HSIP Project Tracking in Alaska

Problem/Issue

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) is dedicated to improving practices within the agency. The ADOT&PF headquarters manages the overall Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). However, the three regions within ADOT&PF (Northern, Central, and Southcoast) are responsible for nominating, planning, designing, constructing, and tracking projects. In consideration of this decentralized approach and the large scope of the State, ADOT&PF wanted to explore a more efficient communication and project tracking mechanism.

Solution

In 1998, ADOT&PF published the first edition of the Alaska HSIP Handbook and began tracking all safety projects in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The Handbook clearly defines the process of HSIP project development, implementation, tracking, and evaluation. The Handbook also addresses the handling of funds and project delivery activities. ADOT&PF reviews and updates the Handbook annually or on an as-needed basis to address changes in law, program and policy rules, and clarifications.

Alaska uses an Obligation Tracking Spreadsheet to track obligations on all new and ongoing projects. ADOT&PF updates the spreadsheet in the fall (typically November 1) to align with expected obligations in the HSIP Funding Plan. When a region requests approval to obligate funds on an HSIP project, headquarters staff verify the project is identified in the HSIP Funding Plan (or in a previous Funding Plan, in the case of a construction overrun or change order), then record the amount and the funding type in the spreadsheet (along with date and reason).

Data for tracking the program’s performance comes from the regional offices. Specifically, the regions prepare an HSIP Project Evaluation Spreadsheet to compile project-level details for each completed project, tracking critical project details such as three-year post-construction data. The spreadsheet provides an overview of project performance, including the benefit-cost ratio based on both the construction cost and the maintenance costs over the analysis period. The spreadsheet annualizes crash data for comparison of before and after periods, which is particularly useful if the before and after periods are different duration. The regional offices are responsible for collecting post-project crash data, entering project data in the spreadsheet, and submitting the tracking spreadsheets to headquarters. Headquarters aggregates the individual project data into a master spreadsheet to evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures and the entire HSIP program, track the frequency of implemented countermeasures, and provide an historical listing of completed projects.

Benefits

The benefits of ADOT&PF’s spreadsheets and HSIP Handbook reach beyond a streamlined reporting system. The process has also resulted in improved HSIP reporting, project evaluation, countermeasure identification and benefit-cost ratios, as well as improved funding allocation.

In Alaska, each project is evaluated based on a standard evaluation form and methodology, comparing pre- and post-implementation crash data and developing measures of effectiveness appropriate for the countermeasures selected for use in the project. The consistent project tracking and reporting facilitates evaluation of HSIP projects. Due to small sample sizes of similar projects, ADOT&PF does not develop state-specific crash modification factors (CMFs); however, headquarters is able to adjust statewide CMFs based on the collective evaluation of projects facilitated by regional project tracking.

Headquarters tracks the different countermeasures used on HSIP projects along with the number of sites at which a particular countermeasure was implemented. After the projects are constructed and evaluations are complete, ADOT&PF compares the expected benefit-cost ratio to the actual benefit-cost ratio, which helps the State make better estimations for future projects. For example, they can use the evaluation results to identify types of projects that are more or less effective, and implement effective, low-cost countermeasures systemically.

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. ADOT&PF also uses the obligation tracking spreadsheet to identify funding that is unallocated, funding to be returned from projects constructed under bid price, and projects being held for future construction. Funds originally designated for HSIP all remain within the Alaska HSIP, providing flexibility in programming work.

Annual updates allow ADOT&PF to respond to lessons learned from previous evaluations and to adjust for emerging issues. For example, ADOT&PF identified a challenge related to the sporadic nature of incapacitating injuries and fatalities. Headquarters was able to use the process to first identify the problem and then a solution. As a result, they now combine incapacitating injuries and fatalities to help stabilize the analysis of rare crash severities.

Challenges

Headquarters updates the spreadsheets annually to reflect the latest crash costs and CMFs. ADOT&PF noted that one small challenge is ensuring the regions are using the latest version of the project evaluation spreadsheet. They currently post the latest version online with their HSIP Handbook for central access. As a final check, the central office reviews the submittals from each region and can notify the regions as needed to provide the latest version.

Contact

Matt Walker
Alaska Department of Transportation
(907) 465-6963
Matthew.Walker@alaska.gov

Accelerating HSIP Projects Using In-House Design

Rhode Island

Description

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) implemented a unique process for accelerating the completion of priority signing and striping projects. This process focuses on identifying safety improvements for which in-house staff can execute the project design and was implemented based on the premise that safety improvements made more quickly will begin to reduce fatality and serious injury risks sooner. More complex projects require state procurement procedures, advertising for and hiring a design consultant, and contracting construction, and can take a year or more to complete. By contrast, improvements such as signing and striping projects can be fast-tracked to provide a swifter alternative to addressing safety issues in high-crash areas.

Beginning in 2010, RIDOT developed the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (RI*STARS) program focused on delivering low-cost and high-benefit safety and mobility improvements. As part of the program, RIDOT developed and implemented a pilot project for accelerating short-term signing and striping improvements. The pilot project was so successful that RIDOT expanded it to include the delivery of quick short-term safety improvements that are part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

RIDOT now uses this improved procedure to fast-track many signing and striping HSIP projects, particularly those submitted by local jurisdictions. The fast-track approach begins following the identification of safety needs through the HSIP planning process and the completion of a road safety audit (RSA). Those improvements that align with the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Emphasis Areas and have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one are deemed eligible for funding. The next step is to prioritize eligible project proposals based on their benefit-cost ratio, alignment with SHSP priorities, project cost range, improvement types, engineering review, and available HSIP funding. After reviewing and ranking all projects in the state, HSIP staff review and advance projects to the design stage, depending on available funding.

Projects are divided into two categories before being advanced. Short-term signing and striping projects can be advanced quickly through the RIDOT In-House Design process. Longer-term improvements are typically advanced through the HSIP Final Design process. Identifying these short-term improvements through the in-house design category enables RIDOT engineers to fast-track projects with high benefit-cost ratios and avoid a more prolonged design process.

Projects assigned to the In-House Design category are sent in the form of a work order to an in-house RIDOT engineer team. RIDOT engineers and interns perform about 30% of the design work. The other 70% is sent to on-call consultants, who have a standing task-performance agreement with RIDOT, so no new procurement process is necessary. After the signage and striping design is complete, it is sent to in-house maintenance staff or on-call striping contractors who complete the improvements accordingly.

Instead of years, the entire process for In-House Design of signing and striping projects typically takes one to two months. Municipalities and other stakeholders have seen this as a positive change, and appreciate seeing their roadway safety concerns quickly addressed. As a result, these stakeholders are more likely to stay involved in these projects, both financially and collaboratively. In addition, the relationships between many municipalities and RIDOT has improved to the point where municipalities are more engaged in reporting safety concerns and more confident that a safety-improvement response will be forthcoming.

Key Accomplishments

• Through the RI*STARS program, the State implemented a process to accelerate the completion of HSIP signing and striping projects by using RIDOT's own staff.
• In-house or on-call consultants complete signing and striping design in as little as a month.
• RIDOT maintenance staff or on-call striping contractors complete the installation.

Results

RIDOT has been able to significantly accelerate the design and construction of HSIP signing and striping projects with high benefit-cost ratios. The use of in-house staff and on-call consultants for the design of these projects has shortened delivery time to one to two months. As a result, RIDOT is able to serve its municipalities and other safety stakeholders much faster and keep them involved in, and more than satisfied with, the safety improvement dialogue and process. Most importantly, it provides the public with potential life-saving safety improvements on the roads sooner.

Contacts

Sean Raymond, P.E.
HSIP Program Manager
Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Two Capitol Hill
Providence, RI, 02903
Phone: 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
Phone: 401-222-2694 ext. 4206
Fax: 401-222-3006

Unique Accord in Washington State Helps State and Tribal Governments Work Proactively on Roadway Safety

The Washington 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, SD

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.

Washington

Background

Washington's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Target Zero®, first authored in 2000, aims to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2030. Based on data, Target Zero:

• Creates goals and objectives.
• Prioritizes the work that needs to be done to reach the goals.
• Offers countermeasures determined by research to be proven, recommended, or unknown.

For updating and implementing Target Zero, two State agencies take the lead in engaging with stakeholders representing the varied segments of Washington's population: the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC), an independent agency that serves as the State's Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) Traffic Safety Office.

Tribal Government participation has been a key strategy toward achieving Target Zero goals. Based on changing data, Washington's SHSP has been updated every three years since the 2007 update to ensure Target Zero goals are on track. Tribes in Washington have been increasingly involved in SHSP planning as Target Zero has become the guide for State, regional, county, and city agencies; Tribal programs; and private sector organizations involved with transportation and traffic safety.

Washington's Centennial Accord creates a collaborative environment for transportation and traffic safety efforts among Tribes and the State of Washington. Signed in 1989, the Accord established government-to-government relations between State and Tribal governments, in an effort to resolve disagreements before they reached the courtroom. With the structure of the Accord well in place, that framework of collaboration was applied to Tribal involvement in statewide transportation and traffic safety planning.

To engage the 29 federally-recognized Tribes in SHSP updates, Washington uses the following ongoing boards and organizations:

• Washington Indian Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (WITPAC), a WSDOT advisory committee, which meets quarterly.
• Tribal Transportation Planning Organizations, created and hosted by WSDOT, with meetings chaired by Tribal Governments.
• Tribal Traffic Safety Advisory Board (TTSAB), an advisory board to WTSC representing tribal leadership in the 4Es (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response) of traffic safety, which meets monthly and works on education and enforcement projects.
• Northwest Association of Tribal Enforcement Officers (NATEO), a traffic safety partner unrelated to state government, which meets semi-annually.

Inclusive Highway Safety Planning

The Centennial Accord gives State agencies a protocol for officially interacting with Tribes, which includes a requirement that agencies have a tribal liaison on staff. The transportation and traffic safety boards and organizations create a framework that is used for communicating with Tribal staff involved with education, enforcement, engineering and Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

By way of example, for the 2016 Target Zero update, WTSC sent letters through the U.S. mail to Tribal leaders asking for Tribal representatives. A sample letter was distributed via email to members of WITPAC, TTPO, TTSAB, and NATEO. The communication system netted the three requested representatives, one for the top-level Steering Committee and two for the Project Team.

This method of identifying representatives is also an example of Washington's approach toward continuous improvement with each Target Zero update. Previously, WTSC identified Tribal representatives who had been enthusiastic and actively involved in other transportation safety efforts. This shift to casting a wider net to attract participants is a more transparent, open process and is another way to remind Tribal leadership of the importance of transportation and traffic safety to the quality of life in their communities.

The current update of Washington State's SHSP is focusing in part on expanding data-driven decisionmaking in Tribal transportation projects by inviting safety data experts to present Tribal data to the advisory boards and organizations. For example, to prepare for the current Target Zero update, during a TTSAB meeting:

• A WTSC staffer presented on Tribal fatalities (FARS) overlaid with U.S. census data by county.
• A WSDOT staffer presented on serious injury data on reservations, enhanced by the use of GPS coordinates in crash reports.
• A WTSC sub-grantee, currently conducting Tribal traffic safety assessments, presented on reservation fatality and serious injury data obtained from multiple sources including FARS, state collision database, CDC, Tribal police, and Tribal EMS.

Tribes will have a variety of ways to contribute to the 2016 version of Target Zero:

• Project Team representatives have asked Tribal planners to share with the SHSP team their safety plans, most of which were developed through grants from FHWA's Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund.
• Tribes will be invited to the Partners' Meeting as usual. Representatives from 11 tribes attended the last Meeting.
• When writing teams are formed more Tribal representatives will be sought.
• When Target Zero is nearing completion, following the official consultation protocol, hardcopy drafts will be mailed to Tribal Chairs for comment. Additionally, electronic versions will be distributed for comment through the communications infrastructure of WITPAC, TTPO, TSAB, and NATEO.

When the 2016 SHSP is final, copies will be mailed to Chairs, and a link to the web version being broadly disseminated. TTSAB will distribute a news release on the 2016 version of Target Zero to the 29 Tribal newspapers and newsletters throughout Washington.

Key Challenges

All large organizations can develop silos, and Tribal government is no exception. Tribal planners work in environments that require collaboration, but it can be difficult to engage Tribal police and other programs in SHSP updates.

Data-sharing continues to be a major issue. State and Tribal planners need crash data on Tribal roads to make the case for federal and state grant money. But there are many challenges to data being freely shared between tribes and state and local highway agencies, including staffing and the resources it takes to process data. To help with the data-sharing challenge, WTSC funded an ongoing programming project that will allow each Tribe's codes to be uploaded in an automated fashion to the state's electronic ticketing and crash reporting system used by law enforcement. This will enable full functionality with a pull-down menu for jurisdiction. Tribes may choose to share only crash data with WSDOT/WTSC, which may remove some barriers to data-sharing.

Finally, limited funding is an ongoing barrier to creating Tribal educational and enforcement programs that could further Target Zero® goals and save lives on reservations.

Benefits Realized

Tribes and Washington State experience numerous benefits when Tribes are involved in SHSP updates, including the following:

• Tribes gain increased awareness on the importance of addressing roadway safety.
• Tribes take ownership of the final SHSP plan.
• Tribes are more likely to use the SHSP as a guide and source of information for their own transportation plans.
• Tribal planners, enforcement, and EMS become familiar with Target Zero strategies, which researchers have found to be effective and can be invaluable when applying for State grant funding.
• Tribal-State and Inter-Tribal relationships are strengthened.
• A broader understanding of the State's roadway safety requirements and needs in Washington is gained.
• Washington's data on behavioral factors in fatal and serious injury crashes is more complete and accurate allowing for more correct analyses.

Contact

MJ Haught
Tribal Liaison
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
(360) 725-9879
MJHaught@wtsc.wa.gov

The Evolution of Tribal Involvement in Montana's Road Safety Planning

The Montana 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: ND, 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.

Montana

Background

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) began developing its Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) in 2006, in response to Federal surface transportation funding legislation. In developing the CHSP, it became clear from crash analyses that fatalities and serious injuries among Native Americans were disproportionately represented in Statewide fatal and serious injury crashes.

Over the past decade, Montana has also developed and adopted its long-term Vision Zero goal of eliminating deaths and injuries on its State highways. MDT's outreach to tribes concurrently grew over that time into a mutually beneficial government-to-government effort that includes education, planning, and technical support.

Evolving Tribal Involvement in Montana's Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan

Native Americans comprise 6.2 percent of Montana's population but make up about 17 percent of total motor vehicle fatalities per year. MDT is committed to consistently working with tribal planners and engineers, law enforcement, health service professionals, and other tribal representatives. These collaborations help identify strategies that can reduce fatalities and serious injuries on tribal roads, and contribute to Montana's Vision Zero goal.

The 2005 Montana Tribal Safety Conscious Planning Forum kicked off MDT's concerted collaboration on road safety with the seven land-based tribes in Montana. This forum brought together tribal leaders, the Governor of Montana, and the MDT director. This government-to-government, high-level communication was critical in achieving the forum's objective of encouraging tribes in Montana to participate in developing and updating the CHSP.

Since the forum convened, MDT's relationship with tribes has evolved to include regular communication on transportation safety issues between tribal safety representatives and MDT program managers. In addition to tribal participation in statewide annual meetings, MDT has two full-time staff who focus on tribal relations.

The cultural liaison in the State Highway Traffic Safety Section is funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This liaison manages the Safe on All Roads (SOAR) program for traffic safety education that supports a SOAR coordinator on each reservation. These individual SOAR coordinators create and provide culture-specific messaging focused on safety awareness, education, and consequences of impaired driving, lack of occupant protection, and other risky driver behavior. MDT encourages each tribe to assign their own SOAR coordinator to help develop messages aimed at changing behavior, such as lack of seatbelt or car seat use. The SOAR coordinator positions were recommended in the CHSP.

The CHSP safety planner provides technical assistance, participating in development of tribal-led safety plans, quarterly meetings, and road safety audits. Starting in 2012, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Rocky Mountain Region Road Safety Audit Pilot Program conducted training and several road safety audits across the seven reservations. The pilot program used FHWA's Road Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments for guidance. Road safety audit programs have been included in individual tribal transportation safety plans. The CHSP safety planner also maintains relationships by proactively reaching out to tribes on a regular basis. Regular communication from these liaisons is key to maintaining tribal involvement in the CHSP, which was updated in 2015.

Montana's CHSP Update

Leading up to the CHSP update in 2014, MDT and tribal representatives collaborated and conducted four annual Tribal Transportation Safety Summits. Coordination involved providing technical support and other resources, such as venues. These summits were hosted by tribes in Montana, with rotating sponsorship each year to encourage tribal ownership over sharing road safety best practices.

Many CHSP strategies were a result of the summit process. Others came out of the transportation safety plans each tribe developed, as required as part of FHWA Federal Lands Tribal Transportation Program beginning fiscal federal year 2013. In those plans, tribes use their own fatal and serious injury data and MDT fatality data to identify critical safety issues. While tribal safety plans tend to be more specific than the higher-level strategies in the CHSP, many tribal strategies—whether addressing impaired driving, occupant protection, lane departures, or other issues—are consistent with the emphasis areas in the CHSP. In addition, Tribal planners shared quarterly updates with MDT staff to identify opportunities for tribal safety plan development strategies to consider SOAR efforts and the CHSP update.

Tribes are now so well integrated into Montana's safety stakeholder group that separate tribal summits are no longer necessary. All seven tribes have been actively involved in the statewide annual Transportation Safety Meeting and tribal partners are also represented on CHSP committees.

Montana's 2015 CHSP update also reflects the integration of tribal issues. The CHSP update process identified several areas of overlap and determined it would be better to have fewer emphasis areas. The update no longer has 12 individual emphasis areas or a specific CHSP Native American emphasis area. Rather, tribal issues and strategies are found throughout the emphasis areas, and the emphasis areas in the CHSP are safety concerns for all Montanans.

Key Challenges

Getting tribal government leaders to discuss transportation safety was initially challenging. MDT brought those critical partners to the table by having MDT leadership connect with tribal leadership, and also offering financial assistance to cover costs of attending meetings, which underscored the importance of tribes' attendance.

Data continues to be the major challenge in Montana and other States engaging in proactive tribal outreach. Tribal traffic incident records tend to be incomplete, although fatality data is reliable because the Montana Highway Patrol responds to all fatalities on all public roads in Montana. One tribe has adopted all the State's traffic codes and consistently provides MDT with crash data. Other tribes have few traffic codes and do not consistently provide data to MDT.

Tribes in Montana are concerned about confidentiality issues when it comes to sharing data. There is also frequent turnover among tribal leadership, making it challenging for MDT to form lasting partnerships. MDT encourages better crash data by building trust with tribal representatives through consistent communication.

Benefits to Tribal Participation in the CHSP

• Brings all Montanans closer to a cohesive goal of on Montana's roads: Vision Zero - zero fatalities, zero serious injuries.
• Tribal issues and strategies are integrated into the CHSP emphasis areas.
• Realizing a downward trend in Native American fatalities.
• Participation from tribal safety representatives provides an opportunity to share best behavioral and infrastructure safety practices, and identify hurdles with other safety stakeholders.
• Helps builds trust among state agencies, tribal governments, and other safety stakeholders.

Contact

Pam Langve-Davis
Statewide and Urban Planning
CHSP Coordinator/Safety Planner
Montana Department of Transportation
(406) 444-7646
PLangveDavis@mt.gov

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