Tribal SHSP Involvement in North Dakota Leads to Continuous Efforts to Improve Tribal Road Safety

The North Dakota practice is discussed after the following introduction about Tribal Government Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan process.

Other states in this SHSP/Tribal Government Noteworthy Practices series: MT, SD, WA

Involving Tribal Governments in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Process - Approaches and Benefits

As States move toward achieving zero deaths on their roadways, the impact of motor vehicle crashes in tribal communities and on tribal roads cannot be overlooked. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations experience higher rates of fatalities associated with transportation than does the population as a whole. Crashes are also the leading cause of unintentional death for AI/AN ages 1-44.

States and tribal governments are working together in an effort to reduce roadway injuries and fatalities in tribal communities. This includes collaborating during the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) process, an effort that brings together a diverse group of stakeholders to identify critical roadway safety challenges and establish potential solutions. Tribes are also developing Strategic Transportation Safety Plans of their own, which may allow access to additional resources such as the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

These noteworthy practices highlight the activities of four States and tribal communities to collaborate during and after the SHSP process. They contain several recurring themes:

• Establishing a government-to-government relationship between State offices and tribal governments is very effective because it establishes respectful lines of communication and agreed-upon approaches that facilitates discussion on roadway safety issues.
• Tribal involvement in the SHSP process insures tribal concerns and strategies are addressed in the SHSP.
• Tribal safety summits are an effective platform for information-sharing among tribes on roadway safety issues and often strengthen inter-tribal relationships.
• An established network for communicating between tribes and State agencies leads to better project coordination and delivery, lower project costs, stronger relationships, and better information sharing.

North Dakota

Background

Continuous communication and collaboration between tribes and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) has led to Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) updates that account for unique tribal needs, and to ongoing road safety improvement projects on tribal lands.

The overarching goal of tribal involvement in SHSP updates is to reduce fatal crashes across the State. Many fatal crashes among tribal members are alcohol-involved or include drivers or passengers not wearing their seatbelts—statistics show the same is true Statewide.

While the underlying problems related to fatal crashes are consistent across the State, North Dakota tribal members are disproportionately represented in road fatalities. Tribal populations account for about 5 percent of the State population but 15 to 20 percent of vehicle crash fatalities. To reduce Statewide fatal crashes NDDOT knows it is imperative to reduce fatal crashes among tribal populations.

Building off of longstanding relationships between NDDOT liaisons and tribal representatives, NDDOT began its most recent comprehensive SHSP update in 2012, with its final plan released in fall 2013. There were 75 to 100 stakeholders involved in updating the SHSP, including an SHSP Steering Committee including the director of the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission and representatives from each of the 4 tribes in North Dakota.

Tribal Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan

Because North Dakota is a State with a small population and a prominent tribal culture, NDDOT for decades, has collaborated on road safety with tribal representatives. The established relationships between tribes and NDDOT made it relatively easy to incorporate tribal needs into the 2013 SHSP update. The SHSP Steering Committee had oversight over the update process and included about 20 stakeholders, including tribal representatives and representatives across the 4Es—engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services (EMS).

Local Road Safety Program: An SHSP Extension

About half of severe crashes (fatal and incapacitating injury crashes) in North Dakota happen on local roads, and the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP) is NDDOT's continuous effort to reduce severe crashes on those roads. The LRSP grew out of collaboration with a variety of stakeholders to update the SHSP, and today covers 53 counties, 12 cities, 4 tribes, and 1 national park.

Over the past two-and-a-half years, each of those entities has developed a prioritized list of road safety projects. The NDDOT provides half of its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funding toward those projects and leads a solicitation and evaluation process—to ensure data-driven projects that best address identified safety issues. Projects tend toward low-cost effective infrastructure improvements, such as edge lines, rumble strips, chevrons, destination lighting, and enhanced signing.

In forming the LRSP, NDDOT staff met with all four tribes in North Dakota separately from county and city stakeholders. NDDOT staff took this approach so that particular tribal needs would be sure to be reflected in selected projects.

For behavior-based strategies that complement LRSP projects—for example, promoting seat belt use—NDDOT relies on tribal traffic safety outreach coordinators (funded by the NDDOT through grant funds received by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA) to conduct community-level outreach through local events and activities and to partner with a media firm to create tribal-specific educational material for distribution through outreach activities.

Finally, the LSRP has helped guide tribes in the development of their transportation safety plans. For instance, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians has used the process of creating its local road safety plan to inform and complete its federally required strategic transportation plan.

Key Challenges

There is some variation in the level of tribal participation in LRSP and project execution. One tribe has a consultant who handles paperwork, significantly reducing the time to propose and plan projects.

Data quality is another challenge in reaching SHSP and LRSP goals. Only one out of the four tribes in North Dakota has equipment compatible with the State's electronic crash reporting system, and that tribe is not yet submitting electronic crash reports to the system. A simple but cumbersome solution is to have two laptops in tribal law enforcement vehicles, with each laptop respectively linked to tribal and State crash reporting systems. This solution has been met with resistance due to equipment costs and the extra work involved in entering crash data twice.

Benefits to Tribal Participation in SHSP and LRSP

• Ensures that NDDOT is aware of concerns on reservations, especially regarding State-owned roads that go through tribal land.
• Ongoing coordination and collaboration is a success that begets success. Years of outreach leads to SHSP updates that include strategies to reduce crashes on tribal lands and across the State, and there are now full-time Traffic Safety Outreach Program Coordinators (funded through NHTSA grant funds) that serve as points of contact on two of the State's reservations.
• Low cost systematic projects for implementation identified through a data-driven process.
• A simplified application process for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.

Contact

Karin Mongeon
Safety Division Director
North Dakota Department of Transportation
(701) 328-4434
KaMongeon@nd.gov

Improving Relationships with Tribes Makes Roads Safer in South Dakota

The South Dakota practice is discussed after the following introduction about Tribal Government Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan process.

Other states in this SHSP/Tribal Government Noteworthy Practices series: MT, ND, WA

Involving Tribal Governments in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan Update Process - Approaches and Benefits

As States move toward achieving zero deaths on their roadways, the impact of motor vehicle crashes in tribal communities and on tribal roads cannot be overlooked. American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations experience higher rates of fatalities associated with transportation than does the population as a whole. Crashes are also the leading cause of unintentional death for AI/AN ages 1-44.

States and tribal governments are working together in an effort to reduce roadway injuries and fatalities in tribal communities. This includes collaborating during the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) process, an effort that brings together a diverse group of stakeholders to identify critical roadway safety challenges and establish potential solutions. Tribes are also developing Strategic Transportation Safety Plans of their own, which may allow access to additional resources such as the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.

These noteworthy practices highlight the activities of four States and tribal communities to collaborate during and after the SHSP process. They contain several recurring themes:

• Establishing a government-to-government relationship between State offices and tribal governments is very effective because it establishes respectful lines of communication and agreed-upon approaches that facilitates discussion on roadway safety issues.
• Tribal involvement in the SHSP process insures tribal concerns and strategies are addressed in the SHSP.
• Tribal safety summits are an effective platform for information-sharing among tribes on roadway safety issues and often strengthen inter-tribal relationships.
• An established network for communicating between tribes and State agencies leads to better project coordination and delivery, lower project costs, stronger relationships, and better information sharing.

South Dakota

Background

For half a century, representatives from South Dakota's nine tribes have informed the State's Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) through a yearly tribal STIP meeting. During the meeting, State and tribal partners discuss safety concerns and State projects happening in tribal territory, and coordinate road projects that overlap boundaries. The South Dakota transportation secretary attends and moderates this annual meeting.

Building off the longstanding STIP consultations, South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) staff also meet with tribes individually for an annual consultation and coordination meeting where SDDOT and tribes discuss transportation issues on tribal lands. These individual meetings foster personal relationships, and meetings are also held as-needed—for instance, for consultation on federal signage standards and requirements. Department staff travel to each of the nine tribal headquarters to meet with transportation, Tribal Employment Rights Office, and Cultural Preservation staff about a variety of transportation issues. Safety is always a topic of discussion. These meetings let participants discuss the coordination of individual projects and cooperative ventures in detail. Staff from the South Dakota Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also participate in the annual meetings with each Tribe.

Tribes typically host the summits and meetings, which include FHWA division staff, representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the State Department of Transportation and Department of Public Safety, tribal historic preservation officers, tribal chairs and presidents, and sometimes council members.

This year SDDOT will hold its 6^th Tribal Transportation Safety Summit. The event will be hosted by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The summit is not just an opportunity for State and tribal representatives to build relationships, it is a time to bring together representatives from the 4 Es of highway safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services (EMS).

The ongoing collaboration between tribes and SDDOT staff on the STIP, road safety projects, and individual tribal meetings is now informing the goals and strategies of the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and of tribal safety plans.

Tribal Involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan

Before South Dakota completed its most recent SHSP update in 2014, SDDOT presented its draft SHSP at the Tribal Safety Summit to get input on how to integrate tribal road safety needs into the SHSP. Tribes were eager to provide feedback, and asked if SDDOT would be at the table—to provide technical assistance, data, and answer questions—as tribes created their own road safety plans.

South Dakota's SHSP Steering Committee also has a tribal representative. The SHSP update process included numerous tribal safety partners, including representatives from the South Dakota Department of Tribal Relations and South Dakota Urban Indian Health, and transportation planners from the following organizations:

• Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Creek Agency
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
• Flandreau Sioux Tribe
• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
• Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
• Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
• Rosebud Sioux Tribe
• Yankton Sioux Tribe

There are several strategies in the SHSP that support tribal transportation safety efforts. In the Unbelted Vehicle Occupant emphasis area, one strategy includes supporting tribal efforts to use a rollover simulator, which shows what happens to belted and unbelted occupants when a vehicle rolls over. In the Drug and Alcohol Related Crashes emphasis area, strategies include:

• Reviewing options to create a tribal law enforcement or traffic liaison position with South Dakota Department of Public Safety to address tribal drinking and driving issues.
• Working with Lakota Circles of Hope and similar tribal programs in teaching middle and high school students about safe driving and resisting destructive decisions.

SDOT's SHSP effort also includes supporting the Annual Tribal Safety Summit, including developing agendas, securing venues, and distributing and collecting registration materials.

Finally, SDDOT funds enforcement activities on reservations, works with tribes to prepare tribal safety plans, conducts Regional Roadway Safety Inspections and Roadway Safety Audits, and administers and funds county signing projects.

Tribal Transportation Plan Development

All but two of the nine tribes in South Dakota have developed their own safety transportation plans. SDDOT staff attended developmental meetings for those plans, provided guidance, and discussed road safety issues unique to tribes. For instance, pedestrian crashes happen more often on tribal lands compared to State roads, where run-off-the-road crashes are more common. Tribal safety plans in South Dakota tend to emphasize infrastructure and behavior countermeasures, such as safe pedestrian routes and improved lighting, which make roads safer for pedestrians.

Key Challenges

While the safety summit has grown from 30 to 40 participants each year to 80 to 100 participants, it has been difficult for SDDOT to tap into EMS and law enforcement networks on tribal lands. EMS and enforcement departments tend to be understaffed and overworked and their leadership cannot afford to take even one day off. SDDOT is determined to continue to work to find ways to get full 4E representation at its safety summits.

A lack of consistent crash data can be a barrier to assisting tribes trying to address road safety needs, as is a lack of electronic data. The State, county, and city levels all use the same system to report crashes and have full access to that system, but tribes gather their own crash data that is not integrated into the system. Some tribes have expressed concern that the State will use personally identifiable information in crash reports. SDDOT continues to work to counter this perception, emphasizing that it is only interested in using crash data to help tribes obtain funding for road safety projects.

Despite the challenges related to crash data consistency, additional crash data has become available by cultivating tribal crash reporting partnerships. These expanded data partnerships resulted in additional crash reports and has provided for a more complete data set. From 2008 to 2012, there has been a relatively flat trend for the number of fatalities and fatal crash rate. Through partnerships with tribal partners, SDDOT has reestablished a trend using a more complete data set.

Benefits Realized

• Established communication leads to better project coordination and delivery, lower project costs, strong relationships, and better information sharing.
• Tribal involvement has ensured tribal concerns and strategies are addressed in the SHSP.
• Close coordination with tribes has led to the support of the annual traffic safety summit.
• The safety summit is a vehicle not just for SDDOT staff and tribal representatives to interact, but for tribes to talk to one another about low-cost safety and other improvements.
• Any tribe can sign up for a signage consultation with SDDOT staff, to ensure that signs and sign locations conform to federal standards. SDDOT staff also make it a point to be available to help resolve any other road safety or general transportation issues.

Contact

June D. Hansen
Civil Rights Compliance Officer
South Dakota Department of Transportation
(605) 773-3540
June.Hansen@state.sd.us

Alternate Approaches for Justifying HSIP Projects

Alaska and Minnesota

Description

In order to foster a data-driven process, many states utilize benefit-cost ratios (BCR) or similar formula methods to prioritize potential projects for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. These formulas often rely on estimates of crash reduction from the implementation of specific countermeasures. These estimates, in turn, rely heavily on the use of crash modification factors (CMFs). There are a number of resources for estimating CMFs, including the Federal Highway Administration's CMF Clearinghouse. However, the number of potential countermeasures far exceeds the number of available CMF studies. Many viable countermeasures don't have an approved CMF, and as a result, states are often reluctant or unwilling to include these projects in their prioritization process.

To establish the merit of countermeasures lacking a CMF, several states have developed processes for justifying projects using alternative means. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT&PF) uses a sensitivity analysis as documented in the Alaska HSIP Handbook to include projects that would otherwise go un-ranked in their prioritization process due to their lack of an approved CMF; Figure 1 highlights methods in which AKDOT analyzes and selects projects Two BCRs are calculated assuming CMFs of 5% and 100% for crashes potentially corrected by the proposed countermeasure(s). The two resulting ratios, along with a narrative explaining the project benefits, are then used to justify project advancement. Systemic improvement projects that prevent or reduce the severity of crashes can also advance using this method, as these types of projects may not have sufficient crash data to generate BCRs meeting the threshold for projects ranked in the typical manner.

Figure 1. Alternative Project Prioritization Methodologies (Source: Adapted from the Alaska HSIP Handbook)

The Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT's) Metro District Traffic Engineering Unit, which is responsible for the selection of projects for HSIP Funding in the Twin Cities region, employs a similar strategy. Instead of relying on crash modification factors, project proposals may contain an estimate of crash reductions based on logical assumptions. Each proposal must thoroughly and logically demonstrate how each improvement will impact each type of crash. Before any project proposal is submitted, Mn/DOT encourages project initiators to contact a member of the HSIP Committee to discuss crash reduction assumptions for each improvement. The HSIP Committee then reviews the proposal for accuracy and logic.

Key Accomplishments

• Developed a documented methodology for considering HSIP projects with safety countermeasures that do not include crash modification factors

Results

Both AKDOT&PF and Mn/DOT established documented means (via their HSIP Guides) for the consideration of alternative countermeasures in their HSIP project selection process. By developing procedures for evaluating projects with countermeasures that do not have CMFs, they employed a more encompassing arsenal of countermeasures to improve safety performance through the most effective means possible.

Contacts

Jeff Jeffers, P.E.
State Traffic & Safety Engineer
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
6860 Glacier Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 465-8962
Jeff.Jeffers@alaska.gov

Julie Whitcher, P.E., PTOE
Assistant State Traffic Safety Engineer
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-3000
Julie.Whitcher@dot.state.mn.us

Building a Stronger Database for Predictive Safety Analysis

Rhode Island

Description

While many states have made significant strides towards the inclusion of all public roadways in their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) efforts, an evident disconnect often exists between the quality of safety data used for state-owned and local roadways. Whether due to budget restraints or a lack of proper channels to share information, state-level HSIP decision-makers are frequently forced to make programming decisions for local roads based on incomplete or inadequate data. Where local safety data is available, local roadways are still at a disadvantage due to the additional effort required to procure and process data outside of the statewide system.

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) recently identified some of these issues within their own HSIP processes. They recognized that they needed to take a planned, stepwise approach to address these challenges, one that began with better location data for local roads. Specifically, only a portion of their local roadways were included in the same Linear Reference System as their state-owned roadways. This includes local roadways that were absent in the referencing system in the HSIP process and that required a time-consuming manual review that was subject to human error and interpretation. Although they were able to accommodate all roadways the State's HSIP, significant RIDOT staff efforts were required.

RIDOT is making a concerted effort to include all public roads in the State's Linear Referencing System to respond to this challenge and build a more comprehensive database for safety analysis. In addition, work is being done to collect data for every roadway in the State using the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE). Not only will this enhance RIDOT's ability to accurately conduct advanced safety analysis, but it will also expand their data support to local governments. Together, these improvements to the statewide and local databases will ultimately result in more informed and effective decision-making.

To complement this analytic capability, RIDOT is also expanding their HSIP program to increase local government participation. Specifically, they are developing a local safety program that will provide training and resources to municipalities for making data-driven decisions. In addition, the State is establishing a dedicated fund for local projects/programs and providing municipalities with templates for proposing low-cost improvements for HSIP funding.

Key Accomplishments

• RIDOT is implementing a long-term plan to help local governments understand the importance of good data in improving safety.
• RIDOT has started collecting data for all public roads in the state to enable both the State and locals to use advanced safety analysis methods in the future.
• To support local priorities, RIDOT is also developing training and technical resources to assist municipalities in making data-driven decisions.

Results

RIDOT is making a long-term investment in improving data for all public roads in the State and, in so doing, build a much stronger foundation for analytic safety decision-making. As a first step, RIDOT is including all roads in the State's Linear Referencing System and is collecting MIRE data for those roads, helping level the playing field for local governments and providing them with a pathway to compete for HSIP funding. This stepwise approach also ensures that the RIDOT can direct HSIP funds where it can contribute the most to reducing fatal and serious injury crashes, regardless of who owns and operates that part of the State's roadways system.

Contacts

Sean Raymond, P.E.
HSIP Program Manager
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Two Capitol Hill
Providence, RI, 02903
(401) 222-2694 ext. 4204
Fax: (401) 222-3006

Robert Rocchio, P.E.
Managing Engineer
Traffic Management
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Two Capitol Hill
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 222-2694 ext. 4206
Fax: (401) 222-3006

Focusing on Crash Severity in HSIP Project Selection

Virginia and Maryland

Description

Crash data remains a fundamental component of virtually any safety analysis. States use it to identify spot safety improvements, screen for systemic safety improvements, diagnose specific safety concerns, select countermeasures, and justify HSIP investments. But which crash data should States use? And how should they consider the severity of a crash when making safety decisions?

Since the passage of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), States have placed greater focus on measuring safety performance, particularly in reducing the number and rate of traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This increases the focus on crashes most severely impacting society and human life while reducing the significance given to crashes resulting only in property damage or minor injury. States have worked to accommodate these changes in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and are also finding ways to place greater emphasis on fatal and serious injury crashes throughout their HSIP processes.

States most commonly use the “KABCO” severity scale, developed by the National Safety Council to measure the observed injury severity for any person at the scene of a crash, to classify the severity of roadway injuries. The Fourth Edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria codes crashes as Fatal Injury (K), Suspected Serious Injury (A), Suspected Minor Injury (B), Possible Injury (C), and No Apparent Injury (O). Many States have interpreted “fatal and serious injuries” as including just “KA” or “KAB” injuries, and the most aggressive States only use data for these crashes in all aspects of their safety analysis.

As an example, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) gives highest improvement considerations to locations that have experienced “K” and “A” injuries. They develop statewide listings and maps of high crash routes and intersections following the SHSP Emphasis Areas. VDOT's central office provides these to district staff to identify candidate locations for project development, including intersections ranked by Deaths (type “K”) plus Severe Injuries (type “A”) in the most recent three years within each jurisdiction. Those locations in the top 5% are first priority. Those between the top 5% and 15% are second priority, and the remainders are lower priority.

Other States primarily use fatal and serious injury crash data, but also apply broader ranges of crash data and different screening criteria for certain crash types. For example, the Illinois DOT uses “all crashes” in their identification of high-risk horizontal curves, one of their SHSP priority emphasis areas. However, they use “all crashes” as part of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodologies to identify curves where the observed crash frequency exceeds the expected frequency (calculated using the State's safety performance functions [SPFs]), or where there exists an excess proportion of specific crash types.

A third approach used by many states utilizes a weighted severity index or Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) methodology, in which crashes are given different, pre-determined values depending on their severity. For example, a property damage only (PDO) crash may only have a value of one, but an incapacitating injury crash may have a value of 10. This would effectively give a crash with a category “A-injury” ten times the weight of a crash with no injury. In the Maryland DOT, this kind of weighting system is used to identify Critical Safety Improvement Locations (CSILs) and prioritize them for review and improvement. Figure 2 provides the weights Maryland uses when calculating their CSIL list. Although the system does not dismiss less severe crashes, it gives much higher weight to intersections and segments that have more serious injury crashes.

Figure 2. Maryland Crash Weighting Factors (Source: Maryland SHA)

Finally, States also place greater weight on fatal and serious injury crashes in their analysis by either using dollar amounts to document the costs and benefits or limiting their analysis to only fatal and serious injury crashes. In addition, some states focus on countermeasures that have a particular effectiveness in preventing some of the most serious crashes (e.g., cable medial barrier to prevent cross-over head-on collisions).

Key Accomplishments

• Safety issues posing the greatest risk of fatal and serious injury crashes receive higher priority
• States place greater emphasis on investments to reduce the most serious crashes

Results

States are shifting away from simply focusing on reducing crashes and toward identifying the best opportunities and countermeasures for reducing crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries. This contributes to HSIP funding decisions that move states closer to achieving the national goal in MAP-21 “to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.”

Contacts

Tracy L. Turpin
Highway Safety Improvement Programs Manager
1401 E. Broad St., Room 207
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-6610
Tracy.Turpin@VDOT.Virginia.gov

William (Bill) Macleod
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-3601
WMacleod@sha.state.md.us

Developing Long-term HSIP Investment Plans to Maximize the Use of HSIP Funds

New Jersey and Kentucky

Description

The identification, development, design, and construction of HSIP projects is a multi-year undertaking. In any particular year, agencies analyze the latest crash data to identify potential HSIP projects, while at the same time advancing previous projects to construction. This cyclical process requires careful project planning and thoughtful fiscal planning to ensure the availability of resources at each stage of the HSIP process. Fiscal planning also assures that agencies direct HSIP funds at priority safety needs, rather than leaving them on the table.

New Jersey recognized these needs and initiated a process to develop a HSIP investment strategy that would look at least five years into the future at the State's safety needs, as well as the resources that would likely be available to address them. By taking a longer-range view of the safety program, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) can better prioritize its HSIP investments and the use of their limited resources. This type of advanced planning and programming is standard for the State's large-scale capital projects, which require obligating millions of dollars over many years. And while HSIP projects are typically much smaller in scale, they are numerous, presenting a challenge in terms of tracking individual project development and funding activities.

A second element of the New Jersey HSIP fiscal plan is a one-year obligation plan, which focuses on specific planned HSIP investments in the coming year. NJDOT timed the development of the one-year obligation plan to accompany or shortly follow the submission of New Jersey's Annual HSIP Report.

NJDOT provides both the five-year investment strategy and the one-year obligation plan to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) New Jersey Division Office for concurrence. Updates to New Jersey's Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) also reflect the elements of the investment strategy and obligation plan to the extent possible, though it's understood that fiscal constraints may impact programming.

The development of Kentucky's HSIP Investment Plan focused not only on better management of the program's fiscal resources, but also went further, leading to improvements in the way the State administers HSIP projects. The requirements in the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and increased funding were the impetus leading the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to utilize the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to develop an HSIP investment plan guiding the state's transportation safety obligations and spending. Once the investment plan was completed and shared with the FHWA Kentucky Division, Kentucky implemented the plan. The Kentucky HSIP investment plan includes emphasis area goals for the obligation of HSIP funding for upcoming fiscal years and also lays out strategies to program and invest unobligated funds from previous fiscal years.

Key Accomplishments

• New Jersey and Kentucky developed long-term HSIP investment plans to maximize the use of their HSIP funds.
• The NJDOT plan includes a five-year investment strategy and a one-year obligation plan, reflected in the State's Annual HSIP Report.
• Kentucky's plan is SHSP-based and focuses on making full use of both current and future HSIP allocations.

Results

States are finding that with the growth of the HSIP, a greater need exists for advanced project and fiscal planning. Developing a longer-term investment plan can help states steer their HSIP funding in the direction that it can do the greatest good in reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Planning also focuses attention on opportunities for making process improvements that benefit all projects. Taking these actions make HSIP projects more visible both within the State DOT and in communication with external audiences, including FHWA.

Contacts

David Kuhn
Assistant Commissioner Capital Investment Planning & Grant Administration
New Jersey Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 530-3855

Jarrod Stanley
Safety Engineer - HSIP
Central Office Traffic Operations
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
Frankfort, KY
(502) 782-5539

New England States Set Tri-State Target

New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine

Description

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and seven other organizations representing roadway safety professionals in all the States have developed the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) National Strategy to provide a roadmap of making sure every trip on our nation's highways is safe. The strategy focuses on all aspects of roadway safety, and emphasizes the importance of cooperation and collaboration.

At the same time, there was a growing national emphasis on evaluating and managing performance throughout the highway program. Both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO were encouraging states to be proactive in establishing and monitoring performance measures, and working together to improve critical areas such as safety.

The Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine have a history of collaboration, which can be seen in their planning and operations, and their response to emergencies and other common problems. The three states share a geography, climate, history, culture, and roadway network that speak to their interconnectedness. Given this, it is not surprising that when the challenge was put forward to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries, the three States again focused on how they could support each other to achieve these goals.

On August 19, 2010, the three States signed the Tri State Agreement for Standardized Performance Measures Memorandum of Understanding (included in the appendix of the referenced 2013 report). In that memorandum, the three states commit to work together to establish a standardized set of performance measures and targets in safety and other priority areas. At the core of the Safety Performance Measures was the TZD program, which was just beginning to be embraced around the country. In that regard, this effort was not only unique in its multi-state scope, but also in taking such an early lead in adopting the TZD vision (nearly four years before AASHTO's formal adoption of the TZD National Strategy).

A Tri-State Safety Performance Measure Working Group was formed and provides an ongoing forum for the advancing the states' safety performance efforts. Although each state has its own challenges, they share six Critical Emphasis Areas (CEAs) in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). These CEAs are focused on speed, safety belts, young drivers, impaired drivers, distracted drivers and intersections. As part of the tri-state initiative, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont continue to work collaboratively to coordinate programs to more effectively reach these regional goals. The following graph shows how this collective goal is represented in the Tri-State Performance Measures Annual Report for 2013.

In addition, these three states have worked together with other New England DOTs to regularly share their safety experiences, programs and initiatives. For the past two years, Duane Brunell from MaineDOT has been hosting bi-monthly safety teleconferences which provide an open forum for the exchange of ideas. “We have talked about everything from addressing wrong-way drivers, to bike and pedestrian safety issues,” he notes. “Our states share many of the same safety problems and we continue to learn much from each other.”

Key Accomplishments

• New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine built on their long standing relationship to adopt a common goal for their collective safety programs.
• Memorandum of Understanding signed by the heads of the three State DOTs to cooperatively develop common safety performance measures
• Early efforts to officially adopt goals and a vision reflecting what would become the Towards Zero Deaths National Strategy

Results

New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine formally entered into the Tri-State partnership to work towards a common goal of significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Through an on-going work group, the three states continue to focus on their efforts on common emphasis areas in their SHSPs. This has been reinforced through bi-monthy meetings to share experience and knowledge that has expanded beyond the original three States to include safety professionals from all the New England DOTs.

Contacts

Bruce Nyquist, P.E.
Highway Safety Manager
Vermont Agency of Transportation
(802) 828-2696
Fax: (802) 828-2437
Bruce.Nyquist@vermont.gov

Duane Brunell
Safety Manager
Maine Department of Transportation
16 Statehouse Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 624-3278
Duane.Burnell@maine.gov

Developing Methodologies for the Prioritization of Systemic Safety Improvements

New Mexico and Indiana

Description

Both the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) implemented processes to prioritize system-wide improvements based on high-risk roadway features correlated with severe crash types. These processes support the wide implementation of cost-effective safety improvements, particularly on local roads.

NMDOT includes a description of the abbreviated process for funding systemic improvements using proven safety countermeasures in its HSIP Application Form and Instructions. Like most states, New Mexico typically requires justification for selected improvements through estimated crash reductions and anticipated improvements to safety performance. However, NMDOT accepts applications featuring one of the engineering countermeasures identified as a means to systemically reduce fatal and injury crashes without specific relevant crash data for the subject sites. If the application includes a reasonable cost estimate, NMDOT selection committee will recommend the systemic improvement project receive the highest priority within funding program restraints and seek concurrence from FHWA.

This allowed New Mexico to spend over $6 million (30%) of its HSIP funds on cost-effective, systemic safety countermeasures in locations that might otherwise not have received funding due to sparse crash histories.

INDOT developed a similar procedure, providing specific guidance on how to analyze and justify specific systemic safety improvements. The Indiana HSIP Local Project Selection Guide details several high-priority, low-cost systemic countermeasures that demonstrate a strong benefit to roadway safety performance in Indiana. Projects utilizing these countermeasures only need to submit a cover letter from the Local Public Agency (LPA) and a form with project information.

The excerpt from INDOT's Local Project Selection Guide below provides an example of the established criteria. It informs local agencies applying for HSIP funds about how to best receive funding for pedestrian improvements, one of INDOT's high priority systemic safety improvements.

By including not only the systemic safety countermeasures available for funding, but also the means by which they can be justified, INDOT achieved an increased sense of transparency in the project selection process. It also created an atmosphere of openness with local agencies, which allowed over 30% of annual HSIP funds to be spent on systemic roadway improvements.

Key Accomplishments

• Increased awareness of proven, state-specific systemic safety improvements and developed documented methodology for these improvements.
• Increased the percentage of HSIP funds directed towards cost-effective systemic safety improvements, particularly on locally-owned roads.

Results

Both NMDOT and INDOT developed transparent methodologies for the inclusion and prioritization of systemic safety improvements in their project selection process. As a result, the number of systemic projects supported with HSIP funds has increased steadily over the past several years.

Contacts

Alan Holderread
Safety Engineer - Traffic Safety
Indiana Department of Transportation
100 N. Senate Ave., IGCN 958
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-5231
AHolderead@indot.in.gov

Jessica Griffin, AICP
Government to Government Unit Supervisor/HSIP Coordinator
NM Department of Transportation
PO Box 1149
Santa Fe, NM 87504
(505) 476-2155
Jessica.Griffin@state.nm.us

Working with Locals to Improve Safety Data

Florida

Description

One of the key challenges every state faces in addressing its safety issues is the availability of timely and accurate crash data. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made this even more apparent by requiring states to establish safety performance targets for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In Florida, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) provides the roadmap for achieving those targets and integrating safety initiatives in all emphasis areas. The SHSP also makes it very clear that achieving these targets will require actions on both the state highway system and on roadways owned and operated by local governments and agencies. Over 25% of the State's roadway fatalities occur on local roads, and this number points to the tremendous challenge of addressing roadway safety issues on Florida's local roads.

To address safety challenges on local roads, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is working via their Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) to interact with over 300 local agencies throughout the State, including law enforcement, health care, and emergency medical service agencies. The key goals of the TRCC are to integrate data systems across agencies, and promote the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and uniformity of data collected. In recent years the TRCC funded local agencies to improve their ability to collect and store enforcement actions and crash data. Specifically, local agencies used the funding to purchase hardware to support their reporting capabilities.

eCitation and eCrash are electronic citation software that allow law enforcement officers, at the scene of a crash, to use laptops in their police vehicles to input data and information from a traffic incident directly into a computerized database. These systems also have scanners, which transfer driver's license information directly to forms, reducing errors.

In addition, Florida recognizes that in order to move beyond using historical crash data alone to make countermeasure choices, certain core roadway data elements will be required for all roads in the State. This has been a challenge for many local jurisdictions. The FDOT is working with localities to develop databases that can be merged with crash data to better prioritize safety needs on local roads.

Overall, locals are seeing the benefits that come from having better data. In 2013, nearly $38 million in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds went to local safety projects (only $9.2 million was obligated for local safety projects in the previous year). In addition, the State has made a considerable commitment to assisting locals in planning, evaluating, and preparing justifications for such projects.

Key Accomplishments

• Through their Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, the Florida DOT provides assistance to over 300 local agencies in improving their data systems.
• The State's new eCitation and eCrash systems ensure timely and accurate data collection from law enforcement and first responders.
• Local agencies received funding to purchase hardware to optimize application of these new data systems.

Results

Data is the foundation of sound safety decision-making, and the FDOT recognizes the importance of having that data for all roads in the State. By engaging and providing resources to local governments, the FDOT is better able to support and target their safety initiatives, and integrate their efforts into achieving the State's overall safety goals.

Contact

Ms. Danielle King
TRCC Coordinator
Florida Department of Transportation
Traffic Safety Management Office
605 Suwannee Street, MS 53
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 414-4226
Danielle.King@dot.state.fl.us

Washington State DOT Implements $26 Million in Local Roadway Safety Improvements through Local Agencies

Describe the roadway safety situation or state before the new practice was implemented. What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in Washington State are divided between State highways and local agency roadways. The funds are split according to the top priority infrastructure emphasis areas from the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Target Zero. The top priority, or priority 1, emphasis areas are run-off-road crashes and intersection-related crashes. The split between State and local share of those crashes has remained very consistent at roughly 30 percent on State maintained roadways and 70 percent local agency responsibility. Therefore, 70 percent of HSIP funds are provided to local agencies through programs administered by the Local Programs division of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

From 2010 to 2014, county roads accounted for 25 percent (2,801 of 11,259) of all fatal and serious injury crashes in Washington State. However, those crashes are spread out over more than 39,000 miles of road. Very few locations have more than one fatal or serious injury crash over a five-year period. This seemingly random pattern makes implementation of safety countermeasures more challenging.

Since 2009, counties applying for HSIP funds have been required to implement low-cost improvements over widespread areas of their network. Projects have been awarded to all 39 counties statewide in that time period. Counties are allowed to identify which countermeasures they implement and where they are implemented, as long as they address fatal and serious injury crash types (primarily run-off-the-road) using proven countermeasures. Counties are responsible for identifying priority locations using this risk-based approach to safety.

What were the key challenges that needed to be addressed before the new practice could be implemented?

Counties had to be provided with the resources to develop local road safety plans to identify locations and priorities for road safety projects. The resources included statistical summaries, development of workshops, and coordination of training through the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Data and Analysis Technical Assistance program.

Describe the new practice.

Counties are required to develop a local road safety plan to identify locations and priorities. The development of such a plan is required in order for a county to be eligible to apply for HSIP funds. WSDOT assisted the counties with the development of local road safety plans in the following manner:

• Counties were provided with summary data to help them prioritize crash types, roadway characteristics, and conditions more prevalent in fatal and serious injury crashes.
• A series of eight workshops were held around the state for counties to better understand the requirements of the local road safety plan. These workshops helped to emphasize no new data are needed to be collected to develop a local road safety plan.
• During the workshops, counties were provided with additional resources, such as the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool and the SHSP recommended countermeasures.
• After the workshops, training specific to the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool was made available to counties (and a few interested cities).
• Technical assistance was provided as needed for any county requesting assistance in development or review of their local road safety plans and HSIP applications.
• For the final application for HSIP funds, counties were required to develop a list of prioritized projects, each with a separate cost estimate.
• If counties could advertise new safety projects by September 30, 2016, the state would provide the 10 percent match typically required from the local agency, allowing the counties to receive 100 percent funding for construction.

List the key accomplishments that resulted from the new practice. Include the roadway safety improvements.

• The majority of counties completed a local road safety plan and applied for funds within a five-month window from the announcement of the program to the application deadline.
• Of those that applied, 30 counties received funding for a total of $26.5 million in improvements.
• Nearly every project, in every county, committed to meeting that deadline in order to receive 100 percent construction funding support.

What technical and/or institutional changes resulted from the new practice?

The development of local road safety plans has a high potential to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on the county road network. This approach is data-driven, creates a process to determine risks across the network, and provides the flexibility to select the most cost-effective projects. This approach is also changing the safety culture among counties across the state by making them evaluate their roads in a different way than before.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

• Two key partnership opportunities also emerged from this process including the Washington State Association of Counties (the state's NACE-affiliate) and the County Road Administration (CRAB).
• CRAB received a Traffic Records Committee grant to develop a safety module that works with their existing database. This will allow counties to combine crash, roadway, and volume data to develop a systemic safety program. The module will help to implement the Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool analysis process.

Bridge guard rail installation as a result of a local road safety plan

Signage updates as a result of a local road safety plan

Contacts

Matthew Enders, PE
Manager, Technical Services
(360) 705-6907
EndersM@wsdot.wa.gov

Susan Bowe, PE
Traffic Services Manager
(360) 705-7380
BoweS@wsdot.wa.gov