Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 21-42
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 21... ...
21 The purpose of the survey is to identify, document, and summarize state DOT practices for identifying, prioritizing, and evaluating HSIP projects. The results of the survey highlight DOT practice, with the intent of helping agencies assess and improve their current HSIP practices.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Of the three state DOTs that indicated some difference in definitions, none of them reported differences in definitions for the spot method. Two state DOTs, North Carolina and Georgia, noted the following differences for the systemic definition: • North Carolina utilizes a hybrid version of systemic programs by combining risk factors and crash data, including pattern recognition, to determine specific countermeasures.
|
From page 23... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 23 process, whereas others are pilot testing the use of a systemic approach. Several state DOTs indicated that they are working to formalize and memorialize systemic safety as part of their HSIP documentation.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Identifying State System Projects Table 9 summarizes how the 44 responding state DOTs identify potential locations for spot and systemic HSIP projects on the state roadway system. For spot projects, the basic crash-based approach (e.g., crash frequency, rate, and severity)
|
From page 25... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 25 Identifying Local System Projects State DOTs were asked if they have a different process for identifying spot or systemic HSIP projects on the local system versus the state system. As shown in Figure 11, 32 of the 44 responding state DOTs (approximately 73%)
|
From page 26... ...
26 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program • New York uses the rate quality control method, but traffic volumes and rates are often not available on the local system. Although there are some exceptions, local governments perform their own analysis to identify systemic and spot HSIP projects.
|
From page 27... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 27 departures as a focus area for systemic improvement, followed by intersections (27 of 44) , pedestrians (19 of 44)
|
From page 28... ...
28 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Table 17 presents specific countermeasures that state DOTs use to address systemic intersection risk factors. Some of the more common countermeasures include enhanced signing, enhanced striping, retroreflective backplates, and traffic signal upgrades.
|
From page 29... ...
Countermeasures Number of State DOTs Enhanced signing 13 Enhanced striping 8 Retroreflective backplates 8 Traffic signal upgrades 6 Left-turn protection 4 Flashing yellow arrow 3 Transverse rumble strips 3 Channelization 3 Convert to all-way stop. 3 Improve sight distance.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program rectangular rapid-flashing beacons, pedestrian warning signs, pedestrian signals and signal phasing, and lighting. Table 20 presents specific risk factors that state DOTs use to implement systemic bicycle countermeasures.
|
From page 31... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 31 Developing Spot and Systemic Projects The next step in the HSIP process is transitioning HSIP locations and countermeasures into projects. Table 22 describes various state DOT requirements for developing spot and systemic HSIP projects.
|
From page 32... ...
32 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program providing a list of preapproved countermeasures, implementing projects on an emergency basis, using force accounts, or implementing low-cost projects, such as signing or pavement markings with in-house forces. Appendix B provides further details on state DOT responses.
|
From page 33... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 33 based on total crashes" (12 state DOTs) and "cost-effectiveness based on total crashes" (12 state DOTs)
|
From page 34... ...
34 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program DOTs. For spot projects, the most common method is "other" (six state DOTs)
|
From page 35... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 35 Massachusetts tried quantifying expected safety benefits using the Safe System Approach, but that is relatively new, and it is looking into various options. • Michigan: Created state-specific SPFs for rural roadways and developed an HSM spreadsheet for analysis.
|
From page 36... ...
36 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Funding Allocation Methods This subsection focuses on funding allocation between spot and systemic projects. Specifically, state DOTs were asked how they balance HSIP funds among spot, systemic, and systematic projects.
|
From page 37... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 37 Delaware funds short-term spot improvements first and then allocates the remaining funds to systemic projects. North Carolina developed a funding allocation model after reviewing crash data trends, SHSP emphasis areas, existing HSIP subprograms and processes, and historical countermeasure selections.
|
From page 38... ...
38 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program state highway HSIP is approximately 60% reactive and 40% proactive; and Greater Minnesota local highway HSIP is approximately 90% proactive and 10% reactive. • In Nebraska, the HSIP Implementation Plan focuses on systemic projects due to the need to improve many miles of rural roads as a key category with crashes.
|
From page 39... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 39 44 responding state DOTs, a majority conduct simple before–after evaluations for spot projects (32 state DOTs) and systemic projects (23 state DOTs)
|
From page 40... ...
40 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Four state DOTs selected "other" evaluation methods for the local system and provided the following responses to explain: • Maryland is developing a program to allocate HSIP fund to locals and plans to support local projects starting in FY 2022. There have been no evaluations done yet.
|
From page 41... ...
Survey of State DOT Practices 41 • For systemic projects, the most common method is the basic risk-based approach (e.g., crash summaries, crash trees, and SHSP emphasis areas) , as noted by 35 state DOTs.
|
From page 42... ...
42 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Funding Allocation The survey results related to funding allocation are relatively consistent with those presented in Chapter 2 based on the literature review, but there are a few differences. The following are key takeaways related to funding allocation methods based on the 44 responses: • The majority of state DOTs (27)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.