Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 81-137
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 81... ...
81 A P P E N D I X B State DOT Survey Responses Appendix B provides individual state DOT responses to the survey, including links to a list of HSIP resources and documentation that the state DOTs provided as part of the survey. Other state DOTs provided HSIP resources and documentation directly because the information is not publicly available online.
|
From page 82... ...
82 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program • Minnesota included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: • Missouri included documentation for systemic safety approach, systematic safety approach, and guidance specific to countermeasures: • New Hampshire included documentation for systemic safety approach, while noting the document is undergoing comprehensive revision: • New Jersey included documentation for systemic safety approach: • New York included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: • North Dakota included documentation for systematic safety approach: • Ohio included documentation for systemic safety approach and systematic safety approach: – – https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/FY_2013_Before-After_Study_684630_7.pdf – http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/ – https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/hsip/localfall17announcement.pdf – http://epg.modot.org/index.php/907.1_Safety_Program_Guidelines – http://epg.modot.org/index.php/903.6_Warning_Signs#903.6.11_Chevron_Alignment_Sign_ .28W1-8.29_.28MUTCD_Section_2C.09.29 – https://epg.modot.org/index.php/Category:619_Pavement_Edge_Treatment – https://www.modot.org/sites/default/files/documents/61910.pdf – https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/hwysafetyimprovements/ documents/hsip_nhguidance_122013.pdf – https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/safety/hsip.shtm – https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/strategic-plan – https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/psap – https://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/safety/trafficsafety.htm#safetyprogram – https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_case_studies_OD OT%20PSIP.pdf – https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=https%3A%2F%2Fmdotjboss.state.mi.us %2FTSSD%2FgetTSDocument.htm%3FdocGuid%3D29acdb28-6da4-46d6-9115-8890ca554 bda%26fileName%3DFINAL%2520MDOT%2520ped%2520crosswalk%2520guide%2520 March%25202020.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CSpanglerH%40michigan.gov%7C4aabe43badf 54bfbcd6508d812c38610%7Cd5fb7087377742ad966a892ef47225d1%7C0%7C0%7C637279 978270864897&sdata=GCh12mv%2FgdlZtJP5BhIYCiVnRxx9dbYUbM3vqeOk4uo%3D& reserved=0 – – – – – https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9622_11045_24249-485481 -- ,00.html https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/getTSDocument.htm?
|
From page 83... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 83 • Pennsylvania included documentation for systemic safety approach: • Vermont included reference for systemic safety approach and documentation for systematic safety approach: – https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/ARTS_FAQ.pdf – https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/Safety/Pages/Safety-Infrastructure-ImprovementPrograms.aspx – http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pubsforms/Publications/PUB%20638.pdf – https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2017101%20-%20Guidelines%20For%20Milled%20Rumble%20Strips.pdf – https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2016101%20-%20Safety%20Edge%20Implementation.pdf Q3: Does your state distinguish between spot, systemic, and systematic projects, and, if so, are the definitions consistent with those provided below? Spot: identifying locations based on crash experience (e.g., a high number or rate of crashes)
|
From page 84... ...
84 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, and the definitions are consistent. Yes, but the definitions are different.
|
From page 85... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 85 State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented.
|
From page 86... ...
86 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q4a: If yes, and it is documented, please provide a link or reference to the document: Responses Documentation is provided in the HSIP Annual Report: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports/ Getting to Zero: WSDOT's HSIP Implementation Plan 2020 (draft)
|
From page 87... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 87 Q4b: If yes, but it is not documented, please briefly explain: Responses State considers and gives preference to systemic studies informally. Steps are being taken to formalize this stance.
|
From page 88... ...
88 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, and it is documented. Yes, but it is not documented.
|
From page 89... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 89 Responses %20Guidelines%20For%20Milled%20Rumble%20Strips.pdf Safety Edge Implementation: https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/structures/HSDEI%2016-101%20%20Safety%20Edge%20Implementation.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/psap https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/divTed/TrafficSOS/index.html https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odot/programs/local-fundingopportunities/resources/township-safety-sign-grant-program MaineDOT is currently developing a more comprehensive HSIP Manual that more accurately reflects our processes, but the attached document is our current documentation. NDDOT had a consultant put together local road safety plans for all the counties, major cities, and tribal lands in ND.
|
From page 90... ...
90 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Responses Our safety committees have identified some safety countermeasures that are always eligible to be implemented systematically. One example is adding should rumble strips in shoulder already exist.
|
From page 91... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 91 State DOT Basic crashbased approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic riskbased approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q6-1a: If other (spot) , please explain?
|
From page 92... ...
92 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Basic crashbased approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic riskbased approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q6-2a: If other (systemic) , please explain.
|
From page 93... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 93 Responses We use our tort settlement data to identify options for safety improvements. This is especially helpful for issues that don't fit in the category of a reportable crash.
|
From page 94... ...
94 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Basic crashbased approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic riskbased approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q7-1a: If other (spot) , please explain?
|
From page 95... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 95 State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Basic crashbased approach Advanced crash-based approach Basic riskbased approach Advanced risk-based approach Other Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q7-2a: If other (systemic) , please explain.
|
From page 96... ...
96 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q8-1: How does your state identify potential countermeasures for spot HSIP projects on the state system?
|
From page 97... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 97 Responses Discussion and collaboration with others within state DOT, law enforcement, MPOs, Office of Highway Safety, etc., via an annual site review meeting We utilize CMF Clearinghouse for countermeasure evaluation when multiple options present themselves at times. State DOT uses their safety management system to identify spot and systemic treatments at each given location.
|
From page 98... ...
98 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q8-2a: If other (systemic)
|
From page 99... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 99 State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q9-1a: If other (spot)
|
From page 100... ...
100 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Detailed site analysis (e.g., road safety audit) Presence of risk factors or specific site characteristics Preapproved list of countermeasures Other Idaho Yes Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana No Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan No Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q9-2a: If other (systemic)
|
From page 101... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 101 State DOT Roadway departures Intersections Pedestrians Bicycles Other Alaska Arizona √ Arkansas √ √ Colorado √ √ √ √ √ Connecticut √ √ √ Delaware √ √ District of Columbia √ √ √ √ √ Georgia √ √ √ √ Hawaii √ √ √ √ Idaho Illinois √ √ √ Indiana √ √ Iowa √ √ Kansas √ √ Louisiana √ Maine √ √ Maryland √ √ √ Massachusetts √ Michigan √ √ √ √ Minnesota √ √ √ Mississippi √ √ Missouri √ Montana √ Nebraska √ √ Nevada New Hampshire √ New Jersey √ √ √ √ New Mexico New York √ √ North Carolina √ √ √ √ North Dakota √ √ Ohio √ √ Oregon √ √ √ √ Pennsylvania √ √ √ Puerto Rico √ Rhode Island √ √ √ √ South Carolina √ √ √ √ South Dakota √ √ Tennessee √ √ √ √ Vermont √ Washington √ Wisconsin √ Wyoming √ √ √ √ √
|
From page 102... ...
102 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q10a: Please identify typical risk factors related to roadway departures and systemic countermeasures that your State implements to address roadway departures. State DOT Response Arizona Risk factors: curves, narrow shoulders, no median, etc.
|
From page 103... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 103 State DOT Response Chevrons: use AADT and advisory speed for a curve to determine locations for proactive treatments. Median Guard Cable: use AADT and median width to determine value for a proactive treatment.
|
From page 104... ...
104 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response Tennessee Countermeasures: edge-line, shoulder rumble strips, chevrons, guardrail and post delineation, signage, and 6-inch pavement markings. Vermont Risk factors: curve radii + functional class.
|
From page 105... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 105 State DOT Response signage packages for 3-legged, rural, stop-controlled intersections to address those with the highest excess crash experience. Countermeasures include reflective backplates to signal heads on corridors.
|
From page 106... ...
106 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response South Dakota Risk factors: traffic volume, posted speed, location to vertical and horizontal curves, and crashes. Tennessee Countermeasures: oversize signs, solar-powered flashing beacons, double advance warning signs, and double stop signs.
|
From page 107... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 107 State DOT Response Implementation-Plan.pdf. CRF list includes countermeasures specific to bike and pedestrian: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRFAppendix.pdf.
|
From page 108... ...
108 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Response https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/Bike-Ped-SafetyImplementation-Plan.pdf. CRF list includes countermeasures specific to bike and pedestrian: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Docs_TrafficEng/CRFAppendix.pdf.
|
From page 109... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 109 State DOT Preliminary engineering is not required for countermeasures with standard drawings. Preliminary engineering is required but only for certain spot projects (e.g., those that impact right-of-way or exceed a dollar threshold)
|
From page 110... ...
110 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Response State requires all spot HSIP projects to have plans of the proposed countermeasure, although they don't have to be highly detailed or complete. This is helpful for locals who might contract out for a project and cannot be reimbursed for any Phase I work.
|
From page 111... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 111 State DOT Preliminary engineering is not required for countermeasures with standard drawings. Preliminary engineering is required but only for certain systemic projects (e.g., those that impact right-of-way or exceed a dollar threshold)
|
From page 112... ...
112 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes, for spot projects Yes, for systemic projects Yes, for both spot and systemic projects No, we do not allow for any shortcuts. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q13: Does your state allow for any shortcuts to implement spot or systemic HSIP projects (e.g., not requiring all steps of the typical planning and development process for certain safety projects, purchasing products to be installed by maintenance forces to skip going out to bid for construction)
|
From page 113... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 113 Response Approved systemic countermeasures do not require a benefit-cost analysis at locations with risk factors. Certain spot initiatives such as HRRR and Cross-Median Crashes are not required to complete a project evaluation factor as long as certain minimum crash thresholds are met.
|
From page 114... ...
114 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits CostJustification Analysis Other Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal + serious injury crashes Total crashes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q14-1: How does your state prioritize spot HSIP projects on the state system?
|
From page 115... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 115 Response Deliverability, project duration, and cost fitting also influence ranking. State DOT also considers crashes per mile during the study period and recent year KA crashes Economic model also affects BCR.
|
From page 116... ...
116 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits CostJustification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q14-2a: If other (systemic) , please explain.
|
From page 117... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 117 Response Some of the above including cost effectiveness and moving to some benefit-cost (the cost uses the crash severity in the equation) , but a lot of the prioritization is readiness and geographic distribution and project type politics For the State system, we use of Time of Return (TOR)
|
From page 118... ...
118 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits CostJustification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Iowa Yes Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland No Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota Yes Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York No North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming No Q15-1a: If other (spot) , please explain.
|
From page 119... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 119 Response We don't have a policy for local roads. We have some LTAP programs set up to help identify locations.
|
From page 120... ...
120 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Cost-Effectiveness Cost–Benefit Ratio Net Benefits CostJustification Analysis Other Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Fatal and serious injury crashes Total crashes Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee No Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming No Q15-2a: If other (systemic) , please explain.
|
From page 121... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 121 State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed)
|
From page 122... ...
122 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Response We created State-specific SPFs for rural roadways as part of a research project recently. We have our own HSM Spreadsheet for analysis.
|
From page 123... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 123 State DOT Quantify expected safety benefits Crash history Safety performance function (Highway Safety Manual) Safety performance function (state developed)
|
From page 124... ...
124 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Consider noncrash-based factors SHSP priority Social equity Geographic equity (region/district or urban/rural) State/local equity Project readiness Other Nebraska Yes Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey Yes New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina Yes North Dakota No Ohio Yes Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island Yes South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Vermont Yes Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q17a: If other, please explain.
|
From page 125... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 125 Response total for selection. We also have an HSIP Selection Committee that can give some additional weight to a project being selected (or denied)
|
From page 126... ...
126 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT All projects compete for the same funds. There is a set-aside for each program type, and projects compete within the designated program.
|
From page 127... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 127 State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana The Safety Asset Team seeks to approach a 50/50 split of total spot and systemic project funding allocation. Systematic improvements are achieved via road standards.
|
From page 128... ...
128 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island I think it's a combination of quantitative and qualitative. We do look at the percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes based on locations and adjust accordingly.
|
From page 129... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 129 State DOT Yes, based on documented formula or process Yes, but not based on documented formula or process No Other Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q19a: If there is a set-aside for each program, how does your state determine the set-aside amount for each program? State DOT Quantitative Qualitative Other Details Alabama Alaska Arizona We cap the amount of money we are willing to commit to systemic projects at 20% of the total HSIP dollars available.
|
From page 130... ...
130 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q20-1: How does your state evaluate spot HSIP projects on the state system post-implementation? State DOT Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before– after Regression crosssection Other We don't.
|
From page 131... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 131 Q20-1a: If other (spot) , please explain.
|
From page 132... ...
132 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before– after Regression crosssection Other We don't. North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Q20-2a: If other (systemic)
|
From page 133... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 133 State DOT Different processes for spot projects on local system Simple before–after Empirical or full Bayes before–after Comparison group before–after Regression cross-section Other We don't. Illinois No Indiana No Iowa No Kansas Yes Louisiana Yes Maine No Maryland Yes Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Minnesota No Mississippi No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire No New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes North Carolina No North Dakota No Ohio No Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Puerto Rico No Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota No Tennessee Yes Vermont No Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q21-1a: If other (spot)
|
From page 134... ...
134 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Q21-2: How does your state evaluate systemic HSIP projects on the state system postimplementation? If yes, select all that apply.
|
From page 135... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 135 State DOT Different processes for systemic projects on local system Simple before– after Empirical or full Bayes before– after Comparison group before–after Regression crosssection Other We don't. Tennessee Yes Vermont No Washington Yes Wisconsin No Wyoming Yes Q21-2a: If other (systemic)
|
From page 136... ...
136 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Yes No Link (if yes, and available online) Maryland Massachusetts Older version, which is in the process of being updated: https://www.mass.gov/doc/highway-safety-improvement-programcriteria/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/massdot-safety-alternativesanalysis-guide/download Michigan Minnesota https://www.dot.state.mn.us/projectselection/lists/greater-minnesota-highwaysafety-improvement-program.html Mississippi Missouri https://epg.modot.org/index.php/907.1_Safety_Program_Guidelines#:~:text=E ach%20year%2C%20Missouri%20receives%20federal,serious%20injuries%2 0on%20Missouri%20roads Montana Based on internal legal opinion, these are internal documents that are not available for distribution.
|
From page 137... ...
State DOT Survey Responses 137 Q23: If you have additional comments or details you would like to share, please enter them here. Response A consultant is currently working with State DOT to evaluate its HSIP process.
|
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.