Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Reduces Wet Pavement Crashes by 93 Percent through Pavement Surface Treatments

What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

Approximately 17 percent of all crashes from 2009 through 2011 that have occurred on Arkansas' highways were on wet pavement, resulting in 160 fatalities, or about 53 fatalities per year. One factor is the pavement, or more appropriately, the pavement texture. It can also have an impact on the ability of a vehicle, even with poor condition tires, to maintain contact with the surface, and the ability of the driver to maintain control of his or her vehicle. Of the 160 wet-weather fatalities that occurred from 2009 through 2011, 28 occurred on Arkansas' Interstates, or about 9 fatalities per year.

Arkansas made a previous effort to address roadway departure wet-weather crashes. The State identified several locations on the Interstate system with a high percentage of crashes due to wet pavement. Job 070322, Highway 51-Highway 182 Safety Improvements (S), was awarded in July 2008 and completed in November 2008. The purpose of this project was to overlay approximately four miles of Interstate 30 in Clark County. This project consisted of ultrathin bonded wearing course (UTBWC), cold milling, pavement marking, maintenance of traffic, and other miscellaneous items.

A before-after analysis was conducted within the job limits. In the 48 months prior to the improvement (November 1, 2004 to October 31, 2008), a total of 70 crashes due to wet pavement were observed. In the following 48 months after the project's substantial completion (November 1, 2008 to October 31, 2012), only 5 crashes occurred due to wet pavement. This is a significant reduction of about 93 percent. The benefit-cost ratio for this project is 2.98. Based on a literature review, this is similar to the results experienced in other states.

Describe the new practice.

Based on the previous success of the project on Interstate 30, the Arkansas Highway Commission passed Minute Order 2013-043 in April 2013. This Minute Order authorized the Department to proceed with pavement texture improvement projects to address wet pavement crashes on Arkansas Interstates. Six Interstate locations have been identified for possible UTBWC installation where a reconstruction project is not scheduled for construction within the next four years. Other treatment methods to improve pavement texture may be employed as well. Each of these locations has a high percentage of wet-weather crashes over the last three years.

Arkansas Highway Commission has authorized the Department to proceed with pavement texture improvement projects to address roadway departure wet-weather crashes on Arkansas Interstates.

The general key phases to the implementation of the UTBWC include:

• Cold milling,
• Pavement marking,
• Maintenance of traffic, and
• Other miscellaneous items.

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

Installation of UTBWC has proven to be an effective low-cost countermeasure to improve skid resistance and reduce hydroplaning potential. In addition to the safety benefits, UTBWC preserves the existing pavement and improves user comfort. Due to the treatment's success, the Arkansas Highway Commission has authorized the Department to proceed with pavement texture improvement projects to address roadway departure wet-weather crashes on Arkansas Interstates. Six other locations with a high percentage of wet-weather crashes between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Addressing these locations with UTBWC will help reduce wet-weather roadway departure crashes, helping the Arkansas Highway State Transit Department fulfill its mission statement and strategic goals, and help Arkansas get one step closer Toward Zero Deaths.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

• Significant reduction in wet weather crashes.
• UTBWC preserves the existing pavement and improves user comfort.

Further Reading

• Brewer,A., & D. Nilles. Improving Interstate Safety with Pavement Surface Treatments. Arkansas Highways Magazine, July, 2013. Pages 10-11.
• Oman, N. I-30 job targets rain-tied crashes Accidents drop in resurface test. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Front Section. Page 1.

Figure 1. Interstate 30 Westbound (Log mile 58.00) in Clark County

Study Area Crash Map

Figure 2. Study area crash map with before treatment crashes on left and after treatment crashes on right.

Signage Updates Reduce Fatal Crashes in Popular Tourist/Foreign Driver Location near the Grand Canyon in Arizona

What was the safety issue, problem, or gap?

Diamond Bar Road in Mohave County, Arizona provides public road access to Grand Canyon West, site of the internationally renowned Grand Canyon Skywalk on the Hualapai Indian Reservation, attracting approximately 700,000 visitors annually. Subsequent to Diamond Bar Road reconstruction by the Hualapai Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs, two (2) fatal, head-on crashes occurred on the facility, approximately 0.7 miles from its intersection with Pierce Ferry Road, which provides access to U.S. 93 and Interstate 40 servicing Grand Canyon West visitor traffic. Each crash involved unimpaired drivers from Ireland and Australia who encroached into the opposing lane of travel upon negotiating the first horizontal curve encountered on Diamond Bar Road.

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

The key factors focused on identifying the unique driver experiences relating to the crashes and crash circumstances including:

• Inexperience in driving United States roads with oncoming traffic passing on the driver's side, and
• Driver behavior as a tourist subject to acute distractions such as scenery, communication with other vehicle occupants, and/or reading directions/maps.

The County's Engineering Division performed a detailed field investigation and traffic engineering report based on intensive two-day observations of inbound tourist traffic to Grand Canyon West during the active holiday season. It found—in seven hours' time over two morning ingress periods—30 separate instances of drivers stopping in the road, backing, making a U-turn, or turning/entering into the opposite lane of travel before immediately correcting. Figure 1 indicates example traffic maneuvers witnessed during the investigation.

Figure 1. Example Vehicle Maneuvers Substantiating Tourist Driver Behavior

Describe the new practice.

The Mohave County Traffic Safety Committee reviewed and endorsed the traffic engineering study findings and recommendations, and the County subsequently installed the following devices in January 2013:

• An oversize 48” x 48” W6-3 Two-Way Traffic Warning Sign installed on both sides of Diamond Bar Road facing traffic entering Diamond Bar Road.
• A white thermoplastic through arrow in both Diamond Bar Road travel lanes adjacent the warning signs.
• Total expense including material and labor costs at the County's burdened rate is $871.00.

Key accomplishments, including roadway safety improvements

January 2015 marks two full years Mohave County has maintained its Wrong-Way Driver Warning Devices. Its success is attributed to zero crashes post-improvement throughout the 14-mile Diamond Bar Road relative to crash type and crash causal factors attributed to the two fatal crashes prompting this Mohave County safety project.

What benefits were realized as a result of the practice?

The devices take a low-tech form but directly address human factors based needs identified in the County's traffic engineering study driving device identification and implementation.

Contact

Michael P. Hendrix, P.E., County Administrator
3715 Sunshine Dr.
Kingman, AZ 86409
928-757-0910

Washington Builds Evaluation into its Strategic Highway Safety Plan

The Washington practice is discussed after the following introduction about Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) evaluation.

Other states in this SHSP Evaluation Noteworthy Practices series: ID and NV

Planning for Evaluation Should Begin When the SHSP is Developed

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires States to evaluate their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to ensure the accuracy of their SHSP priorities and proposed strategies. Furthermore, evaluation helps States answer basic questions about the progress of their SHSP such as:

• What are we trying to do?
• How well are we doing it?
• How can we improve?

States that have successfully integrated evaluation into their SHSP process have realized the opportunity it provides to strengthen their SHSP efforts. Benefits include demonstrating the SHSP's contribution to transportation safety; uncovering challenges in prioritizing or implementing programs and strategies; determining progress in meeting SHSP goals and objectives, and; validating emphasis areas and strategies, or revealing the need to revise them.

Following are examples of how States have put evaluation into action.

• Outcome performance measures: how they will measure progress towards their goals and objectives.
• Priority strategies: those evidence-based or promising strategies that have the greatest potential to help them reach the emphasis area goals and objectives.
• Output performance measures: activity measures that help document program implementation.

It is never too early to institute evaluation; in fact, planning for evaluation should begin when the SHSP is developed. During the early stages of SHSP development attention should be given to how progress will be measured and success determined.

Washington's Practice

Washington Develops an Evaluation Plan

Washington State has developed an evaluation plan for their 2013-2016 SHSP, which they call Target Zero.

In their Target Zero plan, Washington documented how they intended to develop an evaluation plan to guide their SHSP evaluation. Early in 2014, representatives from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) convened to determine how to facilitate the overall SHSP evaluation.

Washington decided it would conduct a performance evaluation to determine how effective the SHSP has been in meeting its goals and objectives (outcomes), and the status of the implementation of their SHSP strategies (outputs). The evaluation plan captures these elements, which track back to their SHSP:

• Goal(s) and objectives
• Outcome performance measures: how they will measure progress towards their goals and objectives
• Priority strategies: those evidence-based or promising strategies that have the greatest potential to help them reach the emphasis area goals and objectives
• Output performance measures: activity measures that help document program implementation
• Tracking and data needs: the data they need to track the strategies and who will be responsible for coordinating this data

Washington also uses a tracking tool to record progress in meeting their goals and objectives and the status of their implementation activities.

Washington plans to use their evaluation results to help guide the development of their SHSP update, particularly the strategies in the next plan. It will also use the results to provide updates to partners such as National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), to inform leadership on key initiatives, and inform the Governor's office and legislators.

Figure 1. Washington SHSP Implementation and Output Tracking Tool

Contact

Chris Madill
Deputy Director
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
(360) 725-9884
wtsc.wa.gov

Idaho Builds Evaluation into its Strategic Highway Safety Plan

The Idaho practice is discussed after the following introduction about Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) evaluation.

Other states in this SHSP Evaluation Noteworthy Practices series: NV and WA

Planning for Evaluation Should Begin When the SHSP is Developed

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires States to evaluate their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to ensure the accuracy of their SHSP priorities and proposed strategies. Furthermore, evaluation helps States answer basic questions about the progress of their SHSP such as:

• What are we trying to do?
• How well are we doing it?
• How can we improve?

States that have successfully integrated evaluation into their SHSP process have realized the opportunity it provides to strengthen their SHSP efforts. Benefits include demonstrating the SHSP's contribution to transportation safety; uncovering challenges in prioritizing or implementing programs and strategies; determining progress in meeting SHSP goals and objectives, and; validating emphasis areas and strategies, or revealing the need to revise them.

Following are examples of how States have put evaluation into action.

• Outcome performance measures: how they will measure progress towards their goals and objectives.
• Priority strategies: those evidence-based or promising strategies that have the greatest potential to help them reach the emphasis area goals and objectives.
• Output performance measures: activity measures that help document program implementation.

It is never too early to institute evaluation; in fact, planning for evaluation should begin when the SHSP is developed. During the early stages of SHSP development attention should be given to how progress will be measured and success determined.

Idaho's Practice

Idaho Develops an Evaluation Plan

Recognizing the importance of SHSP evaluation, Idaho embarked on the development of an evaluation plan in the early stages of their 2013-2016 SHSP. To develop the evaluation approach, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) convened a two-day workshop that included the input of Focus Group Committee Chairs, the SHSP Executive Oversight Team, the Office of Highway Safety Manager, the SHSP Manager, and FHWA. During the workshop, the evaluation team identified performance measures for emphasis area goals and objectives as well as for priority strategies. The team determined the data they would need to monitor their progress, established a tracking tool, and assigned roles and responsibilities for the various evaluation components. These elements are captured in an evaluation plan document that the team will continue to reference over the life of their SHSP.

The Focus Group Chairs are taking the lead on tracking SHSP implementation and monitoring progress towards goals and objectives. Their tracking tool generates a summary sheet, which is used to inform leadership and to report on their progress at their regular SHSP team and committee meetings.

In general, their evaluation results are used to monitor progress and identify areas of success as well as those needing improvement. Modifications will be made as warranted.

Results are also used to:

• Inform leadership, such as for the annual report out on the highway safety program
• Inform and involve SHSP oversight team
• Make “course corrections” to strategies or strategy implementation (if warranted)
• Help orient new SHSP members

Contact

Lisa Losness
Office of Highway Safety
Idaho Transportation Department
Lisa.Losness@itd.idaho.gov

Nevada Builds Evaluation into its Strategic Highway Safety Plan

The Nevada practice is discussed after the following introduction about Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) evaluation.

Other states in this SHSP Evaluation Noteworthy Practices series: ID and WA

Planning for Evaluation Should Begin When the SHSP is Developed

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires States to evaluate their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to ensure the accuracy of their SHSP priorities and proposed strategies. Furthermore, evaluation helps States answer basic questions about the progress of their SHSP such as:

• What are we trying to do?
• How well are we doing it?
• How can we improve?

States that have successfully integrated evaluation into their SHSP process have realized the opportunity it provides to strengthen their SHSP efforts. Benefits include demonstrating the SHSP's contribution to transportation safety; uncovering challenges in prioritizing or implementing programs and strategies; determining progress in meeting SHSP goals and objectives, and; validating emphasis areas and strategies, or revealing the need to revise them.

Following are examples of how States have put evaluation into action.

• Outcome performance measures: how they will measure progress towards their goals and objectives.
• Priority strategies: those evidence-based or promising strategies that have the greatest potential to help them reach the emphasis area goals and objectives.
• Output performance measures: activity measures that help document program implementation.

It is never too early to institute evaluation; in fact, planning for evaluation should begin when the SHSP is developed. During the early stages of SHSP development attention should be given to how progress will be measured and success determined.

Nevada's Practice

SHSP Annual Report Helps Nevada Monitor Performance Measures Progress

In 2012, Nevada's SHSP Critical Emphasis Area (CEA) teams adopted a series of performance measures to track the impact of strategies adopted by each CEA (for their 2012-2016 SHSP), all of which tie to the number of fatalities and serious injuries.

The Nevada SHSP objectives were set as five-year average number of fatalities and serious injuries with 2008 (average of 2004 to 2008) as the baseline year. Nevada compiles their results into an Annual Report. The report shows progress for their performance measures and supporting data. It also summarizes the activities implemented to support the SHSP strategies.

The shaded content is an excerpt from Nevada's January 2013 Annual Report for their Pedestrian critical emphasis area. They document their safety progress towards a reduction in fatalities and serious injuries as well as provide the implementation status of their strategies.

Safety Progress on Pedestrians Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Between 2008 and 2011, pedestrian fatality numbers dropped by 23.2 percent and serious injuries decreased by 29.7 percent (Figure 3). The five year average number of pedestrian fatality and serious injuries both ended up lower than their targets (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Figure 4. Five Year Average Pedestrian Fatalities/Serious Injuries

Contact

Ken Mammen
Chief Traffic Safety Engineer
Nevada Department of Transportation
KMammen@dot.state.nv.us

Louisiana's Bottom Line on SHSP Implementation is Funding Support

Background

Potential stumbling blocks to implementation of Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) include funding for the projects and programs identified by the safety stakeholders and how to institutionalize project selection and funding over the long term. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is using funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to address these challenges while keeping informed of stakeholder roadway safety needs and wants through the overall SHSP structure.

DOTD is using Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds and staff to support regional safety coalitions who identify, develop, and implement behavioral and infrastructure road safety programs and projects. The Louisiana approach relies on a data driven decision making, widespread outreach and partnerships with State, regional, and local agencies and organizations, and a focus on addressing traffic related fatalities and serious injuries at the local level—where they occur.

The Approach - How It Works

Louisiana deploys a two-tier approach to SHSP implementation. Statewide initiatives are managed by the SHSP emphasis area teams while other projects and programs are implemented regionally through nine regional safety coalitions. The State finds regional implementation is an effective way to expand the SHSP focus at the local level. Under the DOTD program, HSIP provides funding for:

• Regional safety coordinators, who establish and manage coalitions and develop regional safety plans reflecting SHSP goals, objectives, and proven effective strategies; and
• Statewide and regional strategies and actions in the SHSP or regional safety plans.

Louisiana SHSP Funding Process

Regional coalitions are funded through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to ensure necessary organizational support and continuity. As part of the agreement, MPOs are required to include safety in their Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), which ensures safety has a place at the table. The effort started with a pilot program in the South Central region (see 2013 Noteworthy Practice) in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Safe Communities model. That program was successful, particularly in achieving reductions in alcohol-related and unrestrained serious injuries, and the approach was adopted and taken statewide.

DOTD recognized the need to select the appropriate people as regional coordinators and enlisted the help of MPO directors and staff to identify potential candidates. The coordinators generally have a marketing/public relations background and a demonstrated ability to work effectively with large groups. Once the coordinators were hired, DOTD conducted a training session and provided information on coalition building, data collection and analysis, meeting facilitation and management, presentation skills, evaluation, and marketing. Regional safety coordinators also participate in monthly conference calls to share ideas and information.

The program is administered by DOTD in coordination with the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (LHSC) and the Louisiana State Police (LSP). Individuals or groups at the State or regional level interested in funding complete an application. Statewide projects are reviewed and approved by the relevant SHSP emphasis area team. Those designed to impact a region are reviewed and approved by the relevant regional team and sent to the appropriate emphasis area team for their consideration. The SHSP Implementation Team approves behavioral safety programs and projects and DOTD approves infrastructure related projects.

Key Accomplishments

• Statewide SHSP emphasis area teams rely on the regional teams as a method for implementing programs and projects. Often ideas are pilot tested in one region and if successful, replicated statewide through the regional system.
• The DOTD Secretary publically supports the effort and recognizes the need for the agency to provide financial and technical assistance for both infrastructure and behavioral safety projects.
• LHSC supports regional safety coalitions through mini-grants for impaired driving and occupant protection programs, and the LSP Superintendent directs the Troop Commands to actively participate in the coalitions.
• Regions use data-driven, multidisciplinary Road Safety Audits (RSAs) as a way to prioritize and implement low-cost engineering solutions at high crash intersections and horizontal curves.
• The training and technical assistance needs for the regional and local stakeholders has led to an enhanced Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) program, and the creation of the Louisiana Center for Transportation Safety (LCTS), which provides support to the regions in the areas of workforce development and research, training, and technical assistance.

Results

• Traffic related fatalities continue to decrease in Louisiana. After a slight increase in 2011, fatalities continued to move in the right direction in 2013 and 2014. Serious injuries have continued a downward trend.
• Since DOTD began contributing HSIP funding for increased enforcement, safety belt use has gone from 77 percent to 84 percent.
• The initial regional pilot project in the South Central Region of the State has achieved a 17 percent decrease in fatalities.

Key Accomplishments and Results

Measured reductions in alcohol-related serious injuries as well as in serious injuries resulting from lack of seatbelt use.

Contact

Dan Magri
Safety Highway Administrator
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
225-379-1200
Dan.Magri@la.gov

Regional Coalitions Build Alabama's SHSP Update from the Ground Up

Background

Fatalities and serious injuries don't happen “statewide;” they happen in communities. Alabama (AL) is taking this notion to heart and using a bottom-up approach to update its Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). This means that rather than starting from a statewide perspective, State safety leaders will get the word straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, starting the 2017 SHSP update with input from regional coalitions who will provide a community perspective. Alabama will develop an overarching, statewide SHSP from the ground up, based on the input of the regional coalitions.

The Approach

Over the next two years, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) will phase in this approach, beginning with four regions that represent diverse geographic and demographic characteristics, as well as highway safety issues experienced in rural, urban, and suburban areas. In addition, new regional coalitions will provide much needed specifics regarding traffic safety in various geographical and socio-economic conditions. This information will provide the AL SHSP Steering Committee with a solid foundation for applying the regional SHSP program to the remaining regions. Each region will be assigned the following tasks:

• Form a regional safety coalition to oversee the development of a regional safety plan (coalition membership will be similar to that required for a statewide SHSP);
• Identify the most serious traffic safety problems in each region using data collection and analysis; and
• Report back to the AL SHSP Steering Committee regarding the best safety countermeasures and programs for each region along with requests for assistance.

ALDOT will assist the first four regional coalitions in a variety of ways—e.g., data analysis, coalition building strategies, meeting planning and facilitation, research on countermeasure effectiveness, etc.—and will use those experiences to develop a user-friendly guidebook to document the type of assistance available and the required procedures for the remaining eight regional coalitions to follow. The guidebook will outline the costs and benefits of regional SHSP implementation including challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned. It will also provide implementation guidance and available resources.

Additional ALDOT Support for Regional Effort and SHSP Initiatives

To provide support for the regional planning effort and to improve traffic safety statewide, ALDOT is undertaking additional safety initiatives, such as:

• Forming a statewide SHSP Steering Committee;
• Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of current and past practices;
• Identifying other transportation and safety plans to ensure the SHSP is coordinated with all State safety planning efforts;
• Implementing data improvements such as converting link-node to GIS and developing an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimation methodology;
• Developing guidance and tools such as a road safety assessment manual, an HSIP management manual, a horizontal curve resigning program, electronic ball bank equipment and training, and an Alabama roundabout guide;
• Determining safety workforce development needs, and communicating those needs to officials at the DOT and other agencies;
• Conducting research to document the benefits of investments in law enforcement and first responder training, enhanced enforcement, high-friction surface treatments, and methods to deter drowsy and fatigued driving;
• Integrating safety and operations activities; and
• Creating a safety forecasting tool (ALSAFE).

Benefit

Regional coalitions will have direct, substantial, and meaningful input into the development of the statewide SHSP strategies and countermeasures, ones that take into account regional conditions and priorities. This approach gives local agencies a greater stake in safety outcomes and increases the likelihood of a successful implementation of the updated SHSP. Further, the experience of the first four regional coalitions will provide real-world examples to the remaining eight regional coalitions as they embark on the development of their regional safety plans.

Contact

Timothy E. Barnett, PE, PTOE
State Safety Operations Engineer
Alabama Department of Transportation
barnettt@dot.state.al.us

Maryland Brings Plans and Programs Under its SHSP Umbrella

Background

Every State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) provides a comprehensive framework for reducing deaths and serious injuries on all public roads. Maryland, which has adopted a vision of Toward Zero Deaths, is an exemplar of using an SHSP as a framework for Statewide safety plans and programs.

An SHSP is an umbrella plan that guides transportation plans and roadway safety investment decisions. Maryland's SHSP seeks to bring Statewide road fatalities down to 475 by 2015, and to half that level by 2030. To reach those goals, the State is bringing the SHSP concept to the local level.

“The SHSP guides our overarching highway safety goals and efforts. Our annual safety plans are where the rubber meets the road,” said Thomas J. Gianni, chief of the Maryland Highway Safety Office.

Approach

The big idea in Maryland is for local plans to align with the SHSP, but with emphasis areas and strategies tailored to match local conditions. The Maryland State Highway Administration is taking the lead and is developing local data packages for counties.

Harford County has already developed a local SHSP and has set the stage for efforts in other counties. Like the state's SHSP, the Harford County SHSP follows a data-driven, multidisciplinary approach the draws from the 4Es of traffic safety—education, emergency medical services, enforcement, and engineering.

The Harford County SHSP provides a framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all Harford County roads, and it establishes goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas that align with the goals and objectives of the Maryland SHSP. The Harford County SHSP encompasses all road users, including bicyclists, drivers, motorcyclists, and pedestrians.

Harford County will join Maryland in adopting the goal of halving traffic fatalities by 2030, which is also the centerpiece of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) national initiative Toward Zero Deaths. Harford County used the same methodology as the State's SHSP to establish benchmarks for progress and will follow interim goals for fatality and injury reductions by 2015.

At the State level, the Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT) did not always use the SHSP as a standard. In prior years, the safety elements in the Maryland DOT's Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan and the Motor Vehicle Association's long range plan were not in line with the SHSP. Now, through a concerted effort elevate the State SHSP in the eyes of the DOT, the SHSP sets the tone and goals for these plans, and the plans refer back to the SHSP.

Other Maryland State agencies have also begun to refer to the SHSP. For example, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Maryland State Police both have agency business plans with highway safety components that align with those in the SHSP.

Results

By integrating the SHSP across the DOT and other State agency efforts, the safety needs of the State can be addressed more strategically and resources can be shared more effectively. Integration encourages State partners to strive toward common goals, collectively implement appropriate strategies and actions, share resources to meet or exceed the State's goals and objectives, and, most importantly, to save lives.

Kansas DOT Administers Funding Exchange to Fund Local Transportation Projects

Background

Local agencies (cities and counties) own and maintain about 92 percent of Kansas' road network. The size and expertise of local agency staff varies among agencies. Smaller agencies may not have the resources or expertise needed to apply for federal funds and administer the process to completion. In 2010, the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Bureau of Local Projects initiated an innovative funding program called the Federal Fund Exchange to help local agencies streamline the process of implementing projects on local roadways, including projects that could improve safety. The program provides local agencies the option to swap their federal funds to KDOT in exchange for State dollars. That option lets local agencies save time and money by avoiding restrictive and cumbersome requirements of the federal aid process.

Description of Practice

Federal transportation funds are made available to KDOT through FHWA. KDOT makes a portion of the funds available to all counties and cities with populations greater than 5,000. The local agency has the option to use their share of the federal funds to develop a federal-aid project in the traditional manner, or it may request to exchange the funds with KDOT. If the latter is chosen, KDOT agrees to accept the federal funds and makes 90 cents of State funds for every dollar of federal funds available to the local agency. The local agency follows local procedures to develop and administer the project, and submits a request for reimbursement to KDOT as costs are incurred. The local agency is reimbursed for 100 percent of the billings until the maximum amount of the exchange is expended. Participating local agencies are required to use the State funds for specific types of road or bridge improvement projects, but have a wider variety of projects and ranges of scope than the federal-aid program would permit. Safety improvements range from signing and pavement marking to roadside obstacles and intersection improvements.

Key Accomplishments

Over the four years the program has operated, KDOT has committed over $84.9 million in exchange dollars across the State to be used on local projects by eligible local governments. As of October 2014, $51.5 million have been reimbursed.

Results

The program allows greater flexibility in selecting local projects. Projects can be completed on non-federal aid routes and bridges do not have to meet Federal eligibility requirements. Local agencies are now better able to meet their highest local needs, and there is much less overall oversight required by KDOT. The program also results in less local-level oversight and paperwork for FHWA.

The program has allowed roadway improvements on county- and city-maintained roads that may not have otherwise been possible due to resource constraints. The majority of the funds have been spent on resurfacing and bridge maintenance or replacement projects. While these projects are not Highway Safety Improvement Program projects, they contribute to an improved and safer travel experience. The program is a potential funding option for local agencies to identify and implement safety improvements as needed without engaging the federal aid process.

Additional Information

• Kansas Department of Transportation Federal Fund Exchange Program Guidelines (November 22, 2010)
• Kansas Federal Fund Exchange Program for Local Agencies Presentation (Presented by Ronald J. Seitz, P.E., Chief of Bureau of Local Projects)
• Up and Running: Update on KDOT’s Federal Fund Exchange, Kansas LTAP article

Publication Year: 2015

Image Description

Graphic that illustrates how KDOT's Federal Fund Exchange works: Federal funds are made available to KDOT through FHWA. KDOT shares a portion of federal funds with cities and counties. KDOT agrees to provide LPA $.90 state funds per $1.00 fed. LPA requests KDOT exchange funds. KDOT reimburses LPA up to maximum amount of total exchange. LPA submits request for reimbursements to KDOT along with appropriate documentation of expenditure. LPA lets/administers project(s) themselves and pays contractor/suppliers.

Evaluating Opportunities Using Predicted Crash Frequency with CMF Adjustment - Missouri Case Study

Summary from Crash Modification Factors in Practice: Using CMFs to Quantify Safety in the Value Engineering Process

(The Missouri case study begins on Page 22 of the full report, after background information about the use of crash modification to quantify safety in the value engineering process.)

Background

The following case study illustrates how the Predicted Crash Frequency with CMF Adjustment method has been used to explicitly consider the safety impacts of opportunities during the Value Engineering (VE) process. Specifically, it focuses on the quantification of safety in the evaluation phase when safety is a project factor and crash frequency is the related performance measure. Information for the case study was provided by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).

MoDOT integrates data-driven decision-making in many of their planning and design practices, including the VE process. While not part of their VE policy, MoDOT encourages the use of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual to better understand the safety implications of design-related decisions.

Project Description

MoDOT Southeast District proposed a roadway improvement project on a rural, two-lane section of Route 34 in Bollinger County, MO. The existing 2.8-mile study section is characterized by a narrow cross-section with several horizontal curves and relatively unforgiving roadside. The proposed project involved resurfacing, lane and shoulder widening, horizontal realignment, installation of centerline rumble strips, and roadside improvements. The project was also listed on the district's VE work plan, which is created by the District Value Engineering Coordinator (DVEC) to identify priority projects for VE study. Suggested selection criteria are provided at the following link to aid the DVEC in selecting projects for the VE work plan: http://epg.modot.org/files/c/c0/130_VE_Project_Selection_Criteria.doc.

Findings

Safety Performance Function (SPFs) can be used to predict crashes for baseline conditions and CMFs can be applied to adjust the baseline estimate to reflect specific conditions of interest. This is useful for quantifying and comparing the safety performance of scenarios with different design features and can aid in the decision-making process. Specifically, this approach can help an agency to better understand the potential safety impacts of individual design elements and changes proposed as part of a VE study when safety is a project factor and crash frequency and/or severity is the performance measure. In this case, Southeast District of MoDOT used the Predicted Crash Frequency with CMF Adjustment in order to quantify the safety impacts of road widening in conjunction with horizontal realignment, centerline rumble strips, and roadside improvements. Two alternative alignments (original proposed design and VE proposed design) were compared to the existing conditions. While the two alternative designs provide nearly identical levels of safety based on total predicted crashes, the VE proposed design would reduce project costs. The use of the Predicted Crash Frequency with CMF Adjustment demonstrated that the proposed improvements could result in a substantial reduction in crashes compared to existing conditions. It also showed that the VE proposed design would provide a similar level of safety to the original proposed design while providing additional benefits. Recall that non-calibrated SPFs may overestimate or underestimate the predicted crash frequency, but provide a reasonable estimate of the percent difference in crashes among alternatives. As such, it is desirable to use a calibrated SPF if it is necessary to estimate the change in predicted crash frequency or conduct a formal economic analysis.

Contact

Karen Scurry
FHWA Office
609-637-4207
Karen.Scurry@dot.gov

Publication Year: 2013

View more information about CMFs on the web at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/.
Additional practices in the CMFs in Practice Series:

• Quantifying Safety in the Roadway Safety Management Process - Virginia Case Study
• Quantifying Safety in the Roadway Safety Audit Process - Michigan Case Study
• Quantifying Safety in the Development and Analysis of Alternatives - Arizona and Colorado Case Study
• Using CMFs to Quantify the Safety Performance of Design Decisions and Exceptions - California and Missouri