This Appendix provides the notable practices described in the report organized by each Host State. The subheadings under each State link back to the relevant chapters. Table 4 summarizes information about each Host State and provides links to each Host State section.

Table 4. Host State statistics.

State	FY14 HSIP Apportionment	State-Owned Roadway Miles	Non-State Owned Roadway Miles	5 Yr Average Fatality Rate
Alaska	$29,668,529	5,591	10,089	1.26
Illinois	$73,695,955	15,986	129,722	0.90
Massachusetts	$32,218,108	3,018	33,352	0.64
New Hampshire	$7,924,497	3,921	12,176	0.88
North Carolina	$57,438,779	79,546	26,656	1.24
Oregon	$28,137,964	7,661	63,568	1.00
Utah	$19,948,410	5,869	40,385	0.89

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ALASKA

Documentation of HSIP Processes

In Alaska, the DOT&PF State Traffic and Safety Engineer has the responsibility of maintaining a variety of manuals and project development policy documentation. The Alaska HSIP Handbook is evaulated and upated annually or on an as-needed basis to address changes in law, program and policy rules, and clarifications. Updates also address crash costs and CMFs as needed. The Handbook is readily accessible from the Alaska DOT&PF web site, in addition to other HSIP documentation - dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcstraffic/hsip.shtml.

The Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project development, the criteria for project selection, and handling of funds and project delivery activities. Development of this documentation was the result of a facilitative relationship between the FHWA Division Office and the State Traffic and Safety Engineer's office. The support of the Commissioner ensured that resources were available to address the HSIP regulations with appropriate and sufficient documentation, ensuring the program would be equitably and consistently applied.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• DOT&PF delivers the Alaska HSIP through headquarters staff, which consists of the traffic safety engineering practitioners and program development, and the Region staff, which consists of traffic operations engineering staff and project development staff. 
• The detailed documentation and program requirements and policies have greatly facilitated the involvement of Anchorage and other local agencies that lack engineering support.
• The FHWA Alaska Division Office has helped to facilitate the development of HSIP "champions" within the program, those on staff at Headquarters who cooperate closely with FHWA and have a passion for advancing the mission of the HSIP and achieving collaboration and results.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• All nominated HSIP projects are developed in order to align with one or more of the action items and long-term goals in the SHSP.
• The Alaska SHSP features a specific section devoted to the HSIP, describing its function and role in the State's strategic approach to safety management on the roadway system.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • DOT&PF contracted with the University of Alabama to develop a crash information portal known as CRASH/Alaska CARE.
  • Electronic reporting of crashes improves reliability and speed data delivery. 
  • Considering a tiered reporting system to encourage additional data collection from higher-order crashes, which also improves FARS reporting. 
  • Cooperation with local municipalities for data sharing agreements and transition to improved electronic reporting response rates.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • Annual screening of all roads, including local roads.
  • Local agency nomination process is supported by DOT&PF region personnel. 
  • The project ranking process allows for a tiered list of projects, including ranked, non-ranked and systemic projects. 
  • A narrative for all non-ranked projects and a sensitivity analysis for non-ranked projects with a crash history determine suitability for HSIP investments.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• DOT&PF is cooperating with local municipalities for data sharing agreements and transition to improved electronic reporting response rates.
• Local agencies can nominate a project with informal DOT&PF assistance in selecting the project limits, countermeasures, and computational metrics.
• Alaska DOT&PF undertakes design (or manages consulting designers) and delivers local projects, with the exception of projects in Anchorage.

Considering All "4E's"

• Public Outreach and Involvement.
  • The primary safety-related public outreach activities of the DOT&PF are taking place through the efforts of the Regions, particularly in the Region public information staff, which has achieved AASHTO recognition for Public Service Announcements related to highway safety.
  • The headquarters public information staff participates in the outreach efforts as well.
• Safety Corridors.
  • Alaska established the four Alaska Traffic Safety Corridors (ATSCs), based on the presence of high-crash locations and approved by the commissioners of Transportation and Public Safety.
  • Traffic Safety Corridor successes are documented and form the foundation for future expansion of the program as funding for enforcement is available.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • Coordination between Headquarters and the Regions in Alaska helps with effective scoping of projects, cost control, and the transition of projects from approval and funding to successful construction.
  • DOT&PF traffic safety and project development staff work very closely together to ensure project scoping is accurate and appropriate, controlling costs. 
  • HSIP analysis targets fatal and serious injury crashes where 1R and 3R formulas do not identify a problem.
• Program and Project Management Tools.
  • Alaska DOT&PF uses an HSIP Funding Plan and a Funding Tracking Spreadsheet to help manage their HSIP, allocate funding to scheduled project phases according to priority, anticipate future funding needs, and estimate new project funding requirement.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • HSIP is in the STIP as an "umbrella project," providing broad flexibility to the DOT&PF.
  • In order to encourage flexibility in project development and the highest degree of success in correcting safety deficiencies, HSIP funds in Alaska are available to deliver safety improvements within other projects, provided that the funds are used in compliance with Section 1.4 of the Alaska HSIP Handbook.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• Project Evaluation Worksheets are locally administered and reported to headquarters. 
• Project evaluation occurs over a three-year period. 
• Annualized benefits are evaluated against construction cost and maintenance costs.
• DOT&PF has also calculated an overall b/c ratio for the entire HSIP program, using data obtained in the program evaluation process.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: ILLINOIS

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Illinois DOT (IDOT) has extensive HSIP documentation to help deliver their program, available at idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/local-transportation-partners/county-engineers-and-local-public-agencies/funding-opportunities/highway-safety-improvement-program. This includes the IDOT HSIP Policy, the Systemic Safety Manual, and various spreadsheet-based evaluation tools, including the Benefit/Cost Analysis Tool and HSM Crash Prediction Tool. IDOT is also developing a Safety Engineering Manual as a supplement to their HSIP policy, designed to support the deployment of documented safety engineering processes. In addition, they are developing a policy regarding safety in project development, which will provide guidance for safety-related project advancement decisions.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• IDOT has a centralized, yet coordinated approach to managing HSIP that also allows for flexibility within the Districts. 
• The Central Office works with Districts to understand their needs and ensure they are comfortable with processes being implemented. 
• Districts meet together on a periodic basis to share best practices and lessons learned.
• Gathering of District input to develop a statewide safety briefing.
• IDOT worked with the University of Illinois to develop their initial set of Safety Performance Functions for each roadway and intersection type for the State highway system. This was based on the peer groups identified in Safety Analyst.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• The SHSP emphasizes impaired drivers, roadway departure, occupant protection, intersections, and information systems. IDOT prioritizes the emphasis areas within its SHSP based on the percentage of fatalities and serious injuries.
• Each HSIP application requires an SHSP emphasis area to be identified to ensure alignment between SHSP and HSIP.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • IDOT has staff dedicated to the creation, maintenance, and web-based dissemination of a variety of safety analysis tools. 
  • The Safety Portal provides all agencies with one interface for accessing the statewide crash database. IDOT also utilizes a Safety DataMart and GIS to perform safety analysis. The GIS includes various layers that include the SRI and other analysis results.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • IDOT solicits local agency projects on an annual basis and local agency officials submit candidate projects to the Districts.
  • All projects are subjected to the same criteria for evaluation by the Central Safety Committee, which meets annually to select projects for local roads and continuously reviews applications from the Districts for their projects. The Committee consists of representatives from BSE, the Bureau of Design, the Bureau of Local Roads, and FHWA.
  • IDOT uses an electronic application process for the nomination of all HSIP projects by Districts and local agencies. The submission process is open throughout the year for the districts to submit candidate projects. The SharePoint tool for project nomination centralizes all nominations in electronic and accessible format, providing automation to the approval process and reducing paperwork. 
  • Benefit/cost tool ensures consistency throughout IDOT as Districts generate b/c ratios based on project-specific inputs.
  • BSE has final say in selection of projects. 
  • Districts can create their own systemic and systematic focus areas. 
  • BSE gets a statewide HSIP allocation, which allows IDOT to address statewide safety issues across district lines. BSE can distribute funds using reserved appropriation.
• Spot Versus Systematic Improvements.
  • IDOT does not utilize a set proportion for allocation of funding to spot and systemic improvements. Instead they expect to balance both types of improvements, recognizing that both are important to improving safety.
  • While the Districts have been told that funding is available to pursue systemic projects, most Districts are typically project-level focused and the Central Office identifies and funds the majority of systemic projects.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

• IDOT uses safety performance functions developed through the University of Illinois to perform network screening and identify those roadway segments and intersections with high potential for safety improvement.
• The IDOT Safer Roads Index improves the integration of quantitative safety performance in transportation project planning and programming.
• Safety Tiers categorizes roadways segments and intersections based on their level of safety performance and opportunity for improvement, providing a rating for relative comparison – Critical/5 percent, High, Medium, Low or Minimal.
• Safety Tiers allow transportation officials to understand relative performance of a location compared to similar types of roadways or intersections.
• The SRI classifies locations (segments and intersections) based on the Safety Tiers and, in a GIS tool, assigns colors to each one consistent with the level of priority. The SRI values, by segment, when used in mapping tools, allow direct segment-by-segment comparisons between the SRI and pavement data for the CRS and the IRI. This tool is a visual and tactical aid found to be invaluable for programming of general capital improvement projects that accomplish all three of these strategic objectives.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• IDOT assists local agencies with funding, policy, and design issues by providing workshops to help agencies understand the HSIP application and delivery process and providing bid advertisement services for local projects, among other efforts.
• IDOT BSE has funding set-aside dedicated to local agency safety projects and administers that funding through their HSIP application/nomination and award process.
•  MPOs are valuable partners in Illinois, even as strong local agency programs exist. Some MPOs have taken an active role in safety analysis for their jurisdictional areas, using that data to develop and submit HSIP project applications and obtaining funding for the construction of those safety improvements.

Considering All "4E's"

• RSAs.
  • IDOT policy requires projects over $1 million to procure for design documentation an independently-conducted RSA or internal Road Safety Review.
  • IDOT supports local agencies, particularly county highway departments, in conducting RSAs by providing funding and technical support. One agency, having seen the benefit of the RSAs in project prioritization and development, now self-funds its own RSA program.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • IDOT has strong project development and delivery processes. 
  • District tracking system allows for control of scope, schedule, and cost while ensuring that projects are coordinated with letting and project delivery schedules. 
  • Uploading of District tracking information to SharePoint enables querying of all projects and determining which countermeasures have a large enough sample size for evaluation. 
  • IDOT uses a Funding Allocation Tracking Spreadsheet, with a separate tool used in District 1, to determine the funding that has been allocated and obligated to projects. This tool, combined with the strong project development process and preparation of engineering estimates by IDOT staff, ensures that funding obligations are consistent with annual appropriations, facilitating a high obligation rate and reducing the potential lapsed funding. 
  • Implementing new strategies at a District level rather than statewide allows other Districts to see how their counterparts are benefitting and makes them more likely to implement similar strategies.
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • IDOT uses one consultant to assist with HSIP implementation, providing consistency across statewide implementation.
• Program and Project Management Tools.
  • The Illinois DOT maintains several tools to help manage the HSIP. This includes the HSIP SharePoint site, a Benefit/Cost Tool, and a Funding Allocation Spreadsheet.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • IDOT uses a single category, Statewide Safety, in its STIP for safety projects, including railroad safety projects.
  • In locations not on the State roadway system, Illinois allows the use of county SHSPs for network screening processes, in addition to the identification of emphasis areas and focus areas, just as in the statewide SHSP. IDOT funded the development of the SHSPs with a consultant contract for HSIP support for the 35 counties with the most fatalities and serious injuries and those additional counties within MPOs.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• IDOT does not have a formal evaluation process but uses multiple methods of evaluation to gather both project-level results and system-wide results. This includes evaluation at the program level and using before and after data to evaluate projects.
• IDOT uses SP&R funding for research projects to evaluate countermeasures and develop CMFs and SPFs.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: MASSACHUSETTS

Documentation of HSIP Processes

All Massachusetts HSIP documentation is available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/highway-safety-improvement-program. Documentation includes HSIP Guidelines and a Crash Clusters map.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• Within the headquarters office of the Highway division, the TESS cooperates with other bureaus, including Construction, Design, and Project Management, to deliver the Massachusetts HSIP. 
• The TESS supports the Districts in understanding the HSIP program and providing RSA services. The Districts develop the cooperative relationship with the MPOs to ensure that central office objectives for highway safety and the HSIP tools promoted by TESS are available and used by the MPOs as they plan and program projects to the STIP.
• TESS has established working relationships with MassDOT Planning in order to deliver the HSIP, with TESS providing information and the Districts delivering the projects. MassDOT Planning supports the HSIP by assisting in programming the projects into the STIP and ensuring funding is allocated and available.
• The MassDOT HSIP Task Force consists of seven members. These members include two FHWA staff members, three MassDOT staff members (the Chief Engineer and representatives from the Bureau of Traffic and Safety and the Bureau of Planning), and members from two MPOs. The task force meets annually or as needed to develop guidelines for acceptable HSIP projects but does not approve individual projects.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• Each HSIP project must address a SHSP emphasis area and each SHSP emphasis area provides strategies for addressing common safety problems. 
• Because bicycle issues are considered a proactive emphasis area, MassDOT is addressing them with a specific bicycle/pedestrian safety program which includes enforcement, awareness, education, and infrastructure.
• In Massachusetts, HSIP projects are each separately nominated to the STIP.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • The Crash Analysis Tool provides a hierarchal screening process in the absence of exposure and severity data, permitting data-driven selection of candidate projects. The Crash Analysis Tool produces a clustered crash map using GIS tools and the geo-coded crash system. MassDOT developed the mapping tool in-house using contractor assistance, and the Tool is updated annually based on crash data collected in a prior calendar year. The tool is used to generate the HSIP-eligible projects list.
  • The Crash Portal allows for open access of crash information to the general public and MassDOT partners.
  • MassDOT is undertaking a project to link hospitalization data with their crash dataset.
  • MassDOT can also query citation data independently of crash information. MassDOT uses the citation data to better understand and address behavioral issues.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • Traffic Engineers in each District work with the MPO and the TESS to identify candidate sites and recommend projects based on the screening process, within the structure of the District project development process.  
  • The TESS works with a consultant for scoping of potential HSIP improvements.
  • HSIP projects in Massachusetts address intersections with both spot and systemic improvements, in addition to roadway departure and vulnerable user projects. 
  • MassDOT has used HSIP funds to conduct non-infrastructure improvements for safety data collection. 
  • MassDOT traffic engineers have also examined using HSIP funds to improve safety in work zones, and are presently funding enhanced enforcement efforts in work zones.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• MPOs have significant responsibilities in programming projects for local agencies, in addition to programming State DOT projects. 
• The MPO use of the Crash Analysis Portal stratifies projects by jurisdiction while also providing for an objective process where availability of traditional exposure data is limited. 
• MassDOT provides project funds for matching the HSIP contribution for local agency projects, eliminating need for local agency matching funds. 
• MassDOT provides local agencies with training the right-of-way processes because LPAs are responsible for the ROW acquisition process for LPA-owned facilities. MassDOT-funded projects are not advertised for bids until the Bureau has issued a ROW certificate, underscoring the importance of LPA coordination and compliance for MassDOT-funded projects.

Considering All "4E's"

• RSAs.
  • RSAs are required as part of the Functional Design Report for all HSIP projects. RSAs are incorporated into the project development process for all projects that encompass 5% List locations and segments, even when not HSIP-funded.
  •  Local involvement in RSAs is solicited and is required. 
  • The HSIP portion of projects funded from multiple sources is typically based on items identified in RSAs. 
  • MassDOT uses the Highway Safety Corridor Program as a means to address driver behavioral issues within designated corridors. MassDOT's efforts focus on excessive speed and impaired driving and often include roadside advertising and mobile data collection of vehicle speeds.
• Public Outreach.
  • A $500,000 behavioral public information campaign for bicycle/pedestrian crashes is being used to address all modes and yielding/right-of-way behavior in particular. 
  • MassDOT has partnered with regional advocacy groups MassBike and Walk Boston in an effort to deliver messages regarding effective behavioral campaigns to law enforcement personnel.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • MassDOT has dedicated project managers responsible for project delivery. These project managers oversee the preparation of reports, preliminary design and final design, the design waiver process for Design Exception Reports, and all other aspects of project development and delivery once a project is approved to advance to design, for all projects delivered by MassDOT.
  • The MassDOT HSIP Program Manager works to coordinate project readiness with advertisement for bid schedules, and works closely with the Project Managers to ensure the timely completion of all of the elements required for project delivery and construction.
  • The design and funding of projects occur on concurrent tracks. In some cases, funding is appropriated before the project is ready for construction.
  • Ensuring that HSIP projects are prepared for construction is a priority for the TESS.
  • Most projects are delivered with mixed funding sources and project managers are able to work in parallel with the funding staff to ensure that the project is prepared for delivery and is aligned with the proposed funding sources.
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • A consultant works with Headquarters to scope potential HSIP improvements. MassDOT also hires consultants to assist with RSAs.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • SHSP emphasis area projects are included in the STIP as a separate project, dedicating funding to addressing these issues.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• MassDOT has not yet begun a full-scale evaluation program for project success and derivation of CMFs. 
• MassDOT's safety performance evaluation efforts are primarily based on the use of crash data obtained from police reporting of the roughly 125,000 statewide annual crashes. 
• Citation data has been particularly useful to MassDOT as they attempt to understand where behavioral issues are occurring and what countermeasures and public outreach campaigns would be most useful in correcting those behavioral issues.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NEW HAMPSHIRE

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The New Hampshire DOT does not have an HSIP web site, but does maintain HSIP policy and guidelines in their HSIP Manual and Guidance document. The HSIP Manual and Guidance document addresses safety data, project screening, project selection, and project administration and management. It includes an RSA application (and accompanying process flow diagram) and an HSIP project application, placing all information needed to complete the process in one place.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• The NHDOT Executive Office is aware of and involved in the HSIP program, and HSIP receives significant support from the FHWA Division Office. 
• HSIP staff are a part of the Design section and work with the State Traffic Engineer and the Highway Safety Engineer to plan, select, deliver, and evaluate projects. 
• District Engineers have a solely maintenance function, as the Central Office carries out the functions of planning, design, and traffic operations and safety engineering. 
• The NHDOT HSIP Committee includes representatives from FHWA, a local agency, an MPO, an RPC, and various divisions within NHDOT, including design, maintenance, traffic, rail and transit, and those representing the needs of vulnerable users. The Committee reviews and selects projects and meets annually and as necessary to review project progress, identify trends in funding and project development, and address policy and compliance issues related to program performance and FHWA policy changes and guidance.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• The SHSP addresses nine critical emphasis areas, including impaired driving, distracted driving, and motorcyclists and vulnerable users. Allocation of funding to SHSP initiatives is related to the cause of crashes in the emphasis areas. 
• The HSIP Committee evaluates the need for integrating SHSP emphasis areas and oversees the project evaluation processes, ensuring that the HSIP investments are addressing the SHSP objectives and that those same investments are achieving strategic and system safety performance goals, such as the targeted return on investment and expected crash reduction. 
• SHSP emphasis areas were the basis of priorities for other agencies, including those responsible for enforcement of non-traffic regulations, such as the liquor control agency and agencies responsible for on-sale serving establishments. 
• NHDOT revises the SHSP emphasis areas annually, with an overall revision of the document occurring every four years. This helps align priorities with emerging trends and encourages internal assessment of strategy and direction.
• The SHSP has also emphasized non-infrastructure, non-behavioral needs, particularly by elevating crash data reporting to be an area of emphasis.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • There are three means of submitting a project for consideration in the HSIP. The "traditional approach" involves the network screening process and the generated 5% List.
  • The other State-generated candidates are in the "systematic program," which is New Hampshire's means of delivering systemic projects throughout the State highway system.
  • Finally, some projects are placed on the candidate list as a result of the RSA program.
  • Each of the three candidate generation processes produces a separate list of candidate projects.
  • NHDOT does not set a funding allocation for the "traditional," systemic, and RSA-initiated project types. 
  • The HSIP committee examines the candidate project list, with projects chosen based on the project's size, its ability to be designed and constructed in the short-term, and the b/c ratio generated in the project screening and scoping process, typically obtained from Safety Analyst.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

• NHDOT expended a multi-year effort on Safety Analyst development, particularly in the area of data management, data manipulation, and correlation with traditional methods. 
• Network screening and multi-criteria screening methods ensure comprehensive examination of corridor, segment, and intersection performance. 
• Integration of Safety Analyst into capital investment planning will yield long-term results. Safety Analyst has provided for the transition from observed crash evaluations to SPF-based evaluations and cost-per-countermeasure evaluations. 
• Safety Analyst is used by local planning organizations in the development of public works transportation projects.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• Membership on the NHDOT HSIP Committee includes representatives from within NHDOT, from a local agency, an MPO, and an RPC. 
• The NHDOT HSIP Committee has been a catalyst for local agency involvement in safety engineering work and traffic safety initiatives in New Hampshire, particularly on account of the four positions for MPO and RPC representatives. 
• The RPC/MPO agencies are extremely involved and all nine agencies have the opportunity to participate over the course of a decade as committee members rotate.

Considering All "4E's"

• RSAs.
  • NHDOT established a RSA process to assist the local planning agencies and municipal governments in their efforts to identify and address road safety issues, aiding responsiveness to inquiries regarding safety issues in a community or along a roadway segment. 
  • RSA process is State-funded but advanced by local agencies through an application process. 
  • RSAs can serve as HSIP project precursors, identifying the scope of improvements in an effort to ensure improved project outcomes. 
  • Executing an RSA involves staff from multiple agencies at various levels, including NHDOT maintenance staff from the field offices and RPC/MPO staff.
  • RSA applications are accepted at any time and screened annually, and projects advanced to the HSIP candidate list are evaluated with all other HSIP projects sourced from throughout New Hampshire. 
  • NHDOT is considering moving toward an annual solicitation of RSA applications.
• Public Outreach.
  • NHDOT selected "Driving Toward Zero" as an alternative to "Toward Zero Deaths," emphasizing the positive aspect of the program and its focus on the goal and not the present outcomes. The program, deployed by the NHDOT staff and managed by a contractor, was the impetus in transforming the SHSP from an engineering document to an easily-understandable resource that is a tool for engaging the public. 
  • Using a second marketing contract, NHDOT performed public outreach activities related to the goals of the new SHSP, building on the awareness efforts and illustrating their partnerships with NHSP and other State agencies.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • The HSIP Committee meets annually and as necessary to review project progress, identify trends in funding and project development, and address policy and compliance issues related to program performance and FHWA policy changes and guidance. 
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • New Hampshire maintains two on-call consultant contracts, one for design of projects and the other for analysis. In addition, a consultant is responsible for managing NHDOT's RSA program.
• Program and Project Management Tools.
  • NHDOT developed a spreadsheet-based tracking system for project origination method, scope, progress in project development, HSIP data, and project delivery information.  
  • A second spreadsheet-based tracking system was developed to track the funding of HSIP projects.  
  • Both of these tools have grown in scope and size, but NHDOT staff continue to manage them in-house, permitting immediate access to data in a structure that is consistent with NHDOT's approach to HSIP program delivery. 
• Cost Control and B/C Ratio Preservation.
  • Initial calculations of b/c ratios uses costs with a contingency of 30 percent or more in order to accurately predict the true b/c ratio.
  • NHDOT tracks the expected total cost of a project. Those projects exceeding a cost threshold beyond a percentage of given project cost based on project size are referred to the HSIP Committee for a review to determine continued project eligibility for HSIP funds.
• Establish a Multi-Year Plan and Budget.
  • New Hampshire delivers systemic projects on a multi-year program, focusing on infrastructure, behavioral, and data solutions. The multi-year delivery approach ensures the completion of projects, even if completed over time, and provides for program flexibility when identifying and funding other needs.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • SHSP emphasis area projects are included in the STIP within the HSIP umbrella project

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• Project evaluation tools provide for the evaluation of projects based on changes in crashes and the outcome b/c ratio.
• NHDOT's evaluation period can include up to six years prior to construction and three to four years following construction; longer periods are key factors in identifying project performance where limited crash frequency impacts statistical variability.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: NORTH CAROLINA

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The North Carolina DOT maintains all HSIP documentation on connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/NC-Highway-Safety-Program-and-Projects.aspx. This includes mapped HSIP locations from 2010-2014, HSIP Potentially Hazardous Location Detailed Reports by county, intersection reports, bike/pedestrian reports, the active spot safety project list, and the NCDOT Crash Reduction Factor list.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• NCDOT has an experienced and capable Traffic Safety Unit within Headquarters. The Traffic Safety Unit manages and includes eight (8) Field Traffic Engineering and Safety offices that serve all of NCDOT's 14 Transportation Divisions and North Carolina's 100 counties.
• In addition to the M&SFO sections, there is a Traffic Safety Systems Section and a Mobility and Safety Information Section. The Traffic Safety Systems Section is comprised of three units, Safety Planning, HSIP, and Safety Evaluation. All three of these units work together to deliver the HSIP in North Carolina, in addition to other safety programs.
• The Traffic Safety Unit's relationship with the GHSP is positive and strong. The Mobility and Safety and GHSP Teams work together to share information, initiatives, leverage resources and coordinate efforts. The GHSP was one of NCDOT's 42 core safety partners in the development of the SHSP development process and GHSP and its Director serve a vital role in NC's Executive Committee for Highway Safety. The Secretary of Transportation chairs the Executive Committee for Highway Safety and NCDOT executive staff and partner agency representatives are actively involved in the committee. The Executive Committee meets three times annually and provides oversight and leadership of North Carolina's safety efforts, particularly in the area of strategic direction and program performance.
• Headquarters conducts network screening to identify potential project locations, Headquarters and Regions work together to identify potential projects, and a project selection committee that includes Headquarters staff and other partner agencies selects the projects.
• NCDOT has a Safety Project Review & Selection Team comprised of the State Traffic Engineer, State Traffic Safety Engineer, Field Operations and Investigations Engineer, M&S Program Manager, Governor's Highway Safety Program representative, and a representative from the Rail Division. They meet quarterly to review, assess, and provide recommendations for candidate Safety Projects for investment under the Department's STIP.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• The GHSO was one of NCDOT's 42 partners in the development of the SHSP development process.
• The nine emphasis areas in the plan are developed collaboratively with Emphasis Area Working Groups, establishing the problem and goals for each emphasis area.
• The plan drives the Vision Zero initiative in North Carolina and progress toward that is reflected in the SHSP Progress Dashboard, a public-facing web portal.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • Near-immediate availability of crash data owing to relationship with DMV and data held within NCDOT.
  • State and local law enforcement agencies send reports to the North Carolina DMV, submitting 70 percent of crash reports electronically.
  • The DMV system provides comprehensive access to the NCDOT. 
  • Availability of all crash report images electronically for instant access to collision diagrams and narratives, provided from central source. 
  • NCDOT commitment to open data has provided public-appropriate views of agency performance in safety program delivery, through their online dashboard.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • NCDOT uses a safety warrants system for project screening, prioritizing, and selecting projects on the basis of b/c ratio. The safety warrants system is used to identify locations that have a demonstrated need for safety improvements. This warrant system is divided into three areas: Intersections, Highway Sections (non-freeway, freeway, and city-maintained), and Bicycle and Pedestrian sites.
  • NCDOT also uses a Safety Index Decision Support Tool to provide for analysis of projects where b/c data availability is insufficient.
  • The Safety Warrants are updated on a routine basis using crash data analysis. 
  • All projects are selected quarterly by a project selection process and team comprised of Headquarters staff.
  • NCDOT selects HSIP projects on the basis of safety b/c and prioritizes and reviews systemic and Spot Safety projects using a decision support tool (Safety Index) and the detailed project packets.
  • NCDOT works to ensure that smaller projects are incorporated into the program and not eliminated on account of the funding demands from larger high-profile projects. 
  • The NCDOT Spot Safety process uses a Safety Index Decision Support tool with the Safety Index comprising both Safety and Responsiveness indices. The Safety Index Decision Support tool provides a programmatic approach to project selection from an overall list, whether or not the project is HSIP-involved. The entire process is driven by data (field verified) and rigorous analysis, with extensive documentation of criteria.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• The North Carolina Local Safety Partnership is a pilot program involving a cooperative effort between NCDOT and the UNC-HSRC. The purpose of the program is to introduce communities to the concepts required to implement low-cost safety improvements in a data-driven traffic engineering program.
• NCDOT funds are used to establish a training program for local agency staff to strengthen their safety programs (understanding crash analyses and the importance of documented evaluation procedures) as well as sharing ideas quarterly in conference call setting.
• HSIP funding is used to deploy low-cost safety improvements, minimizing impact on community budgets.
• Evaluation of the partnership program focuses both on safety outcomes and policy outcomes for community public works departments.

Considering All "4E's"

• RSAs.
  • NCDOT's Road Safety Review/Audit (RSA) Program is designed and managed to reduce crashes and injuries by generating safety projects/actions, assist field staff in addressing persistent safety problem areas, and improve collaboration amongst stakeholders.
  • NCDOT conducts RSAs in an effort to support HSIP project origination and project development.
  • NCDOT RSAs are conducted with Department-wide support to ensure perspectives of trained personnel who understand NCDOT policy and procedures. 
  • Local stakeholders can bring RSA requests forward for both State-maintained and non-State maintained roadways and NCDOT will assist in either case. 
  • NCDOT conducts RSAs on corridors with multiple HSIP locations, and they also query the Field Engineers and Field Division staff for locations where RSAs could lead to potential HSIP projects.
  • Staff from regions throughout the State participate in the RSAs in other regions, ensuring an outside perspective is obtained in the RSA process.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • NCDOT funds the delivery of safety projects using two primary investment mechanisms: the Federally-funded HSIP and the State funded Spot Safety program.
  • Delivery in both programs, for design, bidding, and construction, is overseen by M&S Division through the regional offices, the M&S Programs Manager and in coordination with the 14 Division Offices and NCDOT Program Management.  
  • Systemic projects and initiatives in North Carolina are funded using a dedicated portion of HSIP funding, currently estimated at 20-30 percent of the State's annual appropriation.
  • NCDOT makes extensive use of headquarters, Division and District staff, and including the RTE and M&S personnel, for the purposes of developing project scope, design, and project delivery. NCDOT is evaluating a variety of methods to improve project delivery timelines and reduce the overall cost of delivering HSIP projects. Examples include combining multiple related safety projects in a single contract, the use of the design-build delivery mechanism for fast-track delivery of projects with well-defined scope, and the use of on-call contractors to facilitate immediate delivery of identified projects.
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • North Carolina uses consultants for design, project evaluation.
  • Established LSAs provide an opportunity to use on-call contractors to deploy and conduct surveys quickly (for improved estimates), project hearings and expedited designs for safety projects without the need for additional contract advertisement and the associated time and cost impacts.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • Generally, each HSIP project location has its own individual STIP number. However, NCDOT also programs projects that have multiple locations with a certain type of improvement. For example, they have had projects in each Division to install 6 in. long life pavement markings over numerous routes. Each of those Division projects had one STIP number; e.g., 14 Divisions, 14 STIP numbers, numerous routes per Division.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• A publicly-available Organizational Performance Dashboard provides such metrics as the fatality rate and fatality and crash trends, delivery rate for projects, delay due to incidents, and other information related to the NCDOT programs and outcomes. 
• For each completed safety project, the NCDOT M&S Traffic Safety Unit conducts a Safety Evaluation. This evaluation includes project information, collision diagrams, and analysis of before and after crash frequency and severity. The analysis period is typically three years, but it can be extended for sites with a low pre-project crash rate. This Safety Evaluation is shared with the Region staff and demonstrates the success of the investment.
• NCDOT also conducts Empirical Bayes evaluation of multiple site locations with similar countermeasure installations, which facilitates distinguishing between different treatments and the development of CMFs. The evaluations can be site-specific or taken across multiple similar sites.
• NCDOT also conducts a program-wide evaluation, undertaken program-wide for a Spot Safety or HSIP projects. 
• The institutional establishment of this evaluation program and the various facets it encompasses has assisted NCDOT staff in retaining safety project funding from NCDOT and even obtaining increases in funding.
• The evaluation of project performance has also impacted other areas of NCDOT operations, leading to increased confidence in NCDOT investments.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: OREGON

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Oregon Department of Transportation provides HSIP related guidance and materials on its ARTS web site – oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx. This includes a list of 120 safety countermeasures, safety implementation plans for the three focus areas of roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle, and example business cases for safety projects.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• HSIP is delivered through the All-Roads Transportation Safety Program (ARTS). Oregon delivers the HSIP using Central Office-originated screening processes that rely on input from the ARTS staff in each Region. The five ODOT Regions locally manage the ARTS program, with ARTS oversight responsibilities assigned to the Regional Traffic Engineer/Manager. The ARTS staff in the regions then select the projects and supervise the design of selected projects, delivering them through the conventional capital construction program using HSIP funds.
• The involvement of these Central Office technical staff, in cooperation with the local agencies throughout the selection process, was a major contributor to local understanding of how projects were prioritized and what factors contributed to a project not being selected, with local agencies viewing the Central Office involvement as highly objective.
• ODOT's use of consultants in screening and project development efforts results in a greater degree of acceptance because the consultants serve as an independent third party following the process.
• Outreach efforts involve coordination between the GHSO TSD Region Safety Coordinator and ARTS staff in each Region. The Oregon Traffic Control Devices Committee (OTCDC) can bring needs to the TSD and they typically allocate 402 funds to address those needs.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• ODOT worked with the Governor's Highway Safety Office to integrate engineering and safety work into a mature behavioral Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP), the precursor to the SHSP and today is the ODOT name for the SHSP.
• The systemic component of the ARTS Program is divided into three emphasis areas: roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. The 2011 Edition of the TSAP identified these three emphasis areas as high priority areas for improving safety. In order to address this, ODOT developed Safety Implementation Plans for these areas. In last few years, ODOT has delivered many projects in these areas.
• Part of the relationship between the TSAP and HSIP is the Data-Driven process for the Safety Management System (Action 24 in the TSAP). The HSIP uses the Safety Management System, data derived from the system, and processes to select HSIP projects. The Safety Management System was used during HSIP screening, selection, and development of the Hot Spot projects. 

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • Crash data is GIS-based and robust, but is missing a linear referencing system. Every crash is coded so that the latitude/longitude location can be analyzed through GIS.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • Program is data-driven and based on b/c analysis, focusing on projects that will deliver the highest reduction in serious injuries and fatalities in comparison to the project cost.
  • Funding is divided to each region based on the number of fatalities and serious injury crashes. Potential projects within each region are prioritized by their benefit cost. The available money is separated evenly into two categories – hot spots and systemic.
  • ODOT hired a consultant to create a draft list of potential hot spot projects (prioritized based on b/c ratios) for all roads in each Region identifying locations and the appropriate countermeasures. Spot project selection is based on Fatal and Injury A crashes only.
  • The process for systemic projects is an application-based process. Projects are selected triennially. Two ODOT Regions hired consultants to help local agencies fill the applications. Local Agencies and ODOT Regions submit applications for systemic projects in three focus areas – roadway departure, intersections, and pedestrian/bicycle. Projects are prioritized based on benefit cost ratio (for roadway departure and intersections projects) and cost-effectiveness index (pedestrian/bicycle projects). ODOT does not require systemic project locations to demonstrate a history of Fatal and Injury-A crashes, recognizing that systemic project implementations are often undertaken in locations that are characteristically similar to locations with demonstrated crash histories.
  • As part of the ARTS Program, ODOT developed a list of countermeasures, known as the ODOT CRF List, which will be revised as new countermeasures become available. The treatments to be used on priority corridors are identified in ODOT's Systemic Plans document. ODOT has 120 countermeasures available.
  • ODOT uses the CEI for bicycle/pedestrian projects. The CEI is the quotient of the number of correctable bicycle/pedestrian crashes and the cost of the bicycle/pedestrian project. ODOT considers the CEI to be a tool for data-driven evaluation of bicycle- and pedestrian-focused HSIP projects.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

• Oregon identified that current network screening methods may not be sufficient to select and/or prioritize intersections with very high traffic volumes. Development of a new advanced technique using the Empirical-Bayes method may be necessary to properly identify the best potential intersection projects when signalized intersections are operating in excess of design capacity.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• ODOT worked with the AOC and the LOC to create a jurisdictionally-blind process for project nomination and selection.
• The local agencies have generally been very receptive to the ARTS program and appreciate ODOT's desire to provide assistance in screening and project development. Many local agencies identified the ODOT-managed screening process as an asset, given local agency staff limitations.
  Local agencies find the application process to be straightforward and they appreciate the ability to participate in the selection of countermeasures. The applications are available directly from the ARTS web site and Region ARTS staff have been extremely approachable and helpful as agencies looked to apply with projects to be included in the selection process. Some regions hold workshops with stakeholders to identify locations that are candidates for applications.
• The knowledge transfer associated with local access to ARTS personnel has been extremely helpful.
• Considering All "4E's"
• Public Outreach.
  • All projects have a community outreach component, typically managed by ODOT staff.
  • ODOT coordinates with the GHSO Region Safety Coordinator and ARTS staff in each Region to deliver community outreach behavioral programs.
• Use of RSAs.
  • Although use of RSA's are not requirement of Oregon's HSIP process, the information from completed RSAs is often used in the scoping process.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • The ARTS staff in the regions select the projects and supervise the design of selected projects, delivering them through the conventional capital construction program using HSIP funds.
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • Oregon hired a consultant to draft a list of potential hot spot locations when implementing the ARTS program. During the initiation of ARTS, two ODOT Regions hired consultants to help local agencies fill the applications for systemic projects. In addition, ODOT uses consultants for screening and project development.
• HSIP in the STIP.
  • Under the ARTS Program, most selected projects are programmed into the STIP on an individual basis. ODOT anticipates that all projects under the ARTS Program will be stand-alone safety projects. However, Regions might decide to bundle similar safety projects into larger projects for efficient project development and delivery.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• ODOT is evaluating cost/benefit and implementations of systemic measures for some crash types. The HSIP report is the primary means of obtaining this information, a naïve aggregate-of-projects comparison at this standpoint, including 3-year before/after studies.
• ARTS has a 90 percent approval rating for project success, from a subjective survey of stakeholders.
• ODOT will do before-and-after evaluations for system changes, such as the speed limit increase on US 95 and I-84 in Eastern Oregon.

SUMMARY OF STATE PRACTICES: UTAH

Documentation of HSIP Processes

The Utah Department of Transportation provides their HSIP Manual at https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/about-us/operations/traffic-safety/. The Manual includes information on program oversight and funding, special rules, reporting information, and flowcharts depicting the processes for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.

Coordination with Internal and External Partners

• The Utah safety culture is an internal, behavior-based program for employees that influences every aspect of the UDOT program delivery, from inception and planning to construction and operations. This culture change is seen not as a program or a training event, but rather as an investment by employees who are empowered by managers to respond to and address all safety concerns at every level.
• The Traffic and Safety Division undertakes the process of planning HSIP projects using a screening process, which includes the analysis and prioritization. Once a prioritized list is developed, from the annual screening, projects are programmed from a pool of eligible HSIP projects, by the State Traffic Safety Engineer. The implementation of the projects is carried out using the typical delivery channels for transportation infrastructure projects within UDOT.
• The Region Traffic Engineers have safety engineering functions and direct involvement in HSIP deployment.
• The Traffic Safety Engineer programs all HSIP projects, working closely with the Department's project development staff. In general, the HSIP is programmed in excess of annual apportionment, with the expectation of returned funds from closed projects and constructed projects with less-than-expected bids. Additionally, programming in excess of apportionment also accommodates delayed projects.
• UDOT's Safety Leadership Executive Committee includes executive-level representatives from the Department of Public Services, Department of Health, UDOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

• UDOT works closely with the FHWA Utah Division Office to ensure HSIP program objectives align with FHWA strategic and tactical initiatives.
• UDOT's partnerships with the University of Utah and Brigham Young University have led to substantial advancements in the understanding of crash prediction modeling and the success of safety countermeasures.

Understanding the Relationship Between the SHSP and HSIP

• UDOT considers the emphasis areas of the SHSP when screening and selecting projects for advancement into the HSIP; this accomplishes both strategic and operational goals.

Making Data-Driven Safety Decisions

• Crash Data Collection and Analysis Tools.
  • In Utah the Department of Public Safety developed the statewide crash database, which receives electronic input from all of Utah's police agencies.
  • UDOT contracted with Numetric to provide a crash query and safety data investigation system that analyzes crashes and suggests countermeasures.
• System Screening, Project Nomination, and Project Selection.
  • Projects are selected based on the b/c ratio and the highest ability to reduce crashes, in addition to the likelihood of coordination with other projects in an effort to optimize investments.
  • UDOT's flexibility permits HSIP funds as a supplement to project funds for follow-on safety improvements not otherwise incorporated into a project. The programming process works within a three year timeframe and the Regions deliver the projects using Region construction administration staff.
  • UDOT differentiates between spot improvements (reactive projects) and systemic improvements (proactive projects).
  • The UDOT HSIP screening process studies roadways with similar characteristics, with analysis of crash data, in an effort to determine systemic improvements implemented system-wide. Some system-wide projects use a prioritization system, which uses crash performance to allocate projects among multiple levels of priority, including use of a weighted average for Fatal and Injury-A crashes.

Using Advanced Safety Analysis Methods and Tools

• UDOT delivers their HSIP using several analysis tools: Numetric, FHWA Systemic Safety Tool, usRAP, and the Utah Crash Prediction Model.

Addressing Local Road Needs

• The State Highway Safety Office and UDOT assist the local agencies by providing network screening and data analysis.
• Local agency staff can use a toolbox of proven countermeasures developed by UDOT to address safety problems, particularly in the preparation of HSIP project applications. The toolbox is available online.

Considering All "4E's"

• Public Outreach.
  • UDOT's recognition that 93 percent of crashes have a correctable behavioral component has led to the development of a strong behavioral education program.
  • UDOT has a coordinated effort to send consistent messages related to Zero Fatalities. All public information campaigns are branded as a joint effort, showing the cooperative atmosphere, and developed to address some behavioral issues identified in the SHSP. Funding is appropriated for paid media and public outreach activities. Outreach efforts include more than 50 events every year and additional events at high schools that target typical risky behaviors associated with younger drivers. The biennial Zero Fatalities conference is another way in which UDOT brings partners together to advance the traffic safety culture within Utah.
  • Utah's approach to safety outreach has been to create positive messages, particularly related to restraint use and driving habits. As UDOT and DPS have worked together to achieve saturation in their public relations efforts, the agencies have made use of many available outlets, including variable message signs. In the case of the message signs, "Monday Safety Messages" set a safety theme for a given week. Utah's Zero Fatalities staff manage an active social media presence, using social media and video sharing platforms with a single, cohesive marketing strategy to disseminate the message using conventional and social media outlets and in cooperation with UDOT traffic operations.
  • The Department of Public Safety uses HSIP funds. HSIP funds are transferred for a specific project or enforcement activity area and UDOT is billed by DPS for reimbursement by means of the memorandum of understanding between the agencies. At this time, DPS receives reimbursement only for enforcement programs related to seat belt use, exceeding the posted speed limit, and aggressive driving.

Identifying Opportunities to Streamline Project Delivery

• Coordination of Project Delivery.
  • The implementation of the projects is carried out using the typical delivery channels for transportation infrastructure projects within UDOT.
• Coordination with 3R Projects.
  • Where possible, UDOT works within the project delivery calendar to coordinate the delivery of HSIP projects with 3R projects to reduce contract costs.
• Use of Contractors/Consultants.
  • Consultants have developed some of the safety analysis and project tracking tools, including consultants retained to assist UDOT in managing the HSIP.
• Program and Project Management Tools.
  • UDOT developed the WorkFlow Manager (WFMan) tool, with support from a consultant, to enter, view, evaluate, rank, program, and track all UDOT HSIP applications and projects. Access is provided via a web interface and allows for unlimited users, including UDOT staff, consultants, and local government partners.
  • WFMan provides HSIP funding applicants the ability to submit applications, perform real-time edits and revisions, receive summary notifications, and track the status of each application as it progresses through the evaluation, ranking, and programming process.
  • UDOT HSIP program managers use WFMan to review and qualify applications based on standardized ranking and eligibility criteria.
  • As projects are initiated, WFMan tracks key project information to provide program managers the ability to monitor schedules, track project and program cash flow, document project-related decisions, and inform leadership.
• HSIP in the STIP and Establish a Multi-Year Plan and Budget.
  • The programming of projects in the STIP by including HSIP as a program over a three-year time span in the STIP provides UDOT with the flexibility necessary to move projects between fiscal years to accommodate project delays. It also provides opportunities to advance projects for construction and ensures flexibility for the addition of new projects to address emerging issues.

Evaluating the Success of the Program

• UDOT uses three-year before/after comparisons of completed projects to analyze the performance of every HSIP project and develops State-specific CMFs.