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.
4 Background In the United States alone, more than 30,000 people are killed annually and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured using the roadway system (1). This is not limited to specific roadway types or road user groups; it is a systemic issue that requires a focused and systematic approach to resolve. State departments of transportation (DOTs) have many programs in place to address this national epidemic, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The 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 DOTs identify, prioritize, and evaluate HSIP projects. Every phase of the HSIP, from project identification to evaluation, has the potential to impact the safety performance of current or future projects. State DOTs can maximize the effectiveness of the HSIP by employing sound safety management approaches, economic measures, implementation strategies, and professional judgment. There are three common approaches to safety management: spot, systemic, and systematic. The first edition of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) provides relatively detailed information on the spot approach (2). FHWA provides guidance on the systemic approach and systematic approach (3). These resources help to identify methods for identifying potential project loca- tions, diagnosing crash contributing factors, and selecting targeted countermeasures. FHWAâs HSIP Evaluation Guide provides insights on noteworthy practices for tracking and evaluating HSIP projects, including some discussion on potential differences for spot and systemic project evaluations (4). FHWA also provides guidance on maximizing the performance of the HSIP, including methods for identifying and prioritizing projects that focus on fatal and serious injury crashes (5). Although there are national resources for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP proj- ects, state DOTs continue to be challenged in determining how to allocate funding across spot, systemic, and systematic projects or programs. FHWA provides some guidance on qualitative factors to consider when balancing investments between the different project types (3). For instance, if the goal is to focus on specific crash types that are relatively widely dispersed across the transportation network (e.g., fatal and serious injury lane departure crashes), it may be appropriate to allocate more resources to a related systemic program. FHWA also provides guid- ance on quantitative methods for prioritizing projects. For example, FHWAâs guide, Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance, notes that prioritizing projects based on the estimated benefit-cost ratio will help to maximize safety ben- efits within a given safety budget (5). Some state DOTs use various benefit-cost analysis methods C H A P T E R 1 Introduction
Introduction 5  to prioritize investments while others have challenges, particularly in applying benefit-cost principles to systemic projects. In those cases, some state DOTs set aside a portion of HSIP funds for systemic or systematic projects. Given the diversity in safety management approaches and the opportunity to continue to make strides toward reducing fatalities and serious injuries, there is a need to identify and sum- marize current HSIP practices, document challenges in implementing these practices, and create opportunities to overcome these challenges. Synthesis Objective The objective of this synthesis is to document current state DOT practices for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects. The following are specific areas of focus within the synthesis: ⢠How state DOTs distinguish between spot, systemic, and systematic safety improvements ⢠How state DOTs identify, prioritize, and evaluate spot, systemic, and systematic HSIP projects, including the specific methods for each ⢠How state DOTs allocate HSIP funding across spot, systemic, and systematic projects ⢠How state DOTs document HSIP practices and provide guidance to practitioners The information presented in this report reflects the state-of-the-practice documented and reported by state DOTs at the time of the synthesis. The information reported in this synthesis should not be interpreted as a noteworthy practice or as representative of any specific state DOT. Instead, it represents common practices and can help to identify general trends and potential gaps or limitations. The synthesis highlights these information gaps and provides suggestions for research to address those gaps. For the purposes of the survey, the term âlocalâ represents roads that are not owned by the state DOT (e.g., roads and highways owned or operated by a county, city, or township agency). Study Approach This study employed a multifaceted approach to document state DOT practices for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects. The approach to this study included (a) a literature review, (b) a survey of state DOT safety programs, and (c) a series of interviews with state DOT personnel. Figure 1 shows a map of the specific state DOTs represented in this synthesis, including those represented in the survey and interviews. The literature review included all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico based on HSIP manuals and annual reports. The following sections provide an overview of these individual components, followed by chapters that elaborate on the details. Literature Review The literature review included a comprehensive search of state and federal resources that relate to the HSIP and methods to identify, prioritize, and evaluate HSIP projects. State HSIP and Safety Program manuals served as the primary source of information because these manuals serve as a guide for others to follow and typically provide enough details to understand the methods and processes. State HSIP annual reports and FHWA guides served as key resources for supplemental information and as the primary resource for state DOTs when HSIP or Safety Program manuals are not available. Chapter 2 provides further details on the process and results of the literature review.
6 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Survey of State DOTs The survey of state DOTs consisted of 24 questions and was sent to the HSIP annual report contact person in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The invitation encouraged the primary contact person to distribute the survey for completion (if needed) to others in the agency. A total of 44 state DOTs (42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) responded, resulting in a survey response rate of approximately 85%. Appen- dix A provides the survey questions. Appendix B includes the survey responses, including links to resources (documents and tools) related to state HSIP practices that were included in responses to the survey. In-Depth Interviews In-depth interviews focused on select state DOTs to serve as case examples in the synthesis. The project team selected four state DOTs based on the results of the literature review and Figure 1. Map of agencies represented in survey and case examples.
Introduction 7  survey to solicit details on specific aspects of HSIP project identification, prioritization, and evalu- ation. The four state DOTs are not meant to serve as recommended practice but instead represent a diversity of practices with respect to HSIP project identification, prioritization, and evaluation. These four state DOTs also offer diversity with respect to practices on state and local roads as well as spot, systemic, and systematic approaches to safety management. Organization of Report This report is organized into five chapters. The following are brief explanations of the chapter contents. Chapter 2 describes the process and results of the literature review of state DOT practices for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects in the United States, as documented in published literature and online state DOT resources. Chapter 3 presents the results of the detailed questionnaire, as reported by the state DOTs in their survey responses. The survey results shed light on the current state-of-the-practice for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects in the United States. Chapter 4 presents case examples of four select HSIP practices based on the published literature, survey responses, and a series of interviews. The chapter is organized to provide more details on the general safety management approach, project identification, project prioritization, and project evaluation for each select state DOT. The case examples also call out innovative and/or successful practices, challenges, and the lessons learned/opportunities to overcome challenges. Chapter 5 presents a summary of findings, conclusions, knowledge gaps, and suggestions for further study and research. The chapters are followed by a list of acronyms and abbreviations and by the references. The three appendices to this report are as follows: ⢠Appendix A: Survey questions ⢠Appendix B: Survey responses and links to resources (documents and tools) related to state HSIP practices ⢠Appendix C: List of resources included in the literature review and summary of state DOT practices
