Highway Safety
Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges Gao ID: GAO-04-663 May 28, 2004Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United States. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities and over 2.9 million injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads (roads in areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for over 60 percent of the deaths nationwide, or about 70 deaths each day. Further, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was over twice the urban fatality rate. GAO identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation's rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making improvements in rural road safety. GAO obtained information from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and other organizations with knowledge of these issues. In addition, GAO analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from Department of Transportation databases and visited five states that account for about 20 percent of the nation's rural road mileage. GAO also contacted academic experts and examined legislative proposals for improving rural road safety. We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment. In discussing this report, agency officials noted that safety should be part of every project designed and built with federal-aid highway funds.
Four primary factors contribute to rural road fatalities--human behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the care victims receive after a crash. Human behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the driver and passengers. Human behaviors are important because almost 70 percent of the unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities between 2000 and 2002 occurred in rural crashes. Additionally, the majority of alcohol- and speeding-related fatalities occurred on rural roads. Roadway characteristics that contribute to rural crashes include narrow lanes, sharp curves, trees, and animals. Vehicle factors include problems that arise due to the design of vehicles and are important for both urban and rural roads. Care of crash victims also contributes to rural fatalities because of the additional time needed to provide medical attention and the quality of rural trauma care. In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided about $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds to states. While many projects using these funds have safety features, the amount used for safety is not tracked. However, about $648 million of these funds went to the Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings Programs and were specifically provided for safety purposes--about $330 million of which went to improve rural road safety. NHTSA provided about $671 million to states for activities that influence both rural and urban drivers' behavior in such areas as safety belt use, drunk driving, or speeding. States are ultimately responsible for selecting the projects to support with federal funding. The five states we visited used a portion of the funding received for rural road safety. Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety--for example, not all states have adopted safety belt and drunk driving laws that might curb behavior contributing to rural road fatalities. In addition, states are limited in using federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads, and most rural roads are the responsibility of local governments that may lack the resources to undertake costly projects to improve road safety. Further, some states lack adequate crash data to support planning and evaluation of safety projects. Lastly, the nature of rural areas makes it difficult to provide adequate emergency medical care.
GAO-04-663, Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-663
entitled 'Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural
Road Safety Challenges' which was released on May 28, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
May 2004:
HIGHWAY SAFETY:
Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-663]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-663, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United
States. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities and over 2.9 million
injuries on the nation‘s highways. Crashes on rural roads (roads in
areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for over 60 percent
of the deaths nationwide, or about 70 deaths each day. Further, the
rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was over
twice the urban fatality rate.
GAO identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road fatalities,
(2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation‘s rural
roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making improvements in
rural road safety. GAO obtained information from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and other organizations with knowledge of these
issues. In addition, GAO analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from
Department of Transportation databases and visited five states that
account for about 20 percent of the nation‘s rural road mileage. GAO
also contacted academic experts and examined legislative proposals for
improving rural road safety. We provided copies of a draft of this
report to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment.
In discussing this report, agency officials noted that safety should be
part of every project designed and built with federal-aid highway
funds.
What GAO Found:
Four primary factors contribute to rural road fatalities”human
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the care victims receive
after a crash. Human behavior involves the actions taken by or the
condition of the driver and passengers. Human behaviors are important
because almost 70 percent of the unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities
between 2000 and 2002 occurred in rural crashes. Additionally, the
majority of alcohol- and speeding-related fatalities occurred on rural
roads. Roadway characteristics that contribute to rural crashes include
narrow lanes, sharp curves, trees, and animals. Vehicle factors include
problems that arise due to the design of vehicles and are important for
both urban and rural roads. Care of crash victims also contributes to
rural fatalities because of the additional time needed to provide
medical attention and the quality of rural trauma care.
Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided about $27.4 billion in federal-aid
highway funds to states. While many projects using these funds have
safety features, the amount used for safety is not tracked. However,
about $648 million of these funds went to the Hazard Elimination and
Rail-Highway Crossings Programs and were specifically provided for
safety purposes”about $330 million of which went to improve rural road
safety. NHTSA provided about $671 million to states for activities that
influence both rural and urban drivers‘ behavior in such areas as
safety belt use, drunk driving, or speeding. States are ultimately
responsible for selecting the projects to support with federal funding.
The five states we visited used a portion of the funding received for
rural road safety.
Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety”for
example, not all states have adopted safety belt and drunk driving laws
that might curb behavior contributing to rural road fatalities. In
addition, states are limited in using federal-aid highway funds for
certain rural roads, and most rural roads are the responsibility of
local governments that may lack the resources to undertake costly
projects to improve road safety. Further, some states lack adequate
crash data to support planning and evaluation of safety projects.
Lastly, the nature of rural areas makes it difficult to provide
adequate emergency medical care.
What GAO Recommends:
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-663.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities:
Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural
Roads:
Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road
Safety:
Appendix III: Low-Cost Safety Improvements:
Tables:
Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by Road Type, Fiscal Year
2002:
Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements:
Figures:
Figure 1: Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States, 2002:
Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional Classification,
2002:
Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002:
Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles Traveled
for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002:
Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs under TEA-21:
Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to
States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003:
Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State Jurisdiction,
2002:
Abbreviations:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
BAC: blood alcohol concentration:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EMS: emergency medical services:
FARS: Fatality Analysis Reporting System:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
SAFETEA: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2004:
SUV: sport utility vehicle:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
TEA-LU: Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
Letter May 28, 2004:
The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury, and Independent Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Richard Shelby:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United
States. In 2002 alone, there were 42,815 fatalities and more than 2.9
million injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads
(roadways in areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for
over 60 percent of these fatalities--25,849 deaths, or about 70 each
day. Further, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural
roads was more than twice the urban fatality rate. The magnitude of
rural road mileage and the widespread dispersal of crashes makes
preventing and responding to rural road crashes difficult. The federal
government provides funds for states to use in addressing highway
safety problems. These include construction and safety project funds
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to eliminate
roadway hazards and improve rail-highway crossings and grants
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to encourage safe driving.
The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this
requirement, we identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the
nation's rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making
improvements in rural road safety. To identify the factors contributing
to rural road fatalities, we used an earlier GAO report, Highway
Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to
Motor Vehicle Crashes (GAO 03-436, March 2003) and supplemented it by
obtaining information from FHWA, NHTSA, and other organizations
familiar with this issue. In addition, we analyzed fatal crash data on
rural roads from Department of Transportation (DOT) databases. We
assessed the reliability of these databases and determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To
identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we
interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in FHWA and NHTSA
and visited five states that, in total, accounted for about 20 percent
of the nation's rural road mileage. To identify challenges that may
hinder making improvements in rural road safety, in addition to
interviewing the above officials, we contacted experts from academia
and from advocacy groups and reviewed various legislative proposals
that may help address the issues. For each of the selected studies that
are used in this report, we determined whether the study's findings
were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated the methodological
soundness of the studies using common social science and statistical
practices. We performed our review in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides more
details on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities: human
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the medical care victims
receive after a crash. Human behaviors are the actions taken by or the
condition of drivers and passengers, including the use or nonuse of
safety belts, alcohol impairment, and speeding. Human behaviors are
important to rural safety because, according to NHTSA data for 2000
through 2002, rural crashes accounted for about 68 percent of
unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities, about 63 percent of all alcohol-
related fatalities, and 62 percent of speeding-related fatalities. In
addition, over 80 percent of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour
or higher occurred in rural areas in 2001. Roadway environment
characteristics that contribute to crashes and fatalities include the
design of the roadway and roadway conditions: narrow lanes, sharp
curves, lack of medians, small or non-existent shoulders, trees,
utility poles, and animals. Such factors are important in rural
crashes--more than 70 percent of the nation's fatalities from single-
vehicle run-off-the-road crashes occur on rural roads. Vehicle factors
include any vehicle-related failures that may exist in the vehicle or
the design of the vehicle and are important in both rural and urban
crashes. For example, when heavy sport utility vehicles or pickup
trucks collide with small compact cars, the occupants in the lighter
and lower vehicle are more likely to die as a result of the crash,
particularly if struck in the side. Finally, the lack of prompt and
effective emergency medical services contributes to rural road
fatalities. For example, NHTSA data for 2002 show that for 30 percent
of the fatal crashes on rural highways, victims did not reach a
hospital within 1 hour of the crash,while only 8 percent of victims in
fatal urban crashes did not reach a hospital within 1 hour.
Federal and state agencies' efforts to improve rural road safety are
generally included within programs that address broader aspects of
highway construction or highway safety. For example, in fiscal year
2003, FHWA provided the states and the District of Columbia
approximately $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds, most of which
can be used to construct new highways or to maintain or improve
existing highways. While many of these highway improvement projects may
include safety features that affect rural roads, the safety features
are not specifically segregated for reporting purposes. Within the
overall federal-aid highway funding for states, about $648 million was
specifically identified for safety purposes--about $330 million of
which went to rural road safety for highway Hazard Elimination or Rail-
Highway Crossing Programs. These programs enable states to address
safety concerns on all rural roads through construction improvements.
In addition, in fiscal year 2003, FHWA budgeted about $10.9 million for
research into safety advancements and provided oversight and assistance
to states that benefits both urban and rural roads. In fiscal year
2003, NHTSA provided states with about $671 million for use in programs
designed to reduce both rural and urban crashes caused by human
behaviors. The five states we visited used a portion of the federal
funding they received to support rural road safety improvements.
However, the states did not track all funds used by rural and urban
categories so the total amount spent on rural road safety is unknown.
Most state officials we spoke with supported the current flexibility
they have to use the funds provided in areas they determine are the
most important and did not favor having a separate rural road program
or initiative.
Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For
instance, not all states have adopted safety belt and alcohol laws that
meet federal standards. For example, 30 states have not enacted primary
safety belt laws, which allow police officers to pull over and cite
motorists exclusively for the infraction of not using their safety
belts, and 23 have not enacted alcohol laws that meet federal
requirements relating to penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders
and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in vehicles. In addition,
the sheer volume of rural roads and the low volume of traffic on some
of them, combined with the high cost of major construction
improvements, make it difficult to rebuild rural roads with safer
designs. Furthermore, while states can use federal safety funds for any
public road, they are limited in using their federal construction funds
on certain rural roads--particularly two-lane rural roadways that
provide access to farms, rural residences, and other rural areas.
Efforts to improve rural road safety are further complicated because
most rural roads are not owned by states but rather are the
responsibilities of municipal, county, or township governments. These
local governments may not have resources available to undertake
significant projects to increase rural road safety. Further, some
states lack information upon which to make informed decisions on
potential road safety solutions, regardless of whether the road is
rural or urban. In addition, the ability to reduce rural road
fatalities is hampered by difficulties in providing prompt medical
services in rural settings. For example, rural areas are less likely to
have 911 emergency dialing and it may take longer to reach a hospital.
Legislation has been introduced in the Congress as it considers the
reauthorization of Transportation Equity Act of the 21ST Century, which
would address some of the factors that contribute to rural fatalities
or that make it difficult to improve rural road safety. Some of the
proposals include provisions for providing incentives for enacting
stronger state traffic safety laws; funding for high-risk rural roads,
state safety data systems, new safety research, and emergency medical
services; and additional flexibility in states' use of some federal
funds.
We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally
agreed with the report's content. In discussing this report, agency
officials noted that safety should be part of every project designed
and built with federal-aid funds. In addition, the department provided
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
There are more than 3.9 million miles of roadway in the United States,
of which about 3.1 million miles, or about 77 percent, are considered
rural roads.[Footnote 1] Rural roads are defined as those roads that
are located in or near areas where the population is less than
5,000.[Footnote 2] As figure 1 shows, rural roadways make up more than
half of the road miles in 44 states.
Figure 1: Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Rural roads can be further divided into six functional classifications-
-interstates, other principal arterials, minor arterials, major
collectors, minor collectors, and local roads. Interstates and
arterials allow the highest traffic speeds and often have multiple
lanes and a degree of access control. Collector roads are designed for
lower speeds and shorter trips and generally link areas to arterial
roads and interstates. They are typically two-lane roads that extend
into residential neighborhoods. Local roads are any roads below the
collector system and may be paved or unpaved roadways that provide
access to farms, residences, and other rural property. As shown in
figure 2, local roads make up the majority of the nation's rural roads.
Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional Classification,
2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Rural roads have more fatalities and a greater rate of fatalities than
urban roads, when considering vehicle miles traveled.[Footnote 3] In
2002, of the 42,815 fatalities on the nation's roadways, 25,849 (60
percent) were on rural roads. Based on miles traveled, the overall
fatality rate from traffic crashes on rural roads was about 2.29
fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled, while urban fatality
rates were about .97 fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled.
Fatalities occurred at higher rates on rural roads that have lower
roadway functional classifications. As shown in figure 3, during 2002,
rural local roads had the highest fatality rates at 3.63 per 100
million miles traveled, while rural interstates had fatality rates of
1.18. In an urban setting, the lowest rates are for urban interstates-
-.60 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled--about one-sixth the
level of rural local roads.
Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In the past two decades, the total number of fatalities on the nation's
roadways fell from 43,945 in 1982 to 42,815 in 2002. However, during
this period, fatalities on rural roadways rose slightly from 25,005 in
1982 to 25,849 in 2002. As shown in figure 4, during the period from
1982 to 2002, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
on rural roads declined about 37 percent. During the same period, the
fatality rate on urban roads declined about 54 percent.[Footnote 4]
Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles Traveled
for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
FHWA and NHTSA are two agencies within the U.S. Department of
Transportation responsible for road safety. FHWA's mission is to
provide financial and technical support to state, local, and tribal
governments for constructing, improving, and preserving the highway
system. As part of this mission, FHWA seeks to reduce highway
fatalities and injuries through research and by implementing technology
innovations. In addition, its Office of Safety develops and implements
strategies and programs to reduce the number and severity of highway
crashes involving both motorized and nonmotorized travelers on the
nation's highways, streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and at
intermodal connections. NHTSA's mission is to reduce deaths, injuries,
and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The agency
sets and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment and provides grants to state and local
governments. NHTSA, among other things, also investigates safety
defects in motor vehicles, helps states and local communities reduce
the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety belts and child
safety seats, and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety
topics. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST:
Century (TEA-21),[Footnote 5] NHTSA provided the states with about $2.7
billion for efforts to improve driver behaviors and safety data from
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003.
Other organizations such as the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Governors Highway Safety
Association also play important roles in highway safety. As an
organization representing state transportation departments, AASHTO
provides engineers with guidance on how to design safe and efficient
roads through a publication referred to as the Green Book.[Footnote 6]
In addition, AASHTO recently published a special guide on alternative
designs for very low-volume roads.[Footnote 7] Furthermore, in 1997
AASHTO also focused attention on improving roadway safety by developing
a Strategic Highway Safety Plan that identified 22 key or emerging
highway safety emphasis areas. Topics included (1) aggressive and
speeding drivers, (2) keeping vehicles on the roadway and minimizing
the consequences of leaving the roadway, and (3) supporting better
state coordination and planning for behavioral and construction
programs. For each of these areas, publications are being developed
under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that address
the issues and potential countermeasures.[Footnote 8] Another
organization that plays a major role in highway safety is the Governors
Highway Safety Association, which represents the highway safety
programs of states and territories on the human behavioral aspects of
highway safety. Areas of focus include occupant protection, impaired
driving, and speed enforcement, as well as motorcycle, school bus,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and traffic records.
Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities:
One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities--human
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the degree of care for
victims after a crash.[Footnote 9] Human behavioral factors involve
actions taken by or the condition of the driver and passenger of the
automobile, including the use or nonuse of safety belts, the effects of
alcohol or drugs, speeding and other traffic violations, and being
distracted or drowsy when driving. Roadway environment factors that
contribute to rural road fatalities include the design of the roadway
(e.g., medians, lane width, shoulders, curves, access points, lighting,
or intersections); roadside hazards (e.g., utility poles, trees, and
animals adjacent to the road); and roadway conditions (e.g., rain, ice,
snow, or fog). Vehicle factors include vehicle-related failures and
vehicle design issues that contribute to a crash and are important in
both rural and urban crashes. Lastly, victim care includes the quality
of the emergency response and the hospitals that provide medical
treatment for those involved in a crash.
Several Human Behaviors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities:
Several human behaviors contribute to rural road fatalities, including
nonuse of safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving, speeding, and being
distracted or drowsy when driving. In general, human factors are
considered the most prevalent in contributing to crashes.
* Not using safety belts contributes to fatalities in rural crashes.
For example, of the approximately 53,000 unrestrained (unbelted)
vehicle occupant fatalities that occurred from 2000 through 2002, about
36,000 or 68 percent occurred in rural areas. NHTSA research on safety
belt use in rural areas shows that rural areas are essentially similar
to urban areas in safety belt use rates. In 2002, NHTSA data showed
about 73 percent belt use in rural areas and 72 percent in urban
areas.[Footnote 10]
* Alcohol-impaired driving contributed to 27,775 rural road fatalities
from 2000 through 2002--about 63 percent of the 44,403 alcohol-related
fatalities nationwide. While, according to NHTSA data, there is little
difference between blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of rural and
urban drivers involved in fatal crashes, state officials told us that
risks from drinking and driving in rural areas are increased because of
longer driving distances and the lack of public transportation options
available to intoxicated drivers.
* From 2000 through 2002, about 62 percent of the nation's speeding
related fatalities were on rural roads, amounting to about 24,000 of
the 39,000 fatalities where speed was a contributing factor, according
to NHTSA data. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
officials, speed influences crashes by increasing the distance traveled
from when a driver detects an emergency until the driver reacts;
increasing the distance needed to stop; increasing the severity of an
accident (i.e., when speed increases from 40 to 60 miles per hour, the
energy released in a crash more than doubles); and reducing the ability
of the vehicles, restraint systems, and roadside hardware, such as
guardrails and barriers, to protect occupants.
* Drivers who are distracted or drowsy also contribute to rural
crashes. For example, a 2002 NHTSA national survey found that drivers
involved in a distracted-related crash attribute their distraction to
such items as looking for something outside the car (23 percent of
drivers in a distracted-related crash), dealing with children or other
passengers (19 percent), looking for something inside the car (14
percent), or another driver (11 percent).[Footnote 11] A Virginia
Commonwealth University pilot study of distracted drivers found that
for rural drivers in the study, crashes often involved driver fatigue,
insects striking the windshield or entering the vehicle, and animals
and unrestrained pet distractions.[Footnote 12] The study found that in
urban areas distracted driving crashes often involved drivers looking
at other crashes, traffic, or vehicles, or using cell phones.
Roadway Environment Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities:
Roadway factors also contribute to rural road fatalities. Rural roads
can be narrow; have limited sight distance due to hills and curves;
have small or nonexistent shoulders; have no medians; and may have
hazards or objects near the roadway such as trees, utility poles, or
animals. As a result of these features, fatal crashes on two-lane rural
roads are significant. For example, FHWA reports that over 70 percent
of single-vehicle run-off-the-road fatalities occur on rural roadways
and that about 90 percent of these were on two-lane rural roads.
Similarly, crashes involving vehicles crossing the centerline and
either sideswiping or striking the front end of oncoming vehicles are a
major problem in rural areas, accounting for about 20 percent of all
fatal crashes on rural two-lane roads.[Footnote 13] In addition,
crashes with animals--specifically larger animals such as deer and elk-
--are also prevalent in rural areas. For example, according to the
Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, there were more than
130,000 deer-vehicle crashes reported in five states in 2000.[Footnote
14] In addition, a Highway Safety Information System report examined
five states' experiences with motor vehicle collisions involving
animals and found that from 1985 through 1990, 74 percent to 94 percent
of reported crashes involving animals occurred on rural roads.[Footnote
15] The report also found that collisions involving animals ranged from
about 12 percent to 35 percent of all reported crashes on two-lane
rural roads. Rural roadway conditions can also contribute to rural
crashes and resulting fatalities. Surface conditions that can impair a
driver's ability to control the vehicle include snow, ice, standing
water, and oil, in addition to such road surface features as potholes,
ruts, and pavement edge drop-offs. Lack of lighting also contributes to
rural road fatalities. For example, a study performed for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation found that the installation of street
lighting at isolated rural intersections reduced both nighttime crash
frequency (25 percent to 40 percent) and crash severity (8 percent to
26 percent).[Footnote 16]
Vehicle Design Contributes to Rural Road Fatalities:
The design of the vehicle can contribute to rural road fatalities. The
wide variances in vehicle sizes and weights, as well as vehicle
configurations, sometimes result in greater damage and injury to
smaller vehicles and their occupants if a collision occurs. For
example, when heavy sport utility vehicles (SUV) or pickup trucks
collide with smaller cars, the occupants in the lighter and lower
vehicles are more likely to die as a result of the crash, particularly
if struck in the side. Vehicle design has been shown to affect vehicle
handling in particular types of maneuvers. In rural settings this is
important because the roads may be narrow and have sharp curves. The
design of the vehicle in these types of crashes can make a difference
in whether a run-off-the-road vehicle rolls over, one of the most
serious types of crashes. Almost three-fourths of fatal rollover
crashes occur in rural areas, according to a 2002 NHTSA study.[Footnote
17] In 2002, rollover crashes killed 10,666 occupants in passenger
cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. A study by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety that examined single-vehicle rollover crashes
concluded that the combined rollover crash rate for pickup trucks and
SUVs was more than twice the rate for passenger cars.[Footnote 18] In
addition, a NHTSA study found that in 2002, nearly two-thirds of the
3,995 SUV occupant fatalities occurred in rollover crashes.
Lack of Effective and Available Emergency Medical Services Contribute
to Rural Road Fatalities:
Lack of effective and available emergency medical services (EMS) also
contribute to rural road fatalities. For example, victims did not reach
a hospital within an hour of the crash in about 30 percent of the fatal
crashes on rural roads, according to NHTSA data for 2002. This compares
with 8 percent of the fatal crashes on urban highways where victims did
not reach a hospital within an hour. In addition, the Emergency Medical
Services Division Chief at NHTSA told us that providing adequate
medical care in rural areas is more challenging due, in part, to the
lack of trauma services. A 2001 GAO report found that rural areas are
more likely to rely on volunteers rather than paid staff, and these
volunteers may have fewer opportunities to maintain skills or upgrade
their skills with training.[Footnote 19] According to an opinion survey
of state EMS directors in 2000, rural areas received significantly less
coverage by emergency medical technicians, paramedics, enhanced 911
services, and emergency dispatchers.[Footnote 20] Finally, a 1995
Montana study concluded that the absence of an organized trauma care
system contributed to preventable deaths from mechanical trauma,
including motor vehicle crashes.[Footnote 21]
Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural
Roads:
Each year FHWA and NHTSA provide billions of dollars to states to
improve roadways and eliminate roadway hazards, as well as to improve
driver behavior. In addition to funding, FHWA and NHTSA provide
technical guidance and support for state safety programs and conduct
research on roadway safety. Neither agency has specific rural road
safety programs, but efforts to improve rural road safety are generally
included within programs that address broader aspects of highway
construction or highway safety. The states are ultimately responsible
for deciding on the use of the funding provided. The five states we
contacted funded projects that improved rural road safety. However, not
all the states could identify all funds used for rural road safety
because the data were not collected nor maintained in that manner.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine the relative emphasis that
states place on rural road safety and whether the emphasis has changed
over time.
Funding Is Provided to States to Eliminate Roadway Hazards and Improve
Driving Behavior but Portion Used for Rural Safety Is Unknown:
FHWA and NHTSA provide the states funding to support a variety of
programs, part of which was used to improve rural road safety. In
fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided states and the District of Columbia
with about $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds. Under TEA-21,
from fiscal year 1998 though fiscal year 2003, federal-aid highway
funding totaled about $167 billion. States use these funds to, among
other things, construct new roadways; maintain the interstate highway
system through resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, or
reconstructing activities; and replace or rehabilitate highway bridges.
While many of these highway improvement projects may include safety
features that affect rural roads, the safety features are not
specifically segregated for reporting purposes. For example, expanding
a stretch of roadway to ease congestion could have an added impact of
improving safety but could be reported as reconstruction or
rehabilitation, depending on the actual project. In addition,
construction projects may include items that can improve or upgrade
safety features such as installing new guardrails or impact barriers
but may not be identified or accounted for as a safety improvement.
However, the federal-aid highway funds include two specific safety
programs--Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings--that can be
used for rural road safety improvements. In addition, NHTSA also
provided states with funds under TEA-21 to address driver behaviors.
As shown in figure 5, under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2003, FHWA and NHTSA provided states about $6.7 billion
specifically to improve roadway safety and improve driver behavior.
Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs under TEA-
21:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
From fiscal year 1998 through 2003, under TEA-21, FHWA provided about
$4 billion to states specifically for highway safety construction under
two programs--Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs.
Highway safety projects built with these funds include construction
projects to eliminate highway design hazards, such as narrow lanes or
sharp curves; improve intersections; or improve rail-highway grade
crossings. Under these programs, states can spend funds to address
safety construction issues on any public state or local roadway.
Nationwide, about $1.4 billion, or 49 percent, of the funds spent by
states were used for rural purposes. For fiscal year 2003, about $648
million went to the states for hazard elimination and highway-rail
crossings programs--about $330 million of which went to improve rural
road safety.
Under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, NHTSA
provided about $2.7 billion to states and the District of Columbia for
programs addressing driving behavior through formula grants, incentive
grants, and penalty transfer funds.[Footnote 22] (See fig. 6.) Under
the formula grants program, about $859 million was provided to the
states to carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence
drivers' behavior in such areas as safety belt use, alcohol-impaired
driving, regional traffic safety initiatives, traffic records and
safety data collection systems, and pedestrian safety. Incentive grants
of about $1.2 billion under TEA-21 were provided to states for
achieving improvements in safety belt use, reducing drunk driving, and
improving highway safety data. Penalty transfer of funds was required
under TEA-21 for states that did not adopt specific laws prohibiting
open alcohol containers in passenger compartments or setting minimum
penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. Under these requirements,
states that are currently subject to either penalty must transfer 3
percent of their federal-aid highway construction funds to the NHTSA
programs. The transferred funds can be used to support behavioral
programs to limit drunk driving or can be spent on highway hazard
elimination projects. In fiscal year 2004, 23 states were subject to
one or both penalty transfer programs. From fiscal year 2001, when the
penalties began, through fiscal year 2003, about $637 million has been
transferred under this program. NHTSA does not collect information on
the funds used for rural roads because it is difficult to distinguish
between urban and rural benefits of many efforts, such as drunk driving
television or radio spots or billboard ads.
Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to
States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
FHWA and NHTSA Provide Technical Guidance and Support for State Safety
Programs that Include Rural Road Projects:
FHWA provides safety training and technical assistance to state and
local governments, some of which pertains to rural road safety. For
example, FHWA's National Highway Institute offers training for state
transportation department staffs. Some training focuses on rural road
safety issues, such as the 3-day course entitled "Safety and
Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features on Two-Lane Rural
Highways," which addresses the safety impacts of highway features like
lane and shoulder width, curves, and intersection designs. FHWA also
offers training and technical assistance to states and others through
its Resource Center offices in Baltimore, Chicago (Olympia Fields),
Atlanta, and San Francisco. For example, in 2003, the Safety and Design
National Technical Service Team from the Chicago center conducted 23
different workshops, some of them multiple times, for state and local
officials. An example of a Resource Center activity that pertained to
rural roads was a 1-day workshop on low-cost safety improvements. The
workshop addressed more than 40 improvement measures and how they might
reduce crashes.
FHWA also offers training to local communities through its Local
Technical Assistance Program. Under this program, FHWA established a
center in every state to provide technical assistance to local highway
program managers. In addition, seven centers have been established to
provide technical assistance for tribal governments. The centers
provide training courses, outreach visits, newsletters, and technical
resources to local highway managers. Program officials said they have a
constant demand for a number of safety-related courses. Examples of
course topics include road safety fundamentals, road safety audits,
data collection, safety management systems, and construction zone
flagger training. In addition, FHWA, along with the Federal Transit
Administration, has funded a Safety Conscious Planning training course
offered to state DOT officials and others that helps them integrate
safety as a key planning factor. Lastly, FHWA provides guidance to
states by issuing standards for traffic signs and signals in a
publication called the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The
manual sets minimum standards for topics like traffic sign size,
placement, support, and nighttime visibility. In 2000, FHWA revised the
manual and included a new section called "Traffic Control Devices for
Low-Volume Roads.":
NHTSA provides technical assistance to state traffic safety programs
through its 10 regional offices. This assistance does not have a focus
on rural road safety but rather is intended to help states identify
their most important traffic safety problems, establish goals and
performance measures, and review annual safety plans and reports. NHTSA
regional offices provide training programs for state safety officials
and encourage them to participate in national programs like the "Click
It or Ticket" safety belt campaign.[Footnote 23] NHTSA staff from the
regional offices and headquarters also provide technical assistance to
rural and other areas of the states by participating in or supporting
state assessments and forums on safety topics like safety belt use,
impaired driving, or data improvements. For example, NHTSA's Region III
provided local governments in their five states and the District of
Columbia with a communication kit for conducting a sobriety checkpoint
campaign. It included background information on drinking and driving,
suggestions for core messages that the localities could share with news
organizations, sample news releases for increasing public awareness of
drunk driving and the checkpoint campaign, and suggestions for
preparing op-ed articles in local newspapers. In addition, NHTSA
published "Partners for Rural Traffic Safety Action Kit" in 2001, in
conjunction with the National Rural Health Association. This action kit
is based on the experience of 15 rural community demonstration sites
that conducted 30-day campaigns to increase safety belt use. The
association developed, tested, and revised a step-by-step guide based
on a community development process model and created the Action Kit,
which is available online and through NHTSA's resource center.
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Congress also provided NHTSA $3
million to support state efforts to increase safety belt use in
minority, teen, and rural populations. Two initiatives to address rural
populations are under way. One involves a 3-year demonstration program
that tests community-based infrastructure development and delivery
systems to increase rural safety belt use. Demonstration projects are
being conducted in Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The
second is a 2-year program designed to demonstrate the impact of
various strategies to increase safety belt use in pickup truck
occupants, with concentrated activities in rural areas. This
demonstration program includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas and Indian Nations.
NHTSA has also been involved with the "First There, First Care" program
to increase bystander care for the injured. NHTSA, the Department of
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services
Administration, and the American Trauma Society developed this program
to give motorists information, training, and confidence to provide
basic lifesaving care at the scene of a crash, increasing the chances
of survival for crash victims. Distribution of the program and its
material to states and others has focused on rural implementation.
FHWA and NHTSA Conduct Research That Includes Rural Road Safety Issues:
In 2003, FHWA budgeted $10.9 million, or about 12 percent of its
research budget, for highway safety research and technology. This
research addressed four key safety topics: run-off-the-road crashes,
intersection crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and speed
management. From a rural roadway perspective, research on run-off-the-
road and speed-related crashes is particularly relevant. Over 70
percent of single-vehicle run-off-the-road fatalities occurred on rural
roadways, and, according to a NHTSA official, in 2001 over 80 percent
of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour or higher occurred in
rural areas. Many safety research efforts apply to both rural and urban
roads, but FHWA's work on the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
specifically addressed two-lane rural roads. This computer model
provides a means of measuring the safety and operational impacts of
various design decisions that might be used in stretches of two-lane
roadway. It is anticipated that state and local highway planners and
designers will use the model to help them evaluate various construction
and improvement options.
FHWA also provides funding for highway research by others. For example,
under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, FHWA
provided states $3.1 billion for Statewide Planning and Research. Under
this program, TEA-21 required that the states use at least 25 percent
of these funds, or $769 million, for transportation research, which
includes conducting research on improving highway safety. Two of the
states we visited provided examples of such research. For example,
Texas sponsored research into crashes on low-volume rural two-lane
highways and potential alternatives to avoid them, and Minnesota
sponsored research on driver response to rumble strips and innovative
research to address lane departures and intersection collisions, both
safety issues on the state's rural roads.[Footnote 24] FHWA has also
provided funding through the states for the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, conducted by the National Research Council,
which has been working on a safety design model for multilane rural
roads and a Highway Safety Manual that would provide commonly accepted
safety guidance on rural and urban highway design.
NHTSA conducts research that addresses both driver behavioral and
vehicle safety issues. NHTSA's behavioral highway safety research
program had a 2003 budget of $7.4 million. It focused on areas such as
impaired driving, occupant protection, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motorcycle riders. According to NHTSA officials, their research
generally addresses safety problem areas rather than rural or urban
localities, but the results may be applicable to both rural and urban
areas. Furthermore, in 2003, NHTSA's vehicle safety research program
received $69 million to, among other things, collect and analyze crash
data. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) tracks fatality
data at a cost of about $5.7 million per year, and the General
Estimates System provides descriptive statistics about traffic crashes
of all severities at a cost of up to $3 million per year, according to
NHTSA officials.
States Are Responsible for Identifying and Implementing Improvements to
Rural Road Safety:
While DOT provides states with funding, research, oversight, and
guidance, ultimately states are responsible for identifying and
addressing their roadway safety problems. The five states we visited
had plans and initiatives that addressed what they determined to be
their most important safety problems on all roadways, including rural
roads. State efforts to improve rural road safety include eliminating
rural roadway hazards through construction projects to widen lanes and
shoulders and through lower-cost approaches, such as adding shoulder
and centerline rumble strips, expanding clear zones along the roadways,
installing intersection beacon lights, and improving signage and road
markings. In addition, each state had programs that attempted to alter
driver behavior through such efforts as increasing enforcement of
traffic laws and conducting community awareness campaigns that include
the use of paid advertising on television and radio. Two states also
increased enforcement by conducting sobriety checkpoints. All but one
of the states could not provide details on all the funds used to
address rural road safety because data were not collected and
maintained in that way. Most state officials we spoke with supported
the current flexibility they have to use the funds provided in areas
they determine are the most important and did not favor having a
separate rural road program or initiative. One official in Pennsylvania
told us that having a separate rural road program would help bring
needed attention to rural road safety.
The following are examples of rural-related projects supported in the
five states we visited. Appendix II has additional information on the
funding received by these states and the activities they support.
* California--The California Highway Patrol is leading a task force
that is examining the safety of all state corridors based on fatality
and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk corridors in
the state, of which 16 were two-lane roads with a majority of the
corridors in rural areas. The task force is responsible for making both
infrastructure and behavioral improvement recommendations to address
the safety issue with these high-risk corridors. In addition,
California is supporting a Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads
Project. For this effort, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from
the California Office of Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county
roads by increasing enforcement of traffic violations that often lead
to collisions: speeding, right-of-way violations, failing to drive on
the right half of the road, improper turning, and driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. California also uses sobriety
checkpoints to discourage drinking and driving.
* Georgia--Using FHWA hazard elimination funding, the state has
undertaken several roadway improvement programs that address aspects of
rural road safety. For example, Georgia identified four problem areas
that it focused on in 2003--run-off-the-road crashes, intersection
crashes, car-train crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia official said
that the run-off-the-road and animal crashes were particularly
prevalent in rural settings. A Georgia official said that the state is
adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline reflectors to help reduce
the run-off-the-road crashes, and, to reduce animal crashes, the state
is expanding the recovery zone beyond the clear zone along some roads,
culling deer herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn
drivers of deer presence.
* Minnesota--State traffic safety officials have implemented several
construction and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety.
The "Towards Zero Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing
collaborative program among the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Public Safety, State Patrol, and local safe community organizations to
provide grants to localities that work with safety officials to develop
a plan to reduce traffic fatalities. In addition, the state Department
of Transportation completed a statewide audit of intersections and
corridors in 2003. The audit identified and ranked the top 200
intersections and 150 corridors with the highest crash costs. Rural
areas accounted for 54 of the intersections and 53 of the corridors.
The Department of Transportation's goal is to address 40 of these high
crash cost intersections and corridors for safety improvements each
year in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Further, the
Department of Transportation has made extensive use of shoulder rumble
strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips on two-lane
roadways.
* Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania has installed 300 miles of centerline
rumble strips on rural roadways in an effort to help warn drivers that
they have strayed from their lane. State transportation officials
estimated that rumble strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road
crashes by 25 percent. In addition, Pennsylvania implemented a
Tailgating Treatment program in which dots are painted on the state's
rural roadways to help drivers determine a safe following
distance.[Footnote 25] Pennsylvania officials told us they also funded
over 100 rural projects that focused on improving occupant protection,
reducing impaired driving, and supporting community traffic safety
efforts, and they conducted 722 sobriety checkpoints and DUI roving
patrols during fiscal year 2002.
* Texas--For fiscal year 2004, the state identified 235 hazard
elimination projects that it plans on undertaking, most of which were
on rural roads. These $43.4 million in projects include such things as
adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, and adding rumble
strips to roadways. In addition, district engineers assessed 30,000
miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003, checking the appropriateness
of speed limits and the condition of signs and pavement markings and
assessing pavement edge drop-offs and curve warnings. Based on these
assessments, changes will be made to address the most important
findings.
Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety:
Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For
example, some states have not adopted the most effective safety belt
use and impaired driving laws. In addition, the sheer volume of rural
roads and the low volume of traffic on some of them, combined with the
high cost of major construction improvements makes it difficult to
rebuild rural roads with safer designs. Also, while states can use
federal highway funds provided for hazard elimination and rail-highway
crossing safety improvements on any public roads or public crossings,
most of the federal-aid highway funds cannot be used on certain rural
roads--the rural minor collector and rural local roads. In addition,
most rural roads are not state owned but rather are the responsibility
of municipalities, counties, or townships, which may have limited
resources. Further, some states lack information upon which to make
informed decisions on potential road safety solutions, regardless of
whether the road is rural or urban. Lastly, reducing fatalities on
rural roads is also made more difficult because of limitations in
emergency medical services in rural areas. Several proposals that the
Congress is considering could potentially improve rural road safety.
Some States Have Not Enacted Laws on Safety Belt Use and Drinking and
Driving:
While the Congress has provided incentives and penalties to encourage
states to pass various laws to increase safety belt use and reduce
drinking and driving, many states have not done so. These two factors
are particularly important given that, in more than 36,000 rural
fatalities due to passenger car, light truck, or van crashes, victims
were not using safety belts, and more than 27,000 rural fatalities were
identified as alcohol related, from 2000 through 2002. While these laws
are not directed specifically to rural road safety, the issues they
address are applicable to all types of roadways. According to a report
by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, as of January 1, 2004:
* Thirty states have not enacted primary safety belt laws, which allow
police officers to pull over and cite motorists exclusively for the
infraction of not using their safety belts.[Footnote 26] Twenty-nine of
these states have enacted secondary safety belt laws. Secondary belt
laws allow police to issue a safety belt citation only if the motorist
is pulled over for another infraction, such as speeding or an expired
license tag. One state allows occupants over 18 to not use safety
belts. As noted in our prior report, states with secondary enforcement
laws can increase safety belt use, but their success is limited by the
difficulty in effectively enforcing the law.[Footnote 27]
* Fourteen states have not enacted laws consistent with federal
requirements for prohibiting open alcohol container in motor vehicles.
Open container laws prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic
beverage container or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in the
passenger area of a motor vehicle. In addition, 14 states have not
enacted laws consistent with the federal requirement for penalizing
repeat drunk driving offenders.[Footnote 28] Taken together, 23
different states have not enacted laws that are consistent with at
least one of these two program requirements.
* Three states have not established .08 blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) as the legal limit for drunk driving.[Footnote 29] In 2000, the
Congress provided that states that did not do so would have 2 percent
of their federal-aid highway funds withheld in 2004. The penalty grows
to a high of 8 percent in 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007
would be reimbursed for any funds withheld.
Safety Improvements to Rural Roads Limited by the Combination of the
Millions of Miles of Rural Roads, Low Volume of Traffic, and High Cost
of Construction:
Due to the extensive size of the rural highway system, the low volume
of traffic on many rural roads and the high costs that would be
incurred to make major safety changes, state and local governments find
it difficult to undertake major safety construction programs on some
rural roads. As a result, lower-cost alternatives are pursued to
improve rural road safety in many situations.
Of the 3.9 million miles of the nation's road system, rural roads
account for about 3 million miles (about 77 percent). In addition, most
of the rural mileage is on the lowest functional class of rural roads-
-local rural roads--that account for about 68 percent of the rural
roads (about 2.1 million miles). While making up three-fourths of the
nation's road system, rural roads overall carry only about 40 percent
of the traffic, with the rural local roads carrying about 5 percent of
the traffic.
Although use of rural roads is low, the costs associated with major
construction projects on rural roads are high. For example, FHWA's
Highway Economic Requirements System model estimates the cost of
widening 11-foot lanes to 12-foot lanes at about $186,000 per mile--
over five times the cost of resurfacing the 11-foot lanes.[Footnote 30]
In addition, an official from FHWA's Kentucky Division Office told us
it would cost about $200,000 to $250,000 per mile to widen low-volume
rural roads by 1 foot. Further, a Transportation Research Board report
noted that providing wider cross-sections (wider lanes, wider full-
strength shoulders, and enabling 100 percent passing sight-distance) on
a two-lane roadway could cost from about $1 million to $3 million per
mile.[Footnote 31] As a result, low-cost improvements are an option to
be considered for many rural roads. For example, FHWA has identified
more than 40 low-cost improvements that states can use on rural roads
at high-crash locations. Examples include installing rumble strips to
roadways, moving trees or utility poles away from the roadway, adding
or improving roadside signs, and adding lighting or flashing beacons to
intersections and rail-highway grade crossings. See appendix III for
more information on the low-cost alternatives.
States Are Limited in Using Federal Aid Highway Funds for Certain Rural
Roadways:
Because of program requirements, states cannot use all categories of
federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads. These limitations
specify that funds used for constructing new roadways or conducting
major renovations of roadways cannot be used for rural local roads,
rural minor collectors, or for urban local roads. These program
restrictions were made to ensure that the interstate highway system and
other roads with higher expected traffic have adequate funds to meet
the transportation needs of the public, according to a FHWA official.
While some other federal-aid highway funds are available for all rural
roads, such as the Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing
Programs within the Surface Transportation Program, these roadways
receive significantly less funding per mile than urban
counterparts.[Footnote 32] As shown in table 1, of the $30 billion
provided to states in fiscal year 2002, about $12.1 billion went to all
rural roads, with $541 million going to rural local roads.
Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by Road Type, Fiscal Year
2002:
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban interstate;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $5,186,072;
Road miles: 13,491.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban freeway/expressway;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 990,277;
Road miles: 9,323.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban other principal arterial;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 4,904,704;
Road miles: 53,439.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban minor arterial;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,474,298;
Road miles: 90,411.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban collector;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 836,543;
Road miles: 89,247.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban local road;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 580,367;
Road miles: 638,813.
Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban other;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,127,437.
Functional roadway class: Total urban;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $17,099,698;
Road miles: 894,724.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural interstate;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,726,350;
Road miles: 32,992.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural other principal arterial;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 4,220,132;
Road miles: 98,853.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural minor arterial;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,697,189;
Road miles: 137,568.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural major collector;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,582,700;
Road miles: 430,946.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural minor collector;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 243,670;
Road miles: 270,700.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural local road;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 541,219;
Road miles: 2,100,702.
Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural other;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,135,292.
Functional roadway class: Total rural;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $12,146,552;
Road miles: 3,071,761.
Functional roadway class: Unclassified other;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,555,771.
Functional roadway class: Total;
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $30,802,021;
Road miles: 3,966,485.
Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.
Note: This analysis includes only funding administered by FHWA and does
not include funding from other federal agencies, state and local
governments, or other sources. Fiscal year 2002 is the most current
data regarding this information available from FHWA. Figures may not
total precisely due to rounding.
[End of table]
States are also challenged in making improvements in rural road safety
because, in most states, large portions of rural roads are not directly
under the responsibility of the state but rather fall under the
jurisdiction of counties, municipalities, or townships. Nationwide,
about 78 percent of all rural roads (2.4 million of the nation's 3.1
million rural miles) are not owned by the states. About 93 percent
(about 2.0 million miles) of the rural local roads are not under state
jurisdiction. In 45 states, jurisdictions other than the state own 75
percent or more of their rural local roads. (See fig. 7.):
Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State Jurisdiction,
2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some local officials in states we visited said they were challenged to
make costly rural road construction improvements without finding other
sources of funds to supplement those provided by states, such as
issuing bonds or increasing local taxes. In addition, a study for the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program noted that many of the
roads most in need of roadside safety improvements are under the
control of local governments that have the least amount of resources to
address the needs.[Footnote 33]
Information Lacking on Crashes and the Effectiveness of Countermeasures
Used:
Accurate, timely crash data are important for planning future urban and
rural highway safety programs and assessing the impacts of recent
projects or programs to improve safety. States rely on crash data from
fatality crashes, injury crashes, and property-damage-only crashes to
identify safety problems and plan safety improvements. Some states we
visited identified problems with their crash data system and were
trying to improve their crash data to make them more accurate,
complete, and timely. For example, Texas is about 2 ½ years behind in
entering crash data from police accident reports into its data system.
State officials pointed out that without timely data, it is difficult
to determine if the actions taken on a stretch of road had the intended
effect. To make the data timelier, Texas plans to have a new system in
place by fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $14 million. The new Texas
system would encourage local law enforcement agencies to collect,
validate, and report crash data electronically. It would also provide
centralized analysis, review, and data reporting to agencies that plan
and conduct state highway safety programs. Georgia modified its crash
data processing in 1998, but the changes were not successful, according
to a Georgia State Auditor's report. In 2001, a new agency took over
the crash data system and, after a data recovery effort, eliminated a
multi-year backlog of crash data reporting by 2003. In addition,
California is testing a system that would allow data recorded by police
to be directly reported into a database through handheld electronic
systems, thereby speeding the availability of the information. The
information would be recorded in the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Reporting System database that is used to help traffic safety officials
select safety initiatives.
Difficulties in Providing Adequate Emergency Medical Services:
Reducing rural road fatalities is also hampered by the difficulty of
providing prompt emergency medical services in rural settings. For
example, we reported in 2001 that state and local officials told us
that rural areas are less likely than urban areas to have 911 emergency
dialing, and their communication between dispatchers or medical
facilities and emergency vehicles are more likely to suffer from "dead
spots"--areas where messages cannot be heard.[Footnote 34] The report
also found that rural areas are more likely to rely on EMS volunteers
rather than paid staff, and these volunteers may have fewer
opportunities to maintain or upgrade their skills with training. In
addition, the report noted that officials from national associations
representing EMS physicians have indicated that long distances and
potentially harsh weather conditions in rural areas can accelerate EMS
vehicle wear and put these vehicles out of service more often.
Survivability after a crash decreases as the time required for an
injured person to receive medical treatment increases. Further,
according to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
report, a lack of rapid trauma treatment is critical during the seconds
and minutes that immediately follow a crash.[Footnote 35] The report
noted that the risk of dying before medical attention can be provided
increases as the crash location is further removed from trained rescue
staff and trauma medical facilities. A study of fatalities in Michigan
also highlights the impact of providing emergency care in rural areas.
The study found that of 155 fatalities in 24 Michigan rural counties in
1995, 12.9 percent of the fatalities were definitely preventable or
possibly preventable if rapid and appropriate emergency treatment had
been available.[Footnote 36]
Proposals Being Considered to Improve Roadway Safety:
Congress is considering legislation that includes proposals to improve
highway safety, including safety on rural roads. The proposals include
two bills for the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA), S.
1072, passed by the Senate in February 2004, and (2) the Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), H.R. 3550, passed by the House
in April 2004. Each of these proposals has features that could impact
highway safety and, in some cases, directly address rural roads.
* Incentives for Enacting Stronger State Traffic Safety Laws. Safety
belt use and impaired driving are important factors in rural road
fatalities. S. 1072 would provide grants to states for enactment of
primary safety belt laws and would reward those states that already
have this law. The proposal offers a maximum of $600 million in
potential grants to states that enact and retain primary laws. H.R.
3550 requires states that do not meet federal open-container laws or
federal requirements for penalizing repeat drunk driving offenders to
transfer 3 percent of certain federal-aid highway program funds to
their Section 402 State and Community Grants Program.[Footnote 37] H.R.
3550 requires the transfer of 3 percent of certain federal-aid highway
funds to Section 402 programs in states that have not enacted a primary
seat belt law or achieved 90 percent belt usage.[Footnote 38] H.R. 3550
also includes a penalty provision that requires the withholding of 2
percent to 8 percent of certain federal-aid highway funds if a state
has not enacted a law establishing .08 blood alcohol content as the
legal limit for drunk driving.[Footnote 39] Finally, H.R. 3550 provides
1 year of additional funding for seat belt and drunk driving incentive
grants. In addition, S.1072 proposes to withhold 2 percent of certain
highway construction funds to those states that have not enacted open-
container laws for fiscal years 2008 to 2011.
* Direct Funding for High-Risk Rural Roads. Poor roadway design can
contribute to rural road fatalities. H.R. 3550 would authorize $675
million over 6 fiscal years for safety projects on high-risk rural
roads. States could use federal funding to improve the safety of rural
major collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural local roads that
have, or that are expected to have, higher than average statewide
fatality and incapacitating injury rates.[Footnote 40]
* New Highway Safety Improvement Program. Both S. 1072 and H.R. 3550
contain provisions for a new highway safety improvement program to
replace the current statutory requirement that states set aside 10
percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds for carrying out
Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. S. 1072 would
authorize $8.2 billion over 6 years for the program and H.R. 3550
proposes a level of $3.3 billion over 5 years. S. 1072 requires states
to have crash data systems and the ability to perform safety problem
identification and countermeasure analysis to use safety improvement
funds. Both bills maintain state flexibility to use safety improvement
funds for safety projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle
or pedestrian pathway or trail or public surface transportation
facility. In both bills, states must identify roadway locations,
sections, and elements that constitute a hazard to motorists,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users and develop and
implement projects to address the hazards identified.
* Enhanced Federal Funding for State Safety Data. Some of the states we
visited had identified weaknesses in their highway data systems. S.
1072 and H.R. 3550 would each create a new State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvement grant. Funding would be authorized at
$45 million per year under S. 1072 and $24 million to $39 million per
year (for 5 fiscal years--2005 through 2009) under H.R. 3550. Larger
states could qualify for larger grants, but the minimum grant amount
would be $300,000 per year. By comparison, federal funding for data
improvement grants under TEA-21 was never more than $11 million per
year and was only available in fiscal years 1999 through 2002. H.R.
3550 also allocates $4 million from NHTSA research authorizations to
further develop a transportation safety information management system
to provide for the collection, integration, management, and
dissemination of safety data for state and local safety agencies.
* Proposals for New Safety Research. S. 1072 and H.R. 3550 would fund
strategic highway research programs. S. 1072 would provide $450 million
for this purpose and H.R. 3550 would provide $329 million. According to
the related NCHRP planning study, 40 percent of the funds--$180
million--would support safety research.[Footnote 41] The goal of this
safety research is to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes
through more accurate knowledge of crash factors and of the cost-
effectiveness of selected countermeasures in addressing these factors.
The research plan focuses on road departure and intersection
collisions, which represent 58 percent of traffic fatalities.
* Comprehensive Highway Safety Planning. S. 1072 requires states to
develop and implement strategic highway safety plans that are
comprehensive, data driven, and based on a collaborative process
involving state and local safety stakeholders. The plans must be
comprehensive, including all aspects of highway safety--
infrastructure, driver behavior, motor carrier, and emergency medical
services. They must be based on improved crash data collection and
analysis. While not directed specifically at rural road safety, the
collaborative process required by this provision provides an
opportunity for local rural officials and leaders to participate in
developing the goals and investments included in the plan. H.R. 3550
would encourage comprehensive safety planning for both behavioral and
construction safety programs.
* Flexibility in Moving Funds between FHWA and NHTSA Programs. S. 1072
allows states to use up to a quarter of their Highway Safety
Improvement Program funds for behavioral projects, if the projects are
included in a state comprehensive highway safety improvement plan.
* Improving Emergency Medical Systems. The presence of timely competent
medical attention has been shown to reduce rural and other traffic
fatalities. S. 1072 would create an Emergency Medical Services grant
program to provide state EMS offices funds for conducting coordinated
EMS and 911 programs. S. 1072 would provide $5 million annually and
would create a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical
Services that would coordinate federal agencies' involvement with
state, local, tribal, or regional emergency medical services and 911
services and to identify the needs of those entities.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally
agreed with the report's contents and provided some technical comments,
which we incorporated where appropriate. In discussing this report,
agency officials noted that safety should be part of every project
designed and built with federal-aid funds.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the Administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration, and to interested congressional committees. We will
also provide copies to others on request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were
Samer Abbas, Rick Calhoon, Colin Fallon, Sara Moessbauer, Stacey
Thompson, and Glen Trochelman.
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this
requirement, we identified (1) factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the
nation's rural roads, and (3) challenges that may hinder making
improvements in rural road safety.
To identify the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, we
supplemented an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research Continues
on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-436],
March 2003), with information from the Federal Highway Administration,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other
organizations with knowledge of this issue, such as the National
Association of Counties and the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials. We also reviewed studies identifying
factors that contribute to rural road fatalities. For each of the
selected studies that are used in this report, we determined whether
the study's findings were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated
the methodological soundness of the studies using common social science
and statistical practices. For example, we examined each study's
methodology, including its limitations, data sources, analyses, and
conclusions.
In addition, we updated the earlier report by obtaining more current
information on traffic deaths by using data from NHTSA's Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS). This database provides information on
all traffic-related fatalities. Each state provides NHTSA fatality data
in a standardized format. To be included in the database, a crash must
result in the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within 30 days of the
incident. The states obtain this information from such sources as
police reports, vehicle registration files, state driver licensing
files, death certificates, coroner or medical examiner reports, and
hospital records. It should be noted that while fatality data is useful
in understanding crashes, other factors in addition to those involved
in causing the crash might have contributed to the fatality. This would
include whether safety belt or other occupant protection measures were
used and functioned properly. Before using this data, we assessed the
reliability of the FARS data by reviewing the data for obvious errors
in accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the
data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data.
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this report.
Further, in providing information on factors contributing to rural road
fatalities, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled. To do
so, we used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in its
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). This system is a
national-level highway information system that includes data on the
extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of
the nation's highways. In general, HPMS contains administrative and
extent of system information on all public roads. The HPMS obtains
vehicle-miles-traveled data from each state, and states have different
methods for collecting certain travel information. We assessed the
reliability of the HPMS data by reviewing it for obvious errors in
accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the
data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data.
There are certain limitations associated with using these data. For
example, the quality of the data in the system relies on state data
collection techniques. HPMS guidance is flexible so that each state has
its own approach, and some approaches do not require annual revisions.
In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may not be comparable from
state to state. However, we determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
To identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we
interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in the Federal
Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. In addition, we reviewed state use of safety funds by
meeting with safety officials in five states. We selected Minnesota,
which DOT officials recommended as having a good rural road safety
program, and the four states with the highest rural vehicle miles
traveled: California, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In each of
these locations we met with state officials responsible for the FHWA
and NHTSA programs, as well as some officials at the local level. We
also reviewed recently issued guides, models, and training programs
intended to help traffic safety officials improve their rural road
safety programs, such as the Transportation Research Board's National
Cooperative Highway Research Program 500 Report series that serves as
guidance for implementing the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials' Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
To identify challenges that hinder making improvements in rural roads,
we interviewed federal and state officials identified above and
contacted experts from academia and advocacy groups. In addition, we
attended a Rural Road Safety Roundtable in West Virginia at which
participants discussed challenges facing rural road safety. We relied
on NHTSA and a report by the Advocates for Highway Safety to identify
the status of the 50 states' compliance with various federal highway
safety statues. We also reviewed various legislative proposals that may
help address the issues. The legislative proposals included bills for
the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004
(SAFETEA) and (2) the House passed H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). We also reviewed the administration's
proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation bill S. 1978, the Surface Transportation Safety
Reauthorization Act of 2003; and the House Committee on Science bill
H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of
2004. However, the Senate and House passed S. 1072 and H.R. 3550,
respectively, so we did not include them in the report.
We performed our review from July 2003 through April 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road
Safety:
We obtained information from five states (California, Georgia,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas) on the number of fatalities on
their roadways, the federal funding they receive for safety purposes,
and a description of the types of projects these funds support.
California:
During 2002, 1,713 people were killed on rural roads in California--the
second-highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled,
California's fatality rate on rural roads is about 2.67 fatalities per
100 million vehicle miles traveled--greater than the national average
of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 42 percent of all
state roadway fatalities in 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, California was provided over $2.5 billion in
federal-aid highway funds. About $60.5 million of these funds were
provided for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing programs.
These programs provided construction-related safety improvements on
public roads, transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways
or trails, and for rail-highway crossing safety programs. California
also received about $100.4 million in fiscal year 2003 to improve
roadway safety through a variety of activities designed to influence
driving behavior. About $47.5 million of the funds California received
were transferred from the state's federal-aid highway program because
the state's repeat offender law did not meet federal
standards.[Footnote 42]
California officials told us that they estimate they spent about $69.5
million on 58 rural road hazard elimination-related projects in 2003.
Examples include:
* The 2-3 Lane Safety Program. The California Department of
Transportation uses past crash analysis to identify cross-centerline
crash locations on two-and three-lane roadways for safety
investigations. The agency then attempts to utilize the most cost-
effective solutions to make these roadways safer. In 2002, the agency
identified 50 areas, 47 of which were located in rural locations.
* Run-Off-the-Road Task Force. The California Department of
Transportation currently has a task force examining locations where a
number of run-off-the-road crashes are occurring. The agency then
attempts to utilize cost-effective strategies to reduce the number or
severity of these types of collisions. In 2003, about 73 percent of the
locations identified were in rural areas. The agency hopes to proceed
with the run-off-the-road monitoring program by the end of 2004.
California is also using about $48 million of the NHTSA provided funds
to support 732 behavioral programs in fiscal year 2004. Of these funds,
California officials identified about $9.9 million being used to
support 80 rural road-related programs. These projects include
emergency medical initiatives such as the "First There, First Care"
program, which will train young drivers in 54 schools in 11 counties on
providing basic first aid at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. In
addition, California's Office of Traffic Safety has worked with the
California Highway Patrol to implement two programs that have rural
road safety impacts:
* Corridor Safety Project. The California Highway Patrol is leading a
task force that is examining the safety of all state corridors, based
on fatality and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk
corridors in the state, of which 16 were two-lane roads, mostly in
rural areas. The task force is responsible for making both behavioral
and infrastructure improvement recommendations to address the safety
issue with these high-risk corridors.
* Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For the 2004
fiscal year, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the Office
of Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing
enforcement of traffic violations that often lead to collisions:
speeding, right-of-way violations, failing to drive on the right half
of the road, improper turning, and driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs.
Georgia:
During 2002, Georgia had 902 fatalities on its rural roadways. When
adjusted for miles traveled, Georgia's fatality rate on rural roads was
1.81 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--below the
national average of 2.29 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 59 percent of
all state roadway fatalities in 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, Georgia received $975 million in federal-aid
highway funds. About $25.3 million of these funds were provided for the
Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. Using these
funds, the state has undertaken several roadway improvement programs
that address aspects of rural road safety. For example, Georgia
identified four problem areas that it focused on in 2003--run-off-the-
road crashes, intersection crashes, car-train crashes, and animal
crashes. A Georgia official said that the run-off-the-road and animal
crashes were particularly prevalent in rural settings. He said that
they are adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline reflectors to
help reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and to reduce animal crashes
they are expanding the recovery area along some roads, culling deer
herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn drivers of deer
presence. In addition, Georgia is developing a Lane Departure Strategic
Action Plan with the goal of reducing the lane departure serious injury
and death rate from 4.93 per 100 million miles traveled in 2003 to 3.29
in 2008 and preventing 750 serious injuries and deaths annually. A
draft of this plan recognizes that roadway departures on rural highways
are a predominate concern. To meet this goal, Georgia is developing an
approach that will use low-cost construction improvement; corridor
enforcement, education, and engineering enhancements; local lane
departure safety initiatives, targeted use of medium-to high-cost
improvements at high-crash locations, and statewide initiatives to
improve safe driver behaviors.
According to Georgia officials, the state has also replaced its safety
data system. It hopes to upgrade the current system of recording crash
locations by use of more accurate global positioning technology at the
crash scene, which would help them better identify problem areas
throughout the state. In addition to these state initiatives, FHWA
officials said Georgia is participating in AASHTO research projects
that address run-off-the-road crashes and comprehensive state strategic
highway safety plans.
The state has also participated in two major NHTSA-sponsored behavioral
programs: the eight-state evaluation of the "Click It or Ticket" safety
belt campaign in 2001 and the current impaired driving strategic
evaluation study, according to NHTSA officials. Georgia identified a
need to increase use of safety belts, booster seats, and child safety
seats among rural and minority populations statewide, so it initiated
efforts to involve rural and minority communities in local initiatives
to increase safety belt usage rates. Under the impaired driving study,
enforcement agencies conduct at least one sobriety checkpoint per month
in every county.
Minnesota:
In 2002, 479 people were killed on Minnesota's rural roads. When
adjusted for miles traveled, Minnesota's fatality rate on rural roads
was about 1.8 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled--less than the
national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately
73 percent of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.
In 2003, Minnesota received about $395 million in federal-aid highway
funds. About $12.1 million of these funds were provided for hazard
elimination projects, for construction-related safety improvements,
and for rail-highway crossing improvements. The state also received
about $14.7 million for NHTSA programs designed to improve behavioral
activities. State officials could not provide a breakdown of how much
of these funds was used for rural road safety projects.
While the state does not have a specific rural road safety program,
state traffic safety officials have implemented several construction
and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The "Towards
Zero Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing collaborative
program among the state department of transportation, public safety,
state patrol, and local "safe community" organizations to reduce
highway fatalities. The program provides grants to localities that work
with safety officials to coordinate a plan to reduce traffic
fatalities. Other behavioral initiatives include the following:
* NightCAP is a program involving concentrated alcohol patrols
scheduled in conjunction with local events that serve alcohol, for
example, music festivals that attract big crowds and where alcohol is
sold or allowed to be consumed. Local, county, and state law
enforcement patrol roads to look particularly for drivers showing signs
of impairment. Releases are sent out to local press and broadcast media
informing the local population that enforcement will be present during
the event. In fiscal year 2003, $615,000 of federal funding was spent
on the NightCAP program. About 50 percent of the events were in rural
areas of Minnesota.
* Safe & Sober is a project involving municipal and county law
enforcement agencies that target impaired driving and occupant
protection issues through a combination of enhanced law enforcement and
publicity. According to state officials, in fiscal year 2003,
$1,335,600 in federal funding was spent on the program. Approximately
50 percent of this program is carried out in rural areas of the state.
In addition, in 2003 the state Department of Transportation completed a
statewide audit of high crash cost intersections and corridors. The
audit ranked the top 200 intersections and 150 corridors with the
highest crash costs. Of the top 200 intersections identified, 54 were
located in rural areas; of the top 150 corridors identified, 53 were
located in rural areas. The Department of Transportation's goal is to
address 40 of these high crash cost intersections and corridors for
safety improvements each year in the State Transportation Improvement
Plan. Further, according to state officials, the Department of
Transportation has made extensive use of shoulder rumble strips and is
beginning to use centerline rumble strips on two-lane roadways.
Approximately $9 million in federal funds was transferred from
construction to safety activities in 2003 because Minnesota's laws in
regards to repeat drunk drivers did not meet federal
requirements.[Footnote 43] Officials at the state Department of Public
Safety said that they plan to use half of those funds for hazard
elimination projects such as replacing twisted-end guardrails and
researching the visibility effects of installing wider edge lines and
reflective wet pavement markings. Officials believe that this will have
a major impact on preventing or reducing the severity of run-off-the-
road crashes. The Department of Public Safety plans to use the other
half to address impaired driving. Specifically, Minnesota plans to
upgrade its driver license information system to improve the tracking
of problem drivers, focusing on impaired driving. The state also plans
to implement traffic safety programs promoting safety belt use and
discouraging drinking and driving among 21 to 34 year olds. To improve
emergency medical services in rural areas, Minnesota plans to reduce
the amount of "dead spots"--areas where messages cannot be heard--so
that law enforcement, emergency medical services, and transportation
officials can communicate with each other in more remote areas of the
state.
Pennsylvania:
In 2002, there were 1,001 fatalities on Pennsylvania's rural roads.
When adjusted for miles traveled, Pennsylvania's fatality rate on rural
roads is 2.15 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--less
than the national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for
approximately 62 percent of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.
Pennsylvania received about $1.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds
in fiscal year 2003. Of these funds, about $21.4 million were provided
for hazard elimination projects for construction-related safety
improvements and for improving safety at rail-highway crossings. During
fiscal year 2003, Pennsylvania received about $11.6 million in NHTSA
funding designed to improve behavioral activities. State officials
could not provide a breakdown of how much of these funds were used for
rural road safety projects.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has a goal of reducing
road fatalities by 10 percent between 2002 and 2005. The department has
begun several engineering and behavioral improvement initiatives to
help reach this goal. For example, to maximize safety in the design and
construction of highway projects, the department performs Roadway
Safety Audits. These audits are formal examinations of roadways by an
independent team of trained specialists that assess their crash
potential and safety performance. The team identifies safety problems
so that project officials can evaluate, justify, and select appropriate
design changes. In 1997, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
was the first transportation agency in the United States to pilot the
program. Since its inception, about 40 audits have been completed.
According to the state department of transportation, the audits have
prevented undesirable changes during design or construction, maximized
opportunities to enhance safety, and minimized missed opportunities to
enhance safety.
Pennsylvania has introduced two other infrastructure safety
modifications aimed at improving rural road safety. First, the state
installed 300 miles of centerline rumble strips in an effort to help
warn drivers that they have strayed from their lane. State
transportation officials estimated that rumble strips could reduce
vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by 25 percent. In addition,
Pennsylvania implemented a "dot" tailgating treatment program in which
dots are painted on the state's roadways, including rural two-lane
roads, to help drivers determine a safe following distance. The spacing
of the dots is based on the roadway's speed limit. Each vehicle is
expected to maintain a distance equal to at least two dot lengths from
the vehicle ahead of it.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation also has several
initiatives to modify unsafe driving behavior to help reach its 2005
goal. Sobriety checkpoints, roving patrols, and mobile awareness
patrols have been implemented to combat drunk driving. In 2002, 129
mobile awareness patrols were conducted. The state also has a program
to install ignition interlock devices on the vehicles of those
convicted of second or subsequent driving-under-the-influence
offenses. The device must remain in the vehicle for 1 year following a
12-month suspension of driving privileges. Since its inception in 2000,
the state reports the program has stopped 10,142 attempts to operate a
vehicle on the state's roadways when the operator had a blood-alcohol
content equal to or greater than .025 percent. The state also has
several initiatives to improve safety belt use. Although the state has
a secondary safety belt law, it received approval to use the "Click It
or Ticket" initiative encouraged by NHTSA.[Footnote 44] Transportation
safety officials are also involved in increasing safety belt use among
middle and high school students and in improving the use and incidence
of child passenger seats through educational and training programs.
State traffic safety officials also informed us of programs targeting
increased safety belt use among light truck and pickup truck drivers
who state officials believe are more prevalent in rural areas and
generally decline to wear safety belts.
Texas:
During 2002, 2,096 people were killed on rural roads in Texas--the
highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, the
fatality rate on rural roads in Texas is about 2.68 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled--greater than the national average of
2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 56 percent of all
state roadway fatalities in 2002.
In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided Texas with about $2.2 billion in
federal-aid highway funds. About $57.6 million of these funds were
provided for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. The
state's safety funding under the Surface Transportation Program
provided construction-related safety improvements on public roads,
transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or trails,
and for the rail-highway crossing safety programs. Texas also received
about $26.4 million of federal funds administered by NHTSA in fiscal
year 2003, mainly to improve roadway safety through activities designed
to influence driving behavior. Texas has appropriated $40 million in
state funds to supplement FHWA funding for the Hazard Elimination
Program, according to Texas Department of Transportation officials.
Texas officials identified several intiatives being undertaken to
reduce fatalities on the state's rural roads:
* Texas Department of Transportation officials identified 235 hazard
elimination projects that they plan on undertaking in fiscal year 2004.
These $43.4 million in projects, most of which are on rural roads,
include adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, adding
rumble strips, and removing trees near roads.
* Due to concerns about high fatality rates on narrow rural two-lane
highways, particularly those with limited or no shoulders, district
engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003,
checking the appropriateness of speed limits, the condition of signs
and pavement markings, and assessing pavement edge drop-offs or curve
warnings. Based on these assessments, changes will be made to address
the most important findings.
* The state is installing shoulder rumble strips on all rural four-lane
divided highways and researching the use of edgeline and centerline
rumble strips on other roads.
* Because the state's alcohol-related crashes were the leading cause of
motor vehicle fatalities in Texas during 2001, state officials told us
they have worked with NHTSA and others to identify the nature of the
problem and assess programs that could reduce impaired driving. As part
of this effort, the state funded 13 projects aimed at reducing impaired
driving in rural areas through increased enforcement and education
programs.
* The state has initiated programs to aid rural crash victims,
including new training for emergency medical technicians and first-aid
training for police officers and bystanders.
* Texas is in the process of upgrading its crash data system to make
data more timely. Texas is about 2 ½ years behind in entering crash
data from police accident reports into its data system. State officials
pointed out that without more timely data, it is difficult to determine
if the actions taken on a stretch of road had the intended effect.
Texas plans to have a new system in place by fiscal year 2005, at a
cost of $14 million. The new Texas system will encourage local law
enforcement agencies to collect, validate, and report crash data
electronically. It will also provide centralized analysis, review, and
data reporting to agencies that plan and conduct state highway safety
programs.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Low-Cost Safety Improvements:
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified more than 40
low-cost best practices as alternatives to capital construction at
high-crash locations. These improvements are presented to state and
local traffic engineers in FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements
Workshops. In addition, FHWA has qualified the strategies as proven,
tried, or experimental. Proven include those strategies that have been
used in one or more locations and for which properly designed
evaluations have been conducted that show them to be effective. Tried
countermeasures are those that have been implemented in a number of
locations and that may even be accepted as standards or standard
approaches but for which there have not been found valid evaluations.
Experimental strategies are those that have been suggested and that at
least one agency has considered sufficiently promising to try on a
small scale in at least one location. Table 2 summarizes the low-cost
alternatives and identifies potential safety impacts that were
identified in the course materials and whether the countermeasure is
proven, tried, or experimental.
Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements:
Roadside hazards: Trees;
Countermeasure: Remove or relocate trees near roadway. Cited accident
reductions as a function of proximity to roadway ranging from 22
percent for a 3-foot increase to 71 percent for a 15-foot increase.
Proven.
Roadside hazards: Utility poles;
Countermeasure: Relocate utility poles away from the roadway. Cited 32
percent reduction in fatalities and 45 percent reduction in nonfatal
injuries by relocating or installing breakaway utility poles. Proven.
Roadside hazards: Sign supports;
Countermeasure: Clear or relocate sign supports and obstacles away from
roadway. Cited a range of reduction in obstacle crashes from 14 to 40
percent by moving the obstacles 3 feet to 10 feet, respectively.
Proven.
Roadside hazards: Mail boxes;
Countermeasure: Ensure mailboxes comply with breakaway provisions of
the postal services. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Single vehicle run-off-the-road;
Countermeasure: Install rumble strips and rumble stripes to address
inattentive, drowsy, and drunk drivers. Cited crash reduction by using
rumble strips of from 15 percent to 70 percent on interstates (proven)
and 20 percent to 49 percent on two-lane roads (tried).
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Warning signs;
Countermeasure: Add signs that call attention to unexpected conditions
and situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Cited
reduction of fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 percent.
Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Special emphasis signs;
Countermeasure: Enhance signage (color or size) to call attention to
driver. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Right-of-way signs;
Countermeasure: Install more visible right-of-way controls to enhance
effectiveness. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Guide signs;
Countermeasure: Install street name signs with adequate-sized lettering
in rural areas to identify important roads. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Lane use signs;
Countermeasure: Install clear lane use signage, such as "Left Turn
Only." Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Safety message signs;
Countermeasure: Include safety messages such as "Targeted Enforcement
Area" or "Be Alert Heavy Truck Traffic." Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Centerline and edge markings;
Countermeasure: Add centerlines and edge lines to roadways. Cited a
reduction of 29 percent in crashes by adding centerlines and an
additional 8 percent with edgelines. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Innovative roadway markings;
Countermeasure: Add innovative markings to roadways for such items as
advisory speed markings, left-turn lane markings, and roadway parking
space markings. Tried. Also noted adding markings to roadways to help
inform drivers about adequate following distances. Cited a 60 percent
reduction in rear-end crashes on main line with use of this roadway
marking. Experimental.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Roadway delineation;
Countermeasure: Use pavement markings to reduce incidence of crashes.
Cited reductions of 15 percent in fatalities and 6 percent in injuries.
Tried.
Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Innovative curve treatments;
Countermeasure: Pave inside shoulder on curves and add pavement
markings to help guide drivers. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Configuration;
Countermeasure: Address configuration features related to safety at
intersection including presence of left turn lanes, number of legs,
intersection sight distance, angle of intersection, and intersection
form. Proven.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Access management;
Countermeasure: Improve access management as a key to improving safety
at, and adjacent to, unsignaled intersections. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Traffic control;
Countermeasure: Install all-way stop control to reduce right-angle and
turning movement crashes. Cited reductions of 53 percent in total
crashes with conversion from two-way to four-way stop control. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Signing;
Countermeasure: Use warning signs, such as changing yield to stop, or
warning signs, for intersections to reduce incidents of crashes. Cited
traffic signs as reducing fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15
percent. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Flashing beacons;
Countermeasure: Install flashing beacons to alert drivers to approach
with caution or stop. Cited California study that found, among other
things, that total crashes were reduced 43 percent and single vehicle
crashes by 67 percent. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Sight distance;
Countermeasure: Improve sight distance at intersections. Cited 5
percent reduction in total intersection-related crashes per
intersection quadrant in which limited sight distance restrictions are
eliminated. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Turning lanes;
Countermeasure: Add left-turn lanes to reduce rear-end crashes. Cited
an expected 28 and 48 percent reductions, respectively, in total
crashes from installation of a left- turn lane on one or both major-
road approaches to a four-leg stop- controlled intersection and 14 and
26 percent reductions from installation of a right-turn lane on one or
both major-road approaches. Proven.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Shoulder widening;
Countermeasure: Widen the shoulder at rural intersections. Cited crash
reductions of 2.8 percent per foot of shoulder widening at rural
intersections. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Transverse rumble strips;
Countermeasure: Install rumble strips going across the traffic lane to
alert drivers in advance of intersection. Cited up to 50 percent
reduction in rear-end and stop violation crashes. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Lighting;
Countermeasure: Install lighting at rural intersections. Cited study
that found 43 percent reduction in fatalities and 17 percent in
injuries. Proven.
Roadside hazards: Intersections: Innovative techniques;
Countermeasure: Add innovative items at intersections such as right
turn lanes (proven), dynamic activated flashers (tried), and the median
inside an acceleration lane (tried).
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Yellow light clearance timing;
Countermeasure: Update yellow clearance timing of traffic signals to
allow more time for traffic to clear intersection. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: All-red light clearance phase;
Countermeasure: Add an all-red clearance interval. Cited 15 percent to
30 percent crash reduction by adding an all-red clearance interval.
Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Visibility;
Countermeasure: Improve visibility of traffic signals. Cited 33 percent
to 47 percent reduction in crashes from using 12-inch lens and
additional signal units (or heads). Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Back plates;
Countermeasure: Install back plates behind the traffic signal to
improve its visibility. Cited report of 25 percent reduction in red
light running and 32 percent reduction in related crashes. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Left turn signals;
Countermeasure: Change left turn signals to allow only turning with
specific left turn green light. Cited a report of 97 percent reduction
in left-turning crashes. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Yield on green sign;
Countermeasure: Add activated "Yield on Green" signs to better inform
drivers wishing to turn. One city reported a 22 percent reduction in
permissive left turn crashes. Experimental.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Advance warning signs with active
flashers;
Countermeasure: Add signs with flashers to warn driver, such as "Be
Prepared to Stop." Cited several reports ranging from 29 to 67 percent
reduction in crashes from this measure. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Supplemental signal heads;
Countermeasure: Add additional traffic signals units (or heads) to
intersections. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Overhead red "T" heads;
Countermeasure: Use overhead red "T" heads on traffic signals. These
types of signals have two red lights next to each other to increase
their visibility. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Late-night traffic signals;
Countermeasure: Remove late-night use of signals that flash yellow on
the main road and red on the side street and replace with full-time
traffic signals. Cited 78 percent reduction in right angle collisions
and 32 percent reduction in all collisions during time of operations.
Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Coordination of signals;
Countermeasure: Coordinate traffic signals. Noted very few reports on
safety benefits, but cited one report showing 12 percent reduction in
crashes during peak morning and evening driving periods. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Signal controller;
Countermeasure: Upgrade signal controller to allow for traffic actuated
rather than pretimed operations. Cited 28 percent reduction in all
collisions. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Stopping sight distance;
Countermeasure: Provide adequate ability to see a train and/or the
traffic control device at the crossing in sufficient time for the
driver to safely stop if necessary. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Signing;
Countermeasure: Use appropriate signing at crossings including Cross
Buck signs, signs in advance of the crossing, and yield and stop signs.
Tried.
Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Sight distance visibility;
Countermeasure: Provide adequate visibility by such things as removing
obstructions, reducing posted speed, reconfiguring or relocating the
crossing or grade separating the crossing. Tried.
Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Lighting;
Countermeasure: Add lighting at and adjacent to the rail crossing to
increase visibility. Cited a reduction in nighttime crashes by more
than 50 percent at rural and urban crossings. Proven.
Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Innovative measures;
Countermeasure: Adopt innovative measures to increase safety at rail
crossings such as providing an emergency escape lane out of the
crossing area for trapped vehicles. Tried.
Source: GAO presentation of FHWA information.
[End of table]
(545038):
FOOTNOTES
[1] For purposes of this report, rural road data refers to roads in the
50 states. The District of Columbia has no rural roads and we do not
include Puerto Rico's 8,000 miles of rural roads in our computations.
[2] Urban areas are those places within boundaries set by the
responsible state and local officials that have a population of 5,000
or more. Rural areas are those areas outside the boundaries of urban
areas.
[3] In presenting information on traffic fatalities, we used data
contained in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System database for
2002, the most recent available. This database contains state-reported
data on all fatalities in the United States.
[4] While the number of fatalities rose during this period, the
fatality rate declined. FHWA officials attribute the decline to the
increased vehicle miles traveled coupled with many other factors, such
as increased safety belt use, decreased alcohol-impaired driving,
safety improvement in vehicles and on the highways, and more congested
highways leading to lower speeds.
[5] P.L. 105-178, 1998.
[6] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The most
recent update of this publication was in 2001.
[7] Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads
(ADT
