Safety Management includes overall program direction and project prioritization, funding identification, project development, project implementation, and evaluation.

5.1. Safety Management

5.1.1. Safety Project Prioritization and Development

To prioritize and identify projects for funding, safety professionals must determine comparison criteria for this purpose. In many cases an economic appraisal is used to provide a fair comparison among projects competing for safety funds. In a basic economic appraisal, an analyst will calculate the monetary cost of the treatment and the estimated monetary value of the benefits, such as reduced number and severity of crashes. The analyst can then calculate a benefit-to-cost ratio for each potential project to compare their relative effectiveness.⁴²

In addition to the calculated value, other prioritization criteria may include:

• Connecting the treatment to State Strategic Highway Safety Plan strategies;
• Leveraged funding through cost sharing with other agencies (or other similar methods that decrease treatment cost);
• Local needs of MPOs, RPCs, or local roadway agencies;
• Benefits of combining safety and non-safety funding sources (e.g., adding rumble strips to an already-funded, non-safety project); and
• Public perception of safety treatments.

5.1.2. Initial and Ongoing Treatment Costs

When selecting safety improvements to deploy, practitioners should weigh the treatments among several criteria: estimated safety benefit, feasibility or applicability of installing the treatment at a specific site or sites, how to fund the initial installation and ongoing maintenance costs while considering the ranges of those costs, and how often the treatment will need routine maintenance in order to maintain the safety benefits associated with deployment.

Typically, the initial installation of safety treatments can be financed through dedicated safety funds in additional to other funding sources used for highway construction and reconstruction. However, ongoing maintenance costs associated with the initial installation become the responsibility of the agency and are typically funded through internal operations and maintenance budgets.

Recurring maintenance costs should be considered and weighed as practitioners decide among potential treatments to deploy on HRRR. The HRRR Treatment Matrix located in this manual presents the initial deployment cost and recurring maintenance costs associated with safety treatments presented in Chapter 4 to aid in the decision-making process.

5.2. The Funding Process

State DOTs typically program safety (and other transportation) projects through their multi-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). A State's Planning Division is often the leader of this process, so safety-focused staff must provide project recommendations for potential funding. Specific policies, procedures, and practices vary widely by State.

Non-State agencies, such as counties, municipalities, and Tribal entities, work through regional planning commissions (RPCs), regional planning organizations (RPO), councils of government (COGs), or metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to identify, plan, and program transportation safety projects. Each RPC, RPO, COG, and MPO develops a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in conjunction with the State DOT that cites the region or area's top transportation priorities for new projects. Transportation safety projects are typically a portion of the TIP.

5.3. Legislation and Funding Sources

A number of sources for funding are available at the Federal, State, and local levels. Processes vary widely from State-to-State and year-to-year based on the current level of funding and legislation, so the best sources of information in an individual State is the State DOT Safety Engineer, State DOT Local Programs Office, FHWA Division Office, and LTAP Center.

The following sections provide background information regarding current legislation and funding sources at the time of this writing. All are subject to change.

5.3.1. Legislation and Federal Funding Sources

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the HSIP as a core Federal-aid funding program. As part of the HSIP, SAFETEA-LU introduced a setaside provision, the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). The HRRRP provided $90 million as an annual set-aside from a State's HSIP apportionment and was developed to help States implement solutions on the lower functional classes of rural roadways, a segment of the system often overlooked.⁴³

On July 6, 2012, President Barak Obama signed into law P.L. 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program with nearly double the funding from SAFETEA-LU. MAP-21 removes the HRRRP set-aside provision and also revises the definition of "High Risk Rural Road," but continues the inclusion of construction and operational improvements on HRRR as eligible HSIP projects.⁴⁴ While the $90 million set-aside for HRRR was not continued, MAP-21 contains a special rule⁴⁵ requiring obligation of funds for HRRR projects if the fatality rate on rural roads in a State is increasing. If the special rule applies to a State for a fiscal year, it must obligate projects on HRRR of an amount equal to at least 200 percent of the amount of funds the State received for FY 2009 for the HRRRP.⁴⁶

There are multiple funding resources that can be used to fund recommendations for HRRR projects, depending on the nature of the suggestion. Funding for safety projects may come from a variety of Federal, State, and local sources. Some of the programs include:⁴⁷

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – The HSIP emphasizes a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads and focuses on performance. The foundation for this approach is a safety data system, which each State is required to have to identify key safety problems, establish their relative severity, and then adopt strategic and performance-based goals to maximize safety. Every State is required to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that lays out strategies to address these key safety problems. The HSIP has average annual funding of $2.4 billion, including $220 million per year for the Railway-Highway Crossing Program. For more information, refer to the HSIP Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/hsip.cfm
• 23 U.S.C. 130: Railway-Highway Crossing Program (Section 130) – The program funds safety improvements to eliminate hazards at public railway-highway grade crossings. This includes projects on HRRR and could be a potential funding source. This program is funded with a $220 million set-aside of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
• Surface Transportation Program (STP) – The STP provides an annual average of $10 billion in flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, transit capital projects and public bus terminals, and facilities. For more information, refer to the STP Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/stp.cfm
• Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) – MAP-21 established a new program to provide for a variety of alternative transportation projects that were previously eligible activities under separately funded programs. This program is funded at a level equal to two percent of the total of all MAP-21 authorized Federal-aid highway and highway research funds, with the amount for each State set aside from the State's formula apportionments. For HRRR, this funding may be utilized for the Safe Routes to School Program. For more information, refer to the TAP Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/tap.cfm
• Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs – MAP-21 continues to acknowledge the importance of access to Federal and Tribal lands. Recognizing the need for all public Federal and Tribal transportation facilities to be treated under uniform policies similar to the policies that apply to Federal-aid highways and other public transportation facilities, MAP-21 creates a unified program for Federal lands transportation facilities, Federal lands access transportation facilities, and Tribal transportation facilities. For more information, refer to the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ttp.cfm
• Federal Lands Transportation Program – The program provides $300 million annually for projects that improve access within the Federal estate, such as national forests and national recreation areas, on infrastructure owned by the Federal government. This program combines the former Park Roads and Refuge Roads programs, and adds three new Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) partners. A portion of the funds will support traditional partner agencies at current funding levels, with new partners competing for a modest portion. For more information, refer to the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/fltp.cfm.
• Federal Lands Access Program – The program provides $250 million annually for projects that improve access to the Federal estate on infrastructure owned by States and local governments. Replacing and expanding the Forest Highways program, projects providing access to any Federal lands are eligible for this new comprehensive program. Funds are distributed by formula based on recreational visitation, Federal land area, Federal public road mileage, and the number of Federal public bridges.
• Tribal Transportation Program – This program provides $450 million annually for projects that improve access to and within Tribal lands. This program generally continues the existing Indian Reservation Roads program, while adding new set-asides for Tribal bridge projects (in lieu of the existing Indian Reservation Road Bridge program) and Tribal safety projects. It continues to provide set-asides for program management and oversight and Tribal transportation planning.
• Tribal High Priority Projects Program – This program is a discretionary program modeled on an earlier program that was funded by set-asides from the Indian Reservation Roads Program. MAP-21 provides $30 million per year from the General fund (subject to appropriation) for this new program. For more information, refer to the Tribal High Priority Projects Program Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/thpp.cfm
• Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) – The ADHS program is continued, but without separate funding. Portions that are on the NHS are eligible for National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funding, and ADHS routes, including local access roads, are eligible for STP funding. To encourage the completion of the ADHS, States are required to submit plans for completion of the system and an increased Federal share is provided. For more information, refer to the ADHS Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/adhs.cfm
• Bridge and Tunnel Inspection – The program provides for continued improvement to bridge and tunnel conditions essential to protect the safety of the traveling public and allow for the efficient movement of people and goods on which the U.S. economy relies. MAP-21 requires inspection and inventory of highway bridges and tunnels on public roads. No dedicated funds are provided for inspections, but it is an eligible use of NHPP, STP, HSIP, FHWA administrative, Tribal Transportation, and Research funds. MAP-21 authorizes $400 million per year for the following six programs: Highway Research and Development, Technology and Innovation Deployment, Training and Education, Intelligent Transportation Systems, University Transportation Research, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. For more information, refer to the Bridge and Tunnel Inspection Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/bti.cfm
• Research and Technology Development and Deployment – MAP-21 provides $115 million per year for the Highway Research and Development program. Research areas include highway safety, infrastructure integrity, planning and environment, highway operations, exploratory advanced research, and the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.
• Technology Innovation and Deployment Program – The program provides $62.5 million per year to accelerate implementation and delivery of new innovations and technologies that result from highway research and development to benefit all aspects of highway transportation. At least $12 million per year of these funds must be used to accelerate the deployment and implementation of pavement technology.
• Training and Education – MAP-21 authorizes $24 million per year for continuation of training and education programs, including the National Highway Institute, the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), the Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP), the Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowships, the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program, the Transportation Education Development Program, and the Freight Capacity Building Program. Also funded from the Training and Education funds are the competitively selected centers for transportation excellence in the areas of the environment, surface transportation safety, rural safety, and project finance. The Federal share for LTAP and TTAP centers remains at 50 percent and 100 percent respectively.
• State Planning and Research (SP&R) – MAP-21 continues the SP&R, as a two percent takedown of four core programs: National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, and Highway Safety Improvement Program. At least 25 percent of these funds have to be used for research purposes. For more information, refer to the State Planning and Research (SP&R) Fact Sheet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov.map21/spr.cfm

In addition to the major highway program funding sources, other Federal safety resources may assist with HSIP implementation. These grant programs are administered by NHTSA and FMCSA and can be used to assist with law enforcement efforts and improve traffic record data collection, data systems, and hazard elimination. The funding includes:⁴⁸,⁴⁹

• 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 Transfer Funds – States in which Federal-aid highway funds are transferred based on noncompliance with 23 U.S.C. 154 Open Container Requirements or 23 U.S.C. 164 Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated or Under the Influence can use the transfer funds on approved projects for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures or direct the funds to State/local law enforcement to increase impaired driving enforcement. States also may elect to use the funds for hazard elimination activities eligible under 23 U.S.C. 152.
• 23 U.S.C. 402: State and Community Highway Safety Grants – Supports a full range of highway safety behavioral programs, including alcohol countermeasures, occupant protection, police traffic services (e.g., enforcement), emergency medical services, traffic records, motorcycle safety pedestrian and bicycle safety, non-construction aspects of road safety, and speed enforcement and management programs. A minimum of 40 percent of a State's Section 402 funds must be expended by local governments, or be used for the benefit of local governments. To receive Federal highway safety grant funds, State Highway Safety Offices must submit an annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to the NHTSA.

5.3.2. Other Funding Sources

In some States the DOT sets aside a certain amount of safety funding for State and local rural road projects. Funding sources and amounts vary from State to State, so the best resources for finding out more in a particular State are the State DOT Safety Engineer, FHWA Division Office, and LTAP Center. For example, safety efforts in Iowa on State and local roads are funded with a combination of Federal and State funds. A portion of their Road Use Tax Fund (0.5% as of 2005) has been set aside for safety projects. This gives Iowa about $7 million of State funds per year–on top of their Federal safety funding–to address the State's most pressing safety needs. Previous projects have included experimental pavement marking, data software development, the small town signing program, and research projects at local universities.⁵⁰

5.4. Evaluation

Evaluation of safety treatments is a necessary step in the safety management process. Calculating effectiveness provides safety officials with the information needed to determine if the treatment(s) should be used in similar situations in the future.

Pre- and post-installation crash history and a record of treatment installations support performance assessment of each safety treatment. It is important to keep a current list of installed treatments with associated details to support these analyses. Periodic assessments will help drive decisions about whether each treatment contributed to safety improvements and why they were successful.

Required information may include crash history data (with associated details related to the treatment–crash type, frequency, severity); public input and complaints; and observations from maintenance crews or law enforcement.

Once calculated, the quantified benefits of certain treatments can be used to develop crash modification factors (CMF) to improve the analysis during project prioritization and selection.⁵¹

⁴² AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, First Edition, 2010. [ Return to note 42. ]

⁴³ 23 U.S.C. §148(a)(1) defines a "high risk rural road" as: "...any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road (a) on which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway; or (b) that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway." [ Return to note 43. ]

⁴⁴ Section 1112 of MAP-21 changed the definition of a "high risk rural road" in 23 USC 148(a)(1) to: "any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State strategic highway safety plan." [ Return to note 44. ]

⁴⁵ 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1) [ Return to note 45. ]

⁴⁶ FHWA, "Highway Safety Improvement Program, MAP-21 High Risk Rural Roads Guidance." [ Return to note 46. ]

⁴⁷ FHWA, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), A Summary of Highway Provisions. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm. [ Return to note 47. ]

⁴⁸ FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/legislative-safety-programs/hsip/highway-safety-improvement-program-manual-0 [ Return to note 48. ]

⁴⁹ Iowa Department of Transportation, "National Priority Safety Programs Under MAP-21, Section 405." Available at: http://www.iowadot.gov/pol_leg_services/federalregisternotices/NHTSA%20Sec.%20405%20regulatory%20analysis.pdf [ Return to note 49. ]

⁵⁰ Chandler, B., Midwest Safety Scanning Tour, Missouri Department of Transportation, 2005. Available at: http://www.modot.org/safety/Safety_Engineering/documents/2005SafetyScanningTour.pdf [ Return to note 50. ]

⁵¹ FHWA, Road Safety Information Analysis: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, FHWA-SA-11-10 (Washington, DC, 2011). [ Return to note 51. ]