratio based on reducing total crashes. Projects with a benefit-cost ratio of at least 1.0 are prioritized for implementation by each Region. The Regions consider technical evaluation results, benefit-cost ratio, project funding needs, time needed to develop the project, and other relevant information for prioritization. District of Columbia The District is developing a process and guidance to help streamline HSIP projects. This will include a tool to support the HSIP project prioritization and selection process. The prioritization process will include details on the use of Highway Safety Manual procedures to perform benefit-cost analyses and consider how the project: • Addresses one or more priorities (Emphasis Areas) in the District’s SHSP. • Addresses an identified safety problem. • Contributes to a reduction of fatalities and serious injuries. The HSIP includes programs for Bicycle Safety, Intersection, Left Turn Crash, Local Safety, Low-Cost Spot Improvements, Median Barrier, Pedestrian Safety, Red Light Running Prevention, Right Angle Crash, Safe Corridor, Sign Replacement and Improvement, Skid Hazard, and Other-Sight distance analysis. Based on the HSIP annual report, some projects compete District-wide, while others are funded through a set- aside (32). Florida Florida DOT uses benefit-cost ratio as the default prioritization measure. In some cases, Florida DOT uses net present value when it is desired to select projects with higher benefits than the one with the greatest benefit-cost ratio. Florida DOT also uses net present value in combination with benefit-cost ratio to pick an eligible alternative that meets the needs of all stakeholders while still advancing the goals of the HSIP. The Florida DOT Crash Reduction Analysis System Hub is a web-based application developed mainly for the selection and evaluation of improvement projects for highway safety. The tool can be used to perform benefit-cost analysis of safety improvement projects. Florida DOT also considers the following factors to adjust an initial benefit-cost ratio ranking: • Other planned projects at the location: Florida DOT gives higher priority to projects when other projects are planned at the location. Florida DOT may give a lower priority to projects if other projects are planned at the location and the proposed safety improvement is redundant. • Funding equity: The Department will adjust priorities as necessary to distribute available funding among Districts to avoid investing in one specific region. • Right-of-way needs and acquisition: Florida DOT gives projects requiring right-of-way acquisition slightly lower priority than similar projects with no right-of-way needs.

Literature Review Resources and Details 179   • Environmental impacts and mitigation: Florida DOT gives slightly lower priority to projects with substantial environmental impacts. • Project readiness: Projects receive higher priority if they could be scheduled sooner. • Familiarity with countermeasure design, construction, and safety effects: Florida DOT may give higher priority to countermeasures that engineers and contractors are more comfortable with. Alternatively, Florida DOT may give higher priority to unfamiliar countermeasures as a means to pilot the implementation and begin wider use of the countermeasure. • Public requests for improvement projects: Public requests or expectation for a project may trigger a higher priority. • Public acceptance and political influence: Florida DOT may give projects with favorable public perception a higher priority. Hawaii Hawaii uses benefit-cost ratios to prioritize individual projects. Projects are selected based on the revised scope of work from a field review and the benefit-cost ratio. If funds are available, additional projects are selected according to overall priority. Projects may also be initiated if identified as priority according to the Hawaii SHSP (46). Idaho Idaho prioritizes projects using benefit-cost ratio. Iowa Iowa reviews candidate projects from each district to evaluate the appropriateness of proposed countermeasures, the potential for fatal and serious injury crash reductions, the reasonableness of the estimated budget, and compliance with federal and State HSIP guidelines. The HSIP manager selects from the eligible projects and drafts a preliminary outline of the safety specific program. As part of project justification, Districts can use benefit-cost analysis spreadsheets provided by the State DOT. Iowa uses a $2 million set-aside of HSIP funds each fiscal year for the HSIP-Secondary Program. Louisiana Louisiana evaluates and scores all projects based on purpose and need, alignment with SHSP, project location identification methodology, and safety effectiveness. Project location identification methodologies includes spot project identification, systemic analysis, and other resources. Projects identified through other sources must have a benefit-cost ratio of at least 1.0. Louisiana gives higher weight to projects with potential for safety improvement and/or data-driven factors. Louisiana multiplies the weight by the evaluation factor grade and then sums the factor scores to achieve a total score. The State DOT also indicates that spot and systemic projects are complementary and should not be compete against each other for funding. Maine Maine prioritizes projects based on the overall cost of the countermeasure(s), expected effectiveness, and expected service life (typically 5-,10-, or 20-year period). This helps to maximize the expected safety benefit (i.e., estimated lives saved) for the amount of funds invested. Additionally, the State DOT evaluates the feasibility of projects in terms of scope, cost, and constructability prior to approval.

180 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Michigan Michigan has different programs for State and local roads. While Michigan prioritizes projects within each program separately, they use the same prioritization process. In general, Michigan DOT uses crash history and time of return for prioritization. Michigan DOT also reviews other factors, such as alignment with SHSP emphasis areas, region needs, and other improvement programs. There is no apparent prioritization for systematic projects. Mississippi Mississippi appears to use the same approach to prioritize all projects, which is based on a benefit-cost analysis (33). Missouri Missouri estimates the safety benefits for projects, which are used to justify safety funds and prioritize the project. Missouri shares program information with local agency partners to help prioritize projects and assist with local safety efforts (34). Montana Montana prioritizes all projects together based on benefit-cost ratio and available funding. Nebraska Nebraska prioritizes State and local projects together using benefit-cost ratio as the primary factor. Additionally, the type of project, amount of design work involved, need to acquire right-of-way, utility involvement, and other factors are also considered. New Hampshire New Hampshire first uses benefit-cost ratio for project prioritization and then optimizes available budget to implement the most effective projects by using the optimization tool in AASHTOWare Safety Analyst. The HSIP Committee may adjust optimization based on project risk, schedule, fatal and serious injury crash reduction, and other factors. New Mexico The HSIP is monitored by the New Mexico DOT Safety Committee, which includes members from engineering, design, STIP, rail, and traffic from within the DOT and the FHWA-NM Division office. The committee oversees project selection and allocation of funds to determine where the funds can be most efficiently utilized to optimize safety performance. While the current prioritization is based on review and approval from the Safety Committee, the funding allocation process is gradually moving toward a competitive-based evaluation process. This will be based on an objective comparison using the potential for safety improvement (35). New York Regions use excess crash rate to determine initial priority of locations and then focus on a subset of those high priority locations. Higher-cost projects (capital safety projects) may require a full benefit-cost analysis

Literature Review Resources and Details 181   for prioritization. New York is transitioning to the use of benefit-cost ratio based on fatal and injury crashes as the primary method for prioritizing projects. Ohio Ohio ranks HSIP applications using a scoring system that assigns points based on several factors. The benefit-cost ratio accounts for 30% of the total scoring; however, Ohio uses a subjective process to allocate funding rather than strictly according to the results of the scoring (5). Pennsylvania Pennsylvania prioritizes projects using scores based on weighted factors. Factors include scope, HSM analysis and screening, benefit-cost ratio, timeline, project complexities, and funding. Systemic safety improvement value is part of the weighting factor. Benefit-cost analysis may not apply to all systemic projects. Rhode Island Rhode Island prioritizes HSIP project proposals that align with the SHSP, address roadways with actual or potential for higher deaths and serious injuries, and target the underlying safety issue. The prioritization is based on the following factors and relative weights (51): • Benefit-cost ratio: 15% • Reduction in fatalities and injuries: 15% • Facility risk level: 20% • SHSP emphasis area: 15% • Project feasibility: 25% • Policy conformance: 10% South Carolina Based on the 2020 HSIP annual report, South Carolina uses benefit-cost ratio, available funding, net benefit, and cost-effectiveness to prioritize projects (38). South Dakota South Dakota uses a set aside for countywide signing, systemic improvements, and spot locations with improvements ranked by benefit-cost ratio (52). Texas Texas uses the SII for prioritization. The SII is the ratio of the annual estimated savings in preventable crash costs that have occurred at a location to the cost of constructing the proposed improvement. Projects with an SII less than 1.0 are not considered for funding. Further, project selection is based on crash history, traffic volumes, and roadway geometries. Utah Utah prioritizes applications according to the benefit-cost ratio, but funding decisions also consider other factors, such as project readiness (5).

182 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Vermont Project prioritization involves the following considerations: • Eligibility for HSIP funding, • Benefit-cost ratio or risk reduction, • Link to SHSP emphasis area, • Total targeted severe crashes, • Estimated project costs, • Available HSIP funding, • Engineering review, • Public support, and • Implementation. Spot projects are mainly prioritized using the incremental benefit-cost ratio method. Washington Washington uses the benefit-cost ratio for both spot and systemic project prioritization. Washington selects projects based on demonstrated need and evaluation of the life-cycle costs and benefits. West Virginia West Virginia prioritizes projects based on the benefit-cost ratio (41). Wisconsin Each project receives a PEF to evaluate and compare projects. PEF calculations include cost, crash history, and crash reduction potential. Wyoming A committee chaired by the Safety Management Engineer and including the District Traffic Engineers and the Assistant State Traffic Engineers determine individual projects to include in the HSIP program. Different Project Prioritization Approach Applied to State and Local Projects Arkansas State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that funding is allocated by the Arkansas DOT Central Office based on a statewide competitive application process and SHSP emphasis area data (43). Local Projects Arkansas is in the process of developing a local road safety program policy to guide the allocation and use of HSIP funds for safety projects on local roads. Of the HSIP funds allocated for local projects, half of the funds will be awarded to systemic/systematic projects and half will be awarded to spot projects (43).

Literature Review Resources and Details 183   California State Projects In general, the proposed projects are prioritized statewide based on benefit-cost ratio with a minimum threshold of 1.0. Depending on the statewide safety needs, Caltrans considers the following criteria: • Funding set-asides: The State DOT may have set-asides for certain countermeasures when common roadway safety concerns are identified statewide. The benefit-cost ratio calculation may not be required for those projects that meet the criteria of the set-asides. • HRRR eligible projects: Due to the special rule pertaining to HRRR, it may be necessary to have a lower statewide benefit-cost ratio cutoff for HRRR-eligible projects. • Maximum federal HSIP funding per agency per cycle: In each HSIP call for projects, a maximum federal HSIP funding amount that an agency can receive may be established. If an agency submits multiple applications with a combined federal funding request exceeding the established maximum, their applications with the lowest benefit-cost ratios will not be included in the selection process until their overall request is at or below the maximum federal HSIP reimbursement amount for the call. Local Projects Caltrans has a set-aside for the SSARP. Local agencies calculate the benefit-cost ratio using the State HSIP Analyzer for each project. benefit-cost ratio is the major factor in local project prioritization, but available funding also plays a key role. If requests exceed available SSARP funding, priority is given to applications from local agencies that meet any of the following criteria (no priority order): • Have the highest numbers of fatalities and severe injuries, • Have the highest rates of fatalities and severe injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, • Have never submitted applications in Cycle 5 through Cycle 7 HSIP calls-for-projects, or • Have submitted applications but have had no projects selected for federal funding in Cycle 5 through Cycle 7 HSIP calls-for-projects. Connecticut State Projects In general, Connecticut prioritizes proposed projects statewide based on benefit-cost ratio (31). Local Projects The Local Road Safety Program provides federal funding for safety-related improvements on local roadways. Regional Transportation Safety Plans (RTSP) are being prepared for each of the nine regional COGs to identify key safety issues and recommendations on how to address them. Once all nine RTSPs are complete, there will be a new application process for local HSIP projects. A full range of options will be available, starting with low-cost spot and systemic treatments such as signs and pavement markings, to mid-range solutions such as traffic signals, turn lanes, or road realignment. The applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on factors such as crash analysis, regional or local priority, and benefit-cost analysis (31). Georgia State Projects Based on the 2020 HSIP annual report, eligible proposed spot projects compete with all other non- systemic projects based on benefit-cost ratio. Those projects with the highest benefit-cost ratio advance

184 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program based on available funding. However, the HSIP annual report also indicates that Georgia uses various methods to prioritize projects depending on the program within the HSIP. For instance, the horizontal curve and intersection programs are based on a competitive application process while the bicycle and pedestrian programs are based on a selection committee (45). Local Projects Based on the 2020 HSIP annual report, Georgia uses a combination of competitive application process and selection committee to prioritize off-system safety projects. Potential off-system safety projects are prioritized and selected by a review team. The review team considers the estimated cost and effectiveness of planned safety improvements. Georgia dedicates at least $1 million annually to each of the seven districts for off-system safety projects. Additionally, larger HRRR projects are programmed using HSIP funds (45). Illinois State Projects The primary method for determining cost-effective site selection and treatment will be a benefit-cost analysis. Documentation of crashes, existing conditions contributing to the crashes, and relation of the proposed countermeasures to the identified crash risks are also critical to the approval of all projects. Local Projects Each district and local agency submitting projects for HSIP funding establishes priorities for HSIP project selection. Prioritization is based on optimizing the reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes and the potential to reduce crash severity and/or frequency of severe crashes. Indiana State Projects The selection and prioritization of all safety projects on roads under INDOT jurisdiction, including those funded with HSIP and HRRR funds, utilize the Indiana DOT Asset Management Process. Regardless of funding program, the established selection process for safety projects prioritizes locations of highest need in terms of reducing the severity and frequency of crashes. The goal for all safety projects is to select the most appropriate and cost-effective countermeasures available. The Indiana DOT Office of Traffic Safety reviews each candidate safety project to ensure a cost-effective choice of proposed solution(s), determine the eligibility for federal safety program funding, and establish the relative priority of candidate project needs (10). Local Projects The HSIP Local Project Selection Guidance guides the selection of projects on local roads. Prioritization factors include crash history, index of crash costs value, traffic volume, and benefit-cost ratio (58). Kansas State Projects In Kansas, a committee made up of the HSIP Program Manager, FHWA Division Safety Engineer, sub- program managers, and management meet monthly to measure program progress based on planned obligations and to estimate and distribute allocations moving forward. The discussion begins based on historical precedent, but actual distribution is based on anticipated needs over the next 2 years. Once

Literature Review Resources and Details 185   locations are identified, Kansas uses a competitive process for funding based on Part B of the Highway Safety Manual and engineering judgment (47). Local Projects The Bureau of Local Projects manages the local program and utilizes a scoring rubric to score and rank potential projects (47). Maryland State Projects Maryland uses a weighted score based on the following factors to prioritize projects for implementation (48): • Safety: 60% • Congestion/Operations: 30% • Support/Opportunity: 10% Local Projects Local roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State (48). Minnesota State Projects Minnesota scores projects based on five criteria: network screening result, coverage, expected impact, planning, and alignment with program goals. These factors are weighted 20, 20, 30, 10, and 20, respectively. The measures and thresholds can vary between spot and systemic projects for the five criteria, but Minnesota prioritizes spot and systemic projects together based on the final scores. Local Projects Local project applications include estimated output, roadway jurisdiction, local prioritization, estimated cost, crash data, and supporting documents. Benefit-cost analysis is considered for spot projects; however, it is unclear how Minnesota DOT prioritizes local projects. New Jersey State Projects New Jersey considers factors such as consistency with the SHSP, countermeasure selection, HSM analysis, benefit-cost analysis, and annual reporting to select and prioritize projects. This is consistent for both spot and systemic projects. The benefit-cost ratio includes the design costs, right-of-way costs, and construction costs. For projects with a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0, the Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety reviews and considers for HSIP funding. Pedestrian improvement projects may be considered on a case-by-case basis by Bureau of Transportation Data and Safety. Justification for advancing pedestrian safety projects must include a data-driven approach to identification and mitigation (e.g., identification of relevant Crash Reduction Values, Census Data, Transit Connectivity, overrepresentation of specific age groups in crashes). Local Projects New Jersey’s HSIP Local Safety Program provides funding for design, construction, and construction inspection of safety improvements on county and local roadways. Local governments and the MPOs

186 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program identify potential locations for safety enhancement projects on non-state highway systems based on network screening lists provided by the State DOT. Each MPO screens the applications to verify all required elements are included. A Technical Review Committee evaluates applications and determines if it should be recommended for HSIP funding. The Technical Review Committee also determines the appropriate construction authorization year based on project complexity, size, and level of design assistance needed. North Dakota State Projects It is unclear how North Dakota prioritizes State projects. Local Projects North Dakota prioritizes local road safety projects based on AADT, crash density, access density, and other risk factors. Oklahoma State Projects Funds are divided between the Oklahoma DOT Traffic Division and the Agency’s 8-year Construction Plan (49). Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (49). Puerto Rico State Projects Puerto Rico uses a methodology for prioritizing safety improvement projects that combines the crash data, pavement condition data, and bridge condition data. This methodology includes selecting several design consultants, developing plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) in an expedited manner, evaluating the division of projects in phases (as possible) to reduce construction time and risk, and promoting an aggressive bid program (50). Local Projects Local and tribal road projects do not currently use HSIP funds (50). Different Project Prioritization Approach Applied to Spot, Systemic, and Systematic Projects Kentucky Kentucky HSIP Projects are broken down into five categories: Roadway Departure, Intersections, Non- motorized, Commercial Motor Vehicle, and Other Initiatives. Each initiative uses a different prioritization method tailored to the program. • High Friction Surface: The outcome of this initiative could be spot or systemic projects; however, the prioritization method is undefined. • Intersection Emphasis: The spot program prioritizes locations based on safety performance. Each district then reviews the top 20 intersections on the prioritized list and refines the list to include

Literature Review Resources and Details 187   approximately 5 to 10 intersections. Districts then perform field reviews and crash analysis to further refine the prioritized list. • Localized Risk Mitigation Projects: Projects under this initiative are prioritize based on the opportunity to positively impact safety. • Roadway Departure Corridors: The systemic aspect of this program prioritizes projects based on safety performance. • Cable Barrier: The systemic aspect of this program prioritizes projects using a data-driven approach. • Horizontal Alignment Signing: The systemic aspect of this program identifies locations using crash data. • High Friction Surface: The State DOT uses the HSM over-representation method to evaluate the roadway network for wet pavement condition crashes and provides analysis to indicate overrepresentation of target crashes. • Systemic Intersection Improvements: It is unclear how projects under this initiative are prioritized. • Shoulder Widening: The systematic program does not require prioritization. • National Highway System End Treatments: The systematic program does not require prioritization. Nevada Nevada ranks segment and intersection locations using the network screening performance measures. Nevada prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle projects using potential for safety improvement and BLOS, respectively. North Carolina All safety project proposals compete for funding in a statewide data-driven and objective selection process. Project prioritization for HSIP-funded projects is based on benefit-cost ratio. North Carolina DOT has also developed a separate prioritization process to assess projects focused on vulnerable users. These projects are evaluated based on factors such as total pedestrian crossing distance, vulnerable user exposure, conflicting vehicle speeds, and other considerations. Vulnerable user projects are prioritized and selected for HSIP funds quarterly. Systemic project proposals are also submitted quarterly and reviewed by the project selection team. The projects are reviewed to ensure alignment with the goals of each specific systemic countermeasure strategy. Once reviewed and approved by the team, systemic projects are funded as submitted up to the quarterly funding goal. Oregon Oregon DOT prepares region-specific 300% spot project lists using the roadway safety management process. 300% refers to estimated project costs that are three times the anticipated funding. The draft list of projects includes project locations, recommended countermeasures, and corresponding benefit-cost ratio. Local agencies provide input and submit proposals for additional projects for inclusion in the draft list. Oregon DOT then refines the project list from 300% to 150% based on local agency input and proposals. Oregon DOT then prepares a final 100% project list based on field scoping. Systemic project selection is an application-based process for Oregon. Regions and local agencies submit applications for systemic improvements (more than one location where the same countermeasures can be implemented) under the three emphasis areas: roadway departure, intersection, and bicycle/pedestrian. Roadway departure and intersection projects are prioritized based on benefit-cost ratio while bicycle/pedestrian projects are prioritized based on the Cost-Effectiveness Index using Part C of the HSM. The 150% project list is refined to the final 100% project list through field scoping.

188 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Virginia The project selection method for spot projects uses an objective 100-point scoring system. Prioritization scoring includes such categories as problem identification, proposed improvements, cost estimate, funding source, project schedule, benefit-cost ratio, and supporting documents. An engineering review supplements the scoring criteria to review practicality and constructability. Systemic projects are prioritized based on SSI, which includes the following weighted factors: benefit- cost ratio, location, number of targeted crashes, cost estimate, schedule, funding sources, and supporting documentation. An engineering review supplements the scoring criteria to review practicality and constructability. Summary of Project Evaluation Methods This section provides summaries of State DOT practices for project evaluation, categorized by the following subsections: 1. Simple Before-After Study, 2. Before-After Study with Traffic Volume Correction, 3. Shift of Proportions, 4. Before-After with EB Adjustment, and 5. Experimental Before-After Study. Simple Before-After Study Simple before-after observational studies are the most common evaluation methodology for HSIP projects. Projects are evaluated based on before and after crash data, typically three or five years, in terms of number and severity of crashes. Alabama Alabama evaluates completed projects through an analysis of crashes before and after project construction. If the project is on a non-state road, the project sponsor is responsible for providing three years of pre-construction and post-construction crash data for the facility to help evaluate the effectiveness of the project. Alaska Alaska evaluates completed projects by benefit-cost analysis using before and after crash data for projects with available 3 years of post-construction data. When practical, actual benefit-cost ratios and CRFs are computed for non-ranked as well as ranked projects. The state DOT has a workbook “Pre-Project Ranking, Post-Project Evaluation” to help agencies perform the evaluation. Alaska uses a simple before and after analysis for the CRF calculation. The state DOT also uses the modified binomial test to investigate whether or not the change in crash rate is statistically significant. Arizona Arizona conducts before-after studies of safety improvement projects to compare various features and characteristics of the subject location before and after construction.

Literature Review Resources and Details 189   Arkansas Arkansas is developing a new HSIP Process that includes a method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the HSIP. In the past, Arkansas evaluated several completed projects to help justify and expand the use those countermeasures at the statewide level. Most of the safety projects initiated in recent years are either under design or construction. For those that have been constructed, the crash data are not yet available for the after period (43). California California performs evaluations annually by comparing fatality, injury, and PDO crashes for a 3-year period before and 3-year period after construction, including a benefit-cost analysis based on actual effectiveness and for certain types of collisions and patterns. The Local Assistance Program does not currently evaluate the effectiveness of HSIP projects on local roads due to a lack of three years of after data; however, there were plans to evaluate the effectiveness of local projects starting in 2020 (44). Colorado Colorado performs simple before-after studies periodically on HSIP projects once there is sufficient time passed after the project is completed (i.e., three to five years). Connecticut As sufficient years of data become available, Connecticut evaluates spot improvement projects to determine the effectiveness. The Connecticut Roadway Safety Management System includes a safety effectiveness evaluation module to evaluate individual projects. It also includes measures such as lives saved and injuries prevented to estimate the return on investments and help make a case for future funding (31). Hawaii Hawaii uses a simple before-after analysis with three years of crashes before and after implementation. Evaluation data is submitted to FHWA through the online HSIP reporting tool annually (46). Idaho Idaho performs a simple before-after analysis to assess project results. However, ITD is exploring methods of evaluation and purchasing a software program with the capability of running an EB statistical analysis of HSIP projects. Illinois Illinois evaluates HSIP projects according to the requirements outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Volume 1, Section 924.13. The BSE coordinates with each District Safety Committee to track project locations, safety improvements performed, and level of effectiveness of the improvement with respect to reducing fatalities and severe injuries. Indiana Indiana performs a simple before-after analysis of project safety performance in the fourth year following project construction (10).

190 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Iowa The Office of Traffic and Safety evaluates the safety performance and cost effectiveness of each HSIP project based on three to five years of pre- and post-implementation data. The Office of Traffic and Safety then meets with district representatives to share the program evaluation results, review the status of prior and upcoming projects, and discuss potential modifications to the HSIP Manual. Louisiana Louisiana evaluates the percent reduction in annual fatality rate and average percent reduction in crash rates at all safety improvement locations. These performance measures are required for the Louisiana Performance Accountability System. Louisiana uses observational before-after crash rates (all crashes) for intersection and segment projects, calculates the percent reduction for each category of projects, and combines the estimates for an average percent reduction. Once there are more than 10 sites evaluated for sites with similar HSIP improvement types, Louisiana considers more rigorous evaluations to determine safety effectiveness and possibly develop CMFs based on a larger sample size. This type of evaluation allows Louisiana to track and monitor the effectiveness of countermeasures over a longer period of time. Maine Maine evaluates HSIP projects and the overall program using simple before-after methods. Massachusetts Massachusetts performs before and after evaluations for all HSIP projects. Minnesota Minnesota conducts simple before-after studies for project evaluations and uses a variety of methods for other HSIP evaluations. Mississippi Mississippi tracks crash data before construction begins as well as after construction is completed for all projects that utilize HSIP funds in any way (excludes planning projects as well as PE-only expenditures). Mississippi conducts simple before-after studies using five years of data before and after construction (33). Missouri Missouri conducts simple before-after studies and reports on a number of other measures, such as benefit- cost ratio and lives saved, for all projects utilizing HSIP funds. For systemic improvements, Missouri tracks the change in the number of fatalities compared to the level of deployment or investment in a safety improvement. This allows the State DOT to monitor the safety benefits returned on its continued investment of a systemic strategy. For instance, Missouri implemented and evaluated the systemic use of chevrons on curves where advisory speeds are at least 15 mph less than posted speeds. Between 2014 and 2018, horizontal curve fatalities and serious injuries on minor roads decreased from 622 to 513 (34).

Literature Review Resources and Details 191   Nebraska Nebraska evaluates completed highway safety projects and programs to inform other components of the HSIP. To determine the effect of highway safety improvements, Nebraska has focused on crash-based project evaluations for most completed safety projects. The only exceptions are those projects that were not selected for construction on the basis of crash history and those projects where an evaluation would be biased by other changes that coincided with the project. To guide evaluations, Nebraska uses FHWA’s Highway Safety Evaluation Procedural Guide, dated November 1981. First, the analyst develops an evaluation plan for each project, which includes the experimental plan, project objectives, and measures of effectiveness. Most evaluations focus on individual projects using three years of data before and after construction, but the time period may be adjusted to eliminate confounding environmental factors. Some projects are aggregated for countermeasure-level evaluations. Statistical tests, such as the Poisson Test at a 95% confidence level, help to determine if any changes are statistically significant. Nebraska documents the results of these evaluations in a report and distributes the reports to all members of the safety committees, appropriate District Engineers, and upper management. Nebraska also performs program and administrative evaluations for non-infrastructure safety projects and for some systemic-type projects. Nevada Nevada conducts simple before-after studies for a specific countermeasure or project using three years of before and after construction crash data. New Hampshire New Hampshire evaluates completed HSIP projects. Further, the HSIP Manual indicates the plan to track the cost-effectiveness and expected reduction in crashes for all HSIP projects in the form of a CMF or crash frequency. For systemic projects, New Hampshire is developing a system to regularly evaluate the safety effectiveness of implemented countermeasures. New Jersey For every HSIP project, New Jersey requires funding recipients to provide 3 years of post-implementation data to support the safety performance evaluation of the location. This is used to establish the actual benefit associated with the safety improvements. New York New York developed an automated evaluation process—the Post-Implementation Evaluation System (4). PIES links capital projects and safety studies to crash and roadway data. The system retrieves construction start and end dates, project limits, and other data from program and construction management databases. The system generates estimates of countermeasure effectiveness (i.e., CMFs) based on simple before-after analyses. North Carolina North Carolina conducts simple before-after studies for target crashes for spot projects. Ohio Ohio compares crashes after implementation to crashes before implementation of the countermeasures.

192 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Oregon Oregon has traditionally performed simple before-after evaluations as part of the HSIP annual reporting requirement. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania evaluates projects based on before and after crash data in terms of number and severity. Puerto Rico Puerto Rico uses the Highway Safety Manual process for performing before and after studies, except for those elements that were limited by the available data (50). Rhode Island Rhode Island performs simple before-after evaluations as part of the HSIP annual reporting requirement (51). South Carolina South Carolina performs simple before-after evaluations as part of the HSIP annual reporting requirement (38). Tennessee Tennessee evaluates the effectiveness of constructed safety projects using crash data from three years before and three years after implementation of safety improvements. The sites include road safety audits and Spot Safety Projects (53). Texas To evaluate completed HSIP projects, Texas estimates the cost-effectiveness using three to five years of before and after crash data, traffic volume data, and actual construction costs. Utah Utah evaluates systemic projects by looking at before-after crash comparisons of specific crash types in a large defined area. For spot projects, the State DOT uses three years of crash data before and after implementation to assess the impact on serious and fatal injury crashes. West Virginia West Virginia performs simple before-after evaluations as part of the HSIP annual reporting requirement (41). Wyoming Wyoming evaluates HSIP projects annually and compares the results with anticipated safety performance measures.

Literature Review Resources and Details 193   Before-After Study with Traffic Volume Correction Florida Florida evaluates HSIP projects using the FHWA HSIP Evaluation Guide, including spreadsheet templates and instructions. The State DOT evaluates the effectiveness of projects, countermeasures, and programs as well as program management factors, such as percent of apportioned funds obligated to HSIP projects. When HSM methods are not applicable, Florida DOT conducts simple before-after analysis with traffic volume correction for quick project evaluation. Vermont Vermont conducts before-after studies to evaluate the safety effectiveness of each project using crash data and traffic volume data for three years before and after installation. Shift of Proportions Florida When HSM methods are not applicable, Florida DOT uses the shift of proportions method for a quick project evaluation. Kentucky Kentucky employs the shift of proportions method to determine the safety effectiveness of projects such as cable median barrier and high-friction surface treatment (4). These countermeasures are systemic in nature and target specific crash types (e.g., cross-median crashes or wet-weather lane departure crashes). Mississippi Mississippi tracks the effectiveness of projects at reducing targeted crash types as well as the more severe (fatal and serious injury) crashes at the location. This moves away from the practice of comparing all crashes in the project area in the before and after periods. Mississippi believes this will give a better sense of the true effectiveness of projects, as well as aid in the State DOT's long-term goal of developing State-specific CMFs (33). Before-After with EB Adjustment Some State DOTs employ a more rigorous approach to before-after studies, such as the EB method, which accounts for regression-to-the-mean bias. In addition, some State DOTs compile before-after studies specific to each countermeasure to develop State-specific CMFs for future use. Florida When SPFs and sufficient data are available, Florida DOT conducts an EB before-after analysis for a project or a countermeasure. Florida DOT works with safety partners on tools that implement statistical analyses recommended by the HSM.

194 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program North Carolina North Caronia uses more rigorous analyses such as EB adjustment for countermeasure-level evaluations and systemic projects. Rhode Island Rhode Island developed its first State-specific CMF using the before-after method with EB adjustment (51). Tennessee Tennessee performed a more rigorous analysis of select sites using the Highway Safety Manual procedures for estimating crash frequency with and without implementation of safety countermeasures. The State DOT is also working with a university partner to develop State-specific CMFs (53). Virginia Virginia conducts before-after studies for projects to inform State CMFs while accounting for changes in traffic volume and regression-to-the-mean. Experimental Before-After Study Minnesota Minnesota conducts more rigorous studies such as before-after studies with experimental and control groups or retrospective experimental and control groups.

Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal-aid highway program with the purpose of achieving significant reductions in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Although there are federal requirements that guide state HSIP efforts, there are several variations in how state departments of transportation (DOTs) identify, prioritize, and evaluate HSIP projects.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 592: Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program documents current state DOT practices for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!