Highway Safety Improvement Program
Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities Gao ID: GAO-09-35 November 21, 2008About 43,000 people died and another 290,000 were seriously injured on the nation's roads in 2006. To reduce these numbers, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) nearly doubled funding for the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). SAFETEA-LU added requirements for states to develop strategic highway safety plans that include four key elements and to publicly report on at least the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all of their public roads. The act also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. As requested, GAO examined (1) states' implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) HSIP results to date, and (3) FHWA's guidance and assistance to states. GAO analyzed plans from 25 states, including 19 randomly selected states and 6 states that GAO visited. GAO also interviewed FHWA and state safety officials.
All states adopted strategic highway safety plans, and the 25 state plans that GAO analyzed addressed the 4 key elements added by SAFETEA-LU, although states lacked some of the crash data and analysis capabilities described in the law. GAO's analysis showed that the 25 states (1) involved multidisciplinary safety stakeholders; (2) defined areas of safety emphasis through analyses of state fatality data using crash data analysis systems; (3) identified strategies and projects to address these emphasis areas through infrastructure improvements, behavioral approaches, and emergency medical services; and (4) provided for overall and individual project evaluations. However, many of the 25 states lacked components of the prescribed crash data analysis systems, such as a system for locating crashes and roadway data for local roads. FHWA is developing such a system for the states, but many states lack necessary data for local roads because they do not maintain or operate them. Without the prescribed components, states cannot conduct some of the safety analysis defined by SAFETEA-LU or report to FHWA on their most hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate remedies, and estimate costs--all requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. While FHWA has set a deadline for states to develop the capability to locate crashes on all public roads, it has not done so for roadway data. Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not had sufficient time to implement and evaluate their HSIP strategies and projects; hence, it is too soon to evaluate HSIP results carried out after SAFETEA-LU. However, two of HSIP's statutory funding provisions may not be aligned with some states' safety priorities contained in their strategic plans. First, FHWA data show that most states have not used a new flexible funding provision that allows states to allocate some HSIP funds for behavioral approaches or emergency medical services. Some states may be reluctant to use this provision, according to state officials we interviewed, partly due to an HSIP certification requirement that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have been met. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not target a key safety priority ofsome states and provides significant funding to some crossing areas that have relatively few fatalities. Better alignment of federal funding with state priorities in their strategic plans could help ensure that HSIP funding best addresses those priorities. Lastly, as states implement the high-risk rural roads program, they are hindered by limited data on rural roads and crashes, which are needed to identify qualifying roadways and appropriate remedies. FHWA provided comprehensive guidance and training to assist states in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in states' strategic safety planning processes. FHWA's guidance to states on reporting their most hazardous locations took states' data limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the methodology and scope of their 5 percent reports. Consequently, these reports vary in content and format and may not increase public awareness of highway safety as intended.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-35, Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-35
entitled 'Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to
Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States‘ Top
Safety Priorities' which was released on November 24, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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 the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2008:
Highway Safety Improvement Program:
Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align
Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities:
Highway Safety Improvement Program:
GAO-09-35:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-35, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
About 43,000 people died and another 290,000 were seriously injured on
the nation‘s roads in 2006. To reduce these numbers, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) nearly doubled funding for the Federal Highway
Administration‘s (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
SAFETEA-LU added requirements for states to develop strategic highway
safety plans that include four key elements and to publicly report on
at least the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all of their
public roads. The act also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway
crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. As requested,
GAO examined (1) states‘ implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU,
(2) HSIP results to date, and (3) FHWA‘s guidance and assistance to
states. GAO analyzed plans from 25 states, including 19 randomly
selected states and 6 states that GAO visited. GAO also interviewed
FHWA and state safety officials.
What GAO Found:
All states adopted strategic highway safety plans, and the 25 state
plans that GAO analyzed addressed the 4 key elements added by SAFETEA-
LU, although states lacked some of the crash data and analysis
capabilities described in the law. GAO‘s analysis showed that the 25
states (1) involved multidisciplinary safety stakeholders; (2) defined
areas of safety emphasis through analyses of state fatality data using
crash data analysis systems; (3) identified strategies and projects to
address these emphasis areas through infrastructure improvements,
behavioral approaches, and emergency medical services; and (4) provided
for overall and individual project evaluations. However, many of the 25
states lacked components of the prescribed crash data analysis systems,
such as a system for locating crashes and roadway data for local roads.
FHWA is developing such a system for the states, but many states lack
necessary data for local roads because they do not maintain or operate
them. Without the prescribed components, states cannot conduct some of
the safety analysis defined by SAFETEA-LU or report to FHWA on their
most hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate
remedies, and estimate costs”all requirements added by SAFETEA-LU.
While FHWA has set a deadline for states to develop the capability to
locate crashes on all public roads, it has not done so for roadway
data.
Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway
safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not had sufficient
time to implement and evaluate their HSIP strategies and projects;
hence, it is too soon to evaluate HSIP results carried out after
SAFETEA-LU. However, two of HSIP‘s statutory funding provisions may not
be aligned with some states‘ safety priorities contained in their
strategic plans. First, FHWA data show that most states have not used a
new flexible funding provision that allows states to allocate some HSIP
funds for behavioral approaches or emergency medical services. Some
states may be reluctant to use this provision, according to state
officials we interviewed, partly due to an HSIP certification
requirement that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have
been met. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not
target a key safety priority of some states and provides significant
funding to some crossing areas that have relatively few fatalities.
Better alignment of federal funding with state priorities in their
strategic plans could help ensure that HSIP funding best addresses
those priorities. Lastly, as states implement the high-risk rural roads
program, they are hindered by limited data on rural roads and crashes,
which are needed to identify qualifying roadways and appropriate
remedies.
FHWA provided comprehensive guidance and training to assist states in
preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in
states‘ strategic safety planning processes. FHWA‘s guidance to states
on reporting their most hazardous locations took states‘ data
limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the
methodology and scope of their 5 percent reports. Consequently, these
reports vary in content and format and may not increase public
awareness of highway safety as intended.
What GAO Recommends:
Congress should consider (1) revising HSIP‘s flexible funding and rail-
highway crossing provisions to better align HSIP funding with states‘
top safety priorities and (2) eliminating the 5 percent reporting
requirement. GAO also recommends that FHWA set a deadline for states to
obtain the roadway inventory data. DOT generally agreed with the
findings and recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-35]. For more
information, contact Katherine A. Siggerud, 202-512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA-
LU, but States Lacked Prescribed Data and Analysis Capabilities:
It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Project Results Since SAFETEA-LU, but Two of
the Program's Funding Provisions May Not Be Aligned with States' Safety
Priorities Identified in Strategic Highway Safety Plans:
FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance, Training, and Technical
Assistance to Support States' Planning and Implementation of HSIP, but
Its Guidance on the 5 Percent Reports Gave States Latitude:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: HSIP Apportionments for States, Including Equity Bonus and
Other Adjustments:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Information on Funding and Projects in Seven States Approved
to Flex HSIP Funds for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services
Projects:
Table 2: Apportionments of HSIP Funds, by State, Fiscal Year 2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: HSIP Funding Authorizations, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009:
Figure 2: DOT Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Authorized by
SAFETEA-LU, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009:
Figure 3: Extent to Which 25 State Strategic Highway Safety Plans
Incorporated AASHTO's Safety Emphasis Areas:
Figure 4: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers in Iowa Designed to
Keep Drivers on the Road and Reduce Head-on Collisions:
Figure 5: State Ownership of Total Roadway Miles in Six States:
Figure 6: National Trend in Fatal Accidents at Rail-Highway Crossings,
1975 through 2007:
Figure 7: Strategic Highway Safety Plan Implementation Uses Existing
Federal and State Planning Processes:
Abbreviations:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
DUI: driving under the influence:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
GIS: geographic information system:
GPS: global positioning system:
HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program:
MADD: Mothers Against Drunk Driving:
MMIRE: Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
SHSP: strategic highway safety plan:
VMT: vehicle miles traveled:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 21, 2008:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Inhofe:
In 2006, about 43,000 people were killed and another 290,000 were
seriously injured on public roadways in the United States. Over half of
these fatalities in 2006--23,339, or 55 percent--occurred on rural
roads and 324 fatalities, or less than 1 percent, occurred at public
rail-highway crossings. Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of
death for people of every age from 4 through 34 in 2005. Moreover,
according to a study by the American Automobile Association, traffic
crashes in urban areas cost an estimated $164 billion in 2005,
including the costs of property damage, lost earnings, medical
treatment, emergency services, pain and lost quality of life, and other
costs.[Footnote 1]
To reduce the number of crashes, traffic fatalities, and serious
injuries on public roads, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), August 2005, nearly doubling the federal funding for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) by authorizing $5.1 billion
from 2006 through 2009.[Footnote 2] SAFETEA-LU identified three
programs as part of HSIP--a safety construction program for all public
roads and a set-aside program for rail-highway crossings,[Footnote 3]
both of which predate SAFETEA-LU, and a new set-aside program for high-
risk rural roads. SAFETEA-LU authorized about $1.3 billion per year for
HSIP, including $220 million per year for rail-highway grade crossings
and $90 million per year for high-risk rural roads. HSIP funds are
distributed to the states according to a formula that includes, among
other things, the numbers of highway lane miles, vehicle miles
traveled, and fatalities--all on federal-aid highways--in each
state.[Footnote 4] In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorized funding increases
for several programs administered by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). These programs provide states with grants to
address traffic safety issues involving passenger and commercial
vehicles, respectively, and to improve safety data.
Besides authorizing additional funding to improve highway safety,
SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that each state department of
transportation develop and submit new strategic highway safety plans,
approved by the state's Governor or responsible state agency, to the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administers HSIP, by
October 1, 2007, to avoid incurring a financial penalty in HSIP funds
for the state.[Footnote 5] For states to receive full HSIP funding
after this date, their plans had to address four key elements specified
in SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, the plans, first, had to be developed with
the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in the strategic
planning process and, second, had to define areas of safety emphasis
through an analysis of state fatality data performed by a crash data
analysis system capable of identifying the state's greatest highway
safety hazards. Third, to address these safety emphasis areas, the
plans had to include strategies and projects covering all aspects of
highway safety for all public roads. The term "all aspects of highway
safety" includes strategies and projects to improve highway
infrastructure; address behavioral challenges such as drunk driving and
seat belt use; and improve emergency medical services, although HSIP
funds are primarily to be used for infrastructure improvements. Fourth,
the plans had to provide for evaluating both the strategic plans
themselves, including the overall progress made under the plans in
reducing crashes and fatalities, and the results of the states'
specific safety projects and strategies. In addition, to advance public
awareness of highway safety hazards and needs, SAFETEA-LU added a
requirement that states publicly report on at least 5 percent of their
most severe hazardous locations. The states' "5 percent reports" must
include potential remedies for the hazards; the estimated costs of
those remedies; and impediments to implementing the remedies, other
than cost. FHWA must post the states' 5 percent reports on its Web
site.
This report responds to your request that we assess the progress made
toward accomplishing the HSIP goals set forth in SAFETEA-LU. In
particular, we address the following questions: (1) What steps have
states taken to implement HSIP since SAFETEA-LU? (2) What have been the
results, to date, of states' efforts in carrying out HSIP, including
the results of their set-aside programs for rail-highway crossings and
for high-risk rural roads? (3) What types of guidance and assistance
has FHWA provided to states to support their planning, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of HSIP?
To respond to all three questions, we adopted an overall approach that
included reviewing pertinent legislation; analyzing the strategic
highway safety plans and related documentation that 25 states submitted
to FHWA in 2007, including 19 randomly selected states and 6
judgmentally selected states that we visited; reviewing FHWA guidance
to states and division offices; and interviewing FHWA Office of Safety
and division officials, state transportation and safety officials, and
a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups. To select the 6
states we visited--California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi,
and Pennsylvania--we considered the number of fatalities reported for
2005 and other factors, including the numbers of fatalities that
occurred on rural roads, the number of fatalities at rail-highway
crossings, the miles of urban and rural roads in the state, and
geographic distribution. Our findings are not necessarily
representative of all 50 states and the District of Columbia because we
did not review a sufficient number of randomly selected states to
generalize our results and we selected 6 states judgmentally. We
conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through November 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for details
of our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
In implementing HSIP, states developed strategic highway safety plans
that addressed the key elements identified in SAFETEA-LU, but generally
lacked some prescribed data and analysis capabilities. All 50 states
and the District of Columbia submitted their strategic highway safety
plans to FHWA before October 2007, as required to avoid incurring the
financial penalty to their HSIP funds. In our review of 25 of these
plans, we found that the plans generally addressed the four key
elements identified in SAFETEA-LU. Specifically, the plans (1) showed
evidence of participation by a wide range of stakeholders in the
development of the strategic highway safety plan; (2) defined areas of
safety emphasis through an analysis of fatality and serious injury
data; (3) included strategies and projects covering all aspects of
highway safety (infrastructure improvements, behavioral approaches, and
emergency medical services); and (4) provided for overall performance
measurement. The inclusion of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the
planning process helped break down the historical separation between
engineering and behavioral programs that occurred before SAFETEA-LU,
when FHWA focused exclusively on infrastructure improvements while
NHTSA and FMCSA funded education and enforcement activities designed to
change drivers' behavior. In defining safety emphasis areas, states
built on prior safety planning efforts, although in the 25 state plans
we reviewed, these areas often did not include the two focuses of
HSIP's set-aside programs--rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural
roads--possibly because of concerns about these two programs which we
discuss later in this report.
Regarding the lack of some data and analysis capability, although the
states had fatality and serious injury data that were useful for
developing their strategic highway safety plans, states generally did
not have complete crash data analysis systems as described in SAFETEA-
LU. These systems must include the capability to locate crashes on all
public roads (e.g., crash location data and a mapping system to
identify clusters of crashes); roadway inventory data describing
roadway characteristics for all publicly owned roads; and the
analytical capability to identify hazardous locations on all public
roads, rank them according to their severity, identify potential
remedies, and estimate the costs of these remedies. States we reviewed
varied in their ability to meet these standards. FHWA expects states to
have crash location capabilities by August 2009, thereby meeting a
deadline set by the agency. FHWA is also developing an analytical
system to support the hazard analysis added by SAFETEA-LU. However,
FHWA has not established a deadline for states to develop roadway
inventory data for all public roads, nor has it required states to
submit schedules for achieving compliance with this requirement, in
part because FHWA has not yet defined the specific roadway data
elements needed to meet federal requirements for HSIP. FHWA has taken a
first step in defining these data elements by developing a proposal for
a set of 180 roadway inventory and traffic data elements--called the
Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE)--that can be used
to address HSIP's roadway inventory requirements as well as other
safety analysis needs. FHWA officials told us that they anticipate
testing a set of the MMIRE elements by states in 2009. However, FHWA
has not yet defined which of the specific roadway data elements
contained in MMIRE are needed to meet HSIP's requirements. These data
are particularly important for identifying remedies and estimating
costs, but many states lack these data, especially for locally owned
roads, which typically account for the majority of all public roads in
a state. Most states have not developed roadway inventory data for
locally owned roads because they do not operate and maintain those
roads, and they are concerned about the possible costs and time frames
involved in obtaining these data. As a result, states may have
difficulty applying the data-driven, strategic approach to highway
safety identified by SAFETEA-LU. In particular, this lack of roadway
data has limited the ability of many states to prepare 5 percent
reports that contain the required information on states' most hazardous
locations, remedies, and costs.
Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway
safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not yet had time to
implement and evaluate their HSIP strategies and projects; hence, it is
too soon to evaluate the results, particularly the impact on safety, of
states' efforts to carry out HSIP under SAFETEA-LU. Nevertheless, our
analysis suggests that two HSIP funding provisions may not be aligned
with some states' safety priorities--which were developed under HSIP's
federally defined strategic planning process and identified in those
states' strategic highway safety plans--and therefore may not allow
states to focus federal safety dollars on their highest-priority safety
improvements. First, most states nationwide have not taken advantage of
the flexible spending provision in HSIP that allows states to use up to
10 percent of their program funds for behavioral programs or emergency
medical services enhancements--even though states' strategic highway
safety plans indicate substantial interest in implementing these
strategies, and these strategies are routinely funded by NHTSA and
FMCSA grants--because program restrictions may make it difficult for
interested states to do so by requiring states to first certify that
all of their highway safety infrastructure needs are met. In all six
states we visited, officials agreed that making this certification was
difficult. In two of those states, officials told us that they were
interested in using some of their HSIP funds for behavioral or
emergency medical services projects, but they could not meet the
certification requirement because of ongoing infrastructure needs and
concerns about the potential legal liability that a state could incur
by certifying that all of its infrastructure needs had been met.
Second, the HSIP set-aside that provides funding for rail-highway
crossings is targeting an area that is a low priority in the strategic
highway safety plans of some states, and it may provide safety funds
for some projects with relatively low safety benefits. Finally, since
states are in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road
program, it is too soon to evaluate the program's results. However,
based on our analysis of the 25 state strategic plans and our
interviews with officials in 6 states, many states lack the roadway
data needed to effectively implement the program. Additionally, the
program's implementation is hindered by the inexperience of local
governments--which are responsible for building projects--with federal
requirements.
FHWA provided states with comprehensive guidance and assistance to
support their planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of
HSIP, but the agency gave states latitude in preparing the 5 percent
reports on states' most severe hazardous locations. FHWA issued eight
guidance memorandums covering HSIP activities; provided training on
strategic highway safety planning for state officials; and participated
in states' strategic highway safety planning processes, often
facilitating state safety planning summits. The guidance memorandums
introduced new HSIP features, gave direction on annual reporting
requirements for HSIP and the two set-aside programs, described
requirements for the 5 percent report, and explained how states could
use HSIP funds to address needs in their strategic highway safety
plans. FHWA's guidance for the 5 percent reports took states' data
limitations into account and gave states latitude in defining the
methodology and scope of their reports. Consequently, states' 5 percent
reports varied widely in their content and completeness, and their
formats for identifying the most severe hazardous locations did not
always appear easy for the public to understand, raising questions
about the quality of the reports and their usefulness in advancing
public awareness of highway safety hazards and needs, as intended. FHWA
officials also raised concerns about the usefulness of the 5 percent
reports, and the Secretary of Transportation has recommended
eliminating the 5 percent reporting requirement in a proposal for
reforming surface transportation programs, which was delivered to
Congress in July 2008.[Footnote 6] To support states' monitoring of
HSIP projects, FHWA provided guidance, under a broader oversight
program that pre-dates SAFETEA-LU, on how to determine whether local
agencies have the controls needed to comply with requirements for
managing federal-aid highway funds. FHWA's guidance for evaluating HSIP
projects directed states to evaluate all safety projects and
strategies, coordinating with stakeholders who developed the strategic
plan. Furthermore, the guidance directed states to use performance-
based goals, established as part of the strategic highway safety plan,
to evaluate the effectiveness of their safety strategies in reducing
the number of fatalities and serious injuries.
To improve HSIP's effectiveness, we suggest in this report that
Congress consider taking two actions, including (1) restructuring HSIP
statutory provisions related to the flexible funding for behavioral and
emergency medical services projects and the rail-highway crossing set-
aside program to better align HSIP funding with states' top safety
priorities and (2) eliminating the 5 percent reporting requirement,
given states' current data limitations that hinder their complete and
consistent reporting. To help states fully implement the data-driven
project selection process prescribed for HSIP, we also recommend that
FHWA take three actions, including (1) defining which roadway inventory
data elements a state needs to meet federal requirements for HSIP, (2)
setting a deadline for the states to finalize development of the
required roadway inventory data, and (3) requiring states to submit
schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance with this requirement. In
commenting on a draft of this report, The Department of Transportation
(DOT) generally agreed with the findings and recommendations and
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) officials also provided their
additional perspective on HSIP's rail-highway crossing set-aside
program--which is administered by FHWA--emphasizing that such crossings
have the potential for serious or even catastrophic accidents and, as
we noted in our report, that crossing safety is particularly important
for states and communities with a greater proportion of crossings and
train traffic.
Background:
During 2006, about 43,000 traffic fatalities occurred on the nation's
roads and 290,000 people were seriously injured. Overall, the number of
fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last decade, although
the fatality rate declined by about 17 percent, from 1.69 fatalities
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 1996 to 1.41 in 2006. DOT has
a goal of lowering the fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled by 2011.
Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress increased funding for HSIP with the goal
of significantly reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on
all public roads. HSIP's funding authorizations, which totaled $5.1
billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, nearly doubled from pre-
SAFETEA-LU levels.[Footnote 7] SAFETEA-LU authorized funding for three
major highway safety programs, as follows (see fig. 1):
* Over $950 million per year, on average, for the long-standing HSIP
safety construction program, which funds safety infrastructure
projects--such as intersection improvements and other safety
enhancements--on any public road.
* $220 million per year to continue the rail-highway crossing set-aside
program within HSIP, reserving one-half of the funding for hazard
elimination projects--such as grade separations, reconstruction of
crossing structures, and crossing closures--and the other half for the
installation of protective devices, such as warning signs and
gates.[Footnote 8]
* $90 million per year for a new, high-risk rural road set-aside
program to address hazards on rural roads that have above-average crash
rates involving fatalities or serious injuries.
Figure 1: HSIP Funding Authorizations, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2009:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing HSIP funding
authorizations, fiscal years 2001 through 2009. The X axis represents
the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents dollars in millions. The
bars represent high-risk rural roads, rail-highway crossings, and
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads).
Fiscal year: 2001;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 398.59;
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93;
High-risk rural roads: 0.
Fiscal year: 2002;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 407.26;
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93;
High-risk rural roads: 0.
Fiscal year: 2003;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 405.4;
Rail-highway crossings: 154.8;
High-risk rural roads: 0.
Fiscal year: 2004;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 506.28;
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93;
High-risk rural roads: 0.
Fiscal year: 2005;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 491.8;
Rail-highway crossings: 154.93;
High-risk rural roads: 0.
Fiscal year: 2006;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 925.81;
Rail-highway crossings: 220;
High-risk rural roads: 90.
Fiscal year: 2007;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 945.71;
Rail-highway crossings: 220;
High-risk rural roads: 90.
Fiscal year: 2008;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 965.93;
Rail-highway crossings: 220;
High-risk rural roads: 90.
Fiscal year: 2009;
HSIP - Safety Construction Program (all public roads): 986.47;
Rail-highway crossings: 220;
High-risk rural roads: 90.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
[End of figure]
Besides authorizing increased funding, SAFETEA-LU added several other
requirements for HSIP:
* State transportation departments must now prepare a strategic highway
safety plan that addresses four key elements added by SAFETEA-LU.
First, eight types of stakeholders must participate in preparing the
plan. Second, the plan must define areas of safety emphasis through an
analysis of state fatality and serious injury data. Third, the plan
must identify strategies and projects that cover all aspects of highway
safety, which include (1) infrastructure improvements; (2) behavioral
approaches, such as education and enforcement efforts meant to change
drivers' behavior; and (3) emergency medical services.[Footnote 9]
Fourth, the plan must provide for overall performance measurement.
SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that states submit the plans to FHWA by
October 1, 2007. States without a strategic plan in place by this
deadline would still receive funds for highway safety improvement, but
the amount would be capped at the fiscal year 2007 level.
* To conduct their analyses of fatality and serious injury data, states
must now develop crash data analysis systems that they can use to
identify hazardous locations, potential remedies, and the costs of
those remedies.
* To advance public awareness of highway safety hazards and needs,
states must now analyze safety hazards on all of their public roads and
report on at least 5 percent of their most severe hazardous locations-
-in what is known as the "5 percent report"--to FHWA for posting on its
public Web site. The report must be based on an analysis of crash data
and, for the identified hazardous locations, must include potential
remedies and the estimated costs of those remedies. Acknowledging that
states have differing levels of data available, FHWA set an August 31,
2009, deadline for states to address all public roads in this report.
* Under a new provision, states may now direct, or flex, up to 10
percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical
services projects if they have adopted a strategic highway safety plan
and certified that they have met all of their safety infrastructure
needs.
FHWA administers HSIP, and its Office of Safety provides overall
programmatic direction and guidance. FHWA division offices located in
each state manage program implementation, review states' annual highway
improvement program reports, and provide oversight of program funding.
For each of the programs within HSIP--the safety infrastructure
construction program, the rail-highway crossing set-aside, and the high-
risk rural road set-aside--states must provide FHWA with an annual
report on the projects they have implemented and on their results.
Other DOT agencies are also involved in state highway safety programs:
* NHTSA funds state traffic safety grant programs focused on behavioral
safety issues. For example, the State and Community Highway Safety
Grant program, commonly known as the Section 402 program, funds state
projects that address issues such as impaired driving and seat belt
use. Safety Belt Use grants, which reward states for passing and
enforcing safety belt use laws, can be used for activities ranging from
public education to roadway safety improvements. The State Traffic
Safety Information Systems Improvement grant program, also known as the
Section 408 program, provides funds to states to improve data
collection and analysis and requires that states conduct a highway
traffic safety data assessment and develop a plan to address any
findings of this assessment. Other NHTSA grant programs include
Occupant Protection, Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures, and
Child Safety and Booster Seat Use.
* FMCSA provides states with federal funds to address safety issues
associated with commercial trucks and buses. For example, the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program provides grants to support state
compliance reviews and roadside inspections of commercial trucks. Other
FMCSA grants support border enforcement and safety data improvement
projects.
* FRA maintains an inventory of rail-highway crossings and a crossing
crash reporting system that states use to manage safety at crossings.
FRA also provides states with computer software that assesses safety
risks at crossings by measuring traffic volumes, train speeds, and
other factors. However, FHWA, rather than FRA, administers HSIP's set-
aside program for rail-highway crossing safety.
Federal highway safety programs award safety grants to state agencies,
but safety programs and projects are often implemented through local
government agencies and private organizations. For example, FHWA
administers HSIP primarily through state departments of transportation,
which may award subgrants to local government agencies to build safety
improvement projects on locally owned roads. Similarly, NHTSA grants to
state governors' highway safety offices are often implemented through
subgrants to law enforcement agencies or private organizations involved
in areas such as preventing injuries or drunk driving. FMCSA also
awards grants to state agencies responsible for the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program, and those state agencies may then engage
local agencies, like law enforcement agencies, to carry out the
programs as subgrantees.
Collectively, SAFETEA-LU authorized $9.5 billion over 4 years for state
safety programs administered by FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA. FHWA's HSIP
received about 53 percent of the authorized funding. The remaining
authorizations were mainly for behavioral programs administered by
NHTSA and FMCSA. However, states have the flexibility to use one type
of NHTSA grant--Safety Belt Use--and NHTSA's alcohol penalty
transfers[Footnote 10] for either behavioral projects or infrastructure
projects (see fig. 2). Authorizations for NHTSA's and FMCSA's
behavioral programs amounted to about 24 percent and 12 percent,
respectively, accounting for over 36 percent of all DOT funding for
state highway safety programs.[Footnote 11]
Figure 2: DOT Funding for State Highway Safety Programs Authorized by
SAFETEA-LU, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009:
This figure is a table showing the DOT funding for state highway
programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU, fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
DOT model program: Federal Highway Administration (53.2 percent);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $5,063.9.
DOT model program: HSIP for all roads;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $3,823.9.
DOT model program: HSIP set-aside for rail-highway crossings;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $880.0.
DOT model program: HSIP set-aside for high-risk rural roads;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $360.0.
DOT model program: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (24.3
percent);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $2,314.0.
DOT model program: State and Community Highway Safety (Sec. 402);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $897.
DOT model program: Safety Belt Use;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $498.
DOT model program: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $515.0.
DOT model program: Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement (Sec.
408);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $138.0.
DOT model program: Other programs (Occupant Protection, High-Visibility
Enforcement, Motorcyclist Safety, and Child Safety and Child Booster
Seat Use);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $266.0.
DOT model program: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (12.4
percent);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $1,183.0.
DOT model program: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $796.0.
DOT model program: Commercial Driver's License Improvement and
Information System Programs;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $128.0.
DOT model program: Border Enforcement;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $128.0.
DOT model program: Safety Data Improvement;
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $11.0.
DOT model program: Other programs (Performance and Registration
Information System Management,and Commercial Vehicle Information
Systems and Networks programs);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $120.0.
DOT model program: Alcohol Penalty Transfers, fiscal years 2006 to 2008
and 2009 estimates (10.1 percent)[A];
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $964.9.
DOT model program: Combined total (100.0 percent);
Authorized funding (in millions of dollars): $9,528.8.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA data.
[A] NHTSA's alcohol penalty transfers are shown separately from the
FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA program authorizations because states can
generally use the transferred funds for either behavioral or
infrastructure projects.
[End of figure]
The funding that states receive for FHWA's HSIP is generally higher
than the amount specifically authorized for it, mainly because of the
Equity Bonus Program. The Equity Bonus Program, authorized by SAFETEA-
LU, provides funding to states on the basis of equity criteria, such as
a minimum return on state contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. See
appendix II for further information on HSIP funding for states and
related adjustments.
In July 2008, DOT began preparing for the upcoming 2009 reauthorization
of surface transportation programs, including HSIP, by providing
Congress with a proposal for reforming surface transportation programs,
including HSIP.[Footnote 12] The proposed reforms for HSIP--which DOT
said were designed to reduce paperwork burdens, better align set-asides
to target safety problems, and provide greater flexibility for states-
-included, among other things:
* eliminating the requirement for the 5 percent report;
* increasing the percentage of HSIP funds potentially available to
direct, or flex, to behavioral safety programs from 10 percent to 25
percent of HSIP funds; and:
* ending the mandatory rail-highway crossing set-aside, while
preserving the eligibility of rail-highway crossing projects consistent
with each state's strategic highway safety plan.
Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA-
LU, but States Lacked Prescribed Data and Analysis Capabilities:
According to FHWA, all 50 states and the District of Columbia complied
with the requirement, added by SAFETEA-LU, that they submit their
strategic highway safety plans to FHWA before October 2007. The 25
state plans that we reviewed generally addressed the 4 key elements
added by SAFETEA-LU. First, these plans showed evidence of
participation in the strategic planning process by many of the
stakeholders specified in the legislation, and according to FHWA
officials, this participation helped break down the historical
separation between planning activities for infrastructure improvement
projects and behavioral programs. Second, the plans contained safety
emphasis areas, which the states defined by analyzing fatality and
serious injury data, as required, and by building on prior safety
planning efforts. Third, to address the states' safety emphasis areas,
the plans included strategies and projects that covered all aspects of
highway safety, including safety construction improvements, behavioral
approaches, and emergency medical services. Finally, the plans we
reviewed generally provided for evaluating states' progress toward
their overall goal of reducing fatalities. Although the states had
fatality and serious injury data that were useful for developing their
strategic plans, they often did not have all of the components of crash
data analysis systems required since SAFETEA-LU. These systems include
crash location data, the capability to locate hazardous locations
(e.g., a mapping system that can identify clusters of crashes), roadway
inventory data, and the capability to identify and rank hazardous
locations on all public roads and identify potential remedies. FHWA and
the states are taking steps to address these issues, but the lack of
data and analytical capability remains the principal impediment to
states' implementation of the data-driven project selection process and
reporting requirements specified in SAFETEA-LU and could be costly to
overcome.
State Safety Planning Improved with the Increased Involvement of
Multidisciplinary Stakeholders in the Strategic Planning Process:
In developing their strategic highway safety plans, states increased
their consultation with a wide range of safety stakeholders, as
required since SAFETEA-LU's enactment, and created a broad-based effort
to identify and address state highway safety issues. Before SAFETEA-
LU's enactment, state transportation officials were not required to
develop plans for highway safety improvement projects in collaboration
with state officials responsible for behavioral or emergency medical
services programs, although some states had multidisciplinary safety
planning activities under way. For example, highway safety
transportation officials in three of the six states we visited--
Florida, Iowa, and Mississippi--said they had broad-based stakeholder
involvement in the planning process prior to SAFETEA-LU. FHWA had also
endorsed this multidisciplinary approach in a 2001 FHWA program review
of HSIP that found a good multidisciplinary safety management process
was a best practice.[Footnote 13]
SAFETEA-LU directed state transportation departments, when developing
strategic plans, to consult with eight types of safety stakeholders,
such as metropolitan and regional transportation planning organizations
and local traffic enforcement agencies.[Footnote 14] Our review of 25
state plans showed that 20 states consulted with at least 5 of the 8
required types of stakeholders. Twenty states also consulted with types
of stakeholders not specifically identified in SAFETEA-LU, such as
local governments and other state agencies. Stakeholders also typically
included NHTSA and FMSCA regional and state division officials.
Although not every state achieved the participation of every
organization listed in the legislation, not all of the organizations
invited to participate did so, according to state highway safety
officials. For example, in two of the six states we visited, Operation
Lifesaver[Footnote 15] representatives were invited to participate in
the planning process but they were unable to attend.
To obtain stakeholder input, states held conferences or summit meetings
where participants could express their views. At the six states we
visited, consultation meant that an organization participated in a
state safety summit meeting and possibly participated afterward in an
ongoing committee responsible for implementation in a specific emphasis
area. At summit meetings, participants helped each state identify its
key emphasis areas and potential strategies for addressing them. For
example, in California, the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD) participated in a summit meeting that identified
impaired driving as an area for the state to emphasize and identified
10 strategies to reduce the number of fatalities due to impaired
drivers. MADD officials said the organization also participated on the
California committee charged with developing specific action items to
implement the strategies shown in the strategic plan. In Illinois, the
Operation Lifesaver representatives participated in a summit meeting
that identified a strategy to address crashes at rail-highway crossings
and also sat on the committee responsible for developing action items
to address that strategy.
State highway safety and transportation officials in the states we
visited said the strategic planning process presented a challenge in
bringing stakeholders from different areas together to collaborate on
highway safety. One challenge was to obtain the participation of
stakeholders who might not have been involved in highway safety in the
past, such as hospital representatives and other emergency services
providers. Another challenge was the cost to states of securing
conference facilities and conference materials to conduct summit
meetings, according to some state officials. In one state, the FHWA
division office provided about $20,000 to pay for the conference
facilities. Furthermore, officials from three of the six states we
visited said that getting broad-based involvement in the planning
process was difficult because the cost of travel to a central meeting
place was too high for some organizations to participate in the
planning process. For example, Florida state highway officials held a
safety summit in Orlando because it is in the center of the state and
added a second summit in Miami after some potential stakeholders said
that travel costs would be too high for them to participate in the
Orlando summit.
The integrated approach to safety that brought highway safety
stakeholders together in a joint planning process was the most
important outcome of the program changes attributable to SAFETEA-LU,
according to FHWA officials. Highway safety transportation officials in
the six states we visited agreed that safety planning efforts improved
because increased multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement led to the
development of strategic highway safety plans that encompassed a wide
array of safety strategies and included approaches that have not
traditionally been associated with HSIP. This new planning process
helped break down the separation between engineering and behavioral
programs that occurred when FHWA and state highway departments focused
exclusively on highway construction projects, while NHTSA and FMCSA and
their grantees were responsible for education and enforcement projects
that addressed behavioral issues, such as impaired driving or
violations of safety regulations for commercial drivers and vehicles.
The new planning process also encouraged coordination among the DOT
safety agencies through information sharing and interdisciplinary
safety programs. For example, 21 of the 25 state strategic plans we
reviewed cited the participation of NHTSA and FMCSA officials. State
safety officials in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania said that
the requirements since SAFETEA-LU served as the catalyst for such
involvement.
States Defined Safety Emphasis Areas through Crash Data Analysis and
Built on Prior Safety Planning Efforts to Develop Their Strategic
Highway Safety Plans:
In working with stakeholders to develop their strategic highway safety
plans, states defined safety emphasis areas by analyzing data on
crashes that resulted in fatalities and serious injuries, as required
since SAFETEA-LU. According to our reviews of 25 strategic plans,
states typically used data on the types and causes of fatal and serious
crashes to help stakeholders identify safety areas to emphasize in
their state strategic highway safety plans. Previously, states had used
data from all crashes to establish highway safety program priorities,
but they had not focused on crashes resulting in fatalities and serious
injuries.
In analyzing their fatality and serious injury data, states often
followed a preexisting comprehensive safety planning approach created
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). This multidisciplinary approach, built around
guidance published by the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, identified "safety emphasis" areas, including seat belt use,
heavy trucks, head-on collisions, and rural emergency medical services.
In a guide issued in 1997 and updated in 2004, AASHTO described how a
state could organize its planning process, and some states had used the
guide to develop comprehensive highway safety plans before SAFETEA-LU
was enacted in August 2005. Eighteen of the 25 state plans we reviewed
used AASHTO's list of safety emphasis areas, but some plans also
included areas of unique importance to the state. The 7 states that did
not directly use AASHTO's list in their planning picked emphasis areas
that were similar. Figure 3 shows the extent to which the 25 plans we
reviewed incorporated AASHTO's safety emphasis areas.
Figure 3: Extent to Which 25 State Strategic Highway Safety Plans
Incorporated AASHTO's Safety Emphasis Areas:
This figure is a bar graph showing the extent to which 25 state
strategic highway safety plans incorporated AASHTO's safety emphasis
areas. The X axis represents the number of state plans that
incorporated emphasis area, and the Y axis represents safety emphasis
area.
Safety emphasis area: Seatbelts and air bags;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 23.
Safety emphasis area: Impaired drivers;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 23.
Safety emphasis area: Keeping vehicles on the road;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 20.
Safety emphasis area: Intersections;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 19.
Safety emphasis area: Aggressive driving;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 19.
Safety emphasis area: Minimizing consequences of leaving the road;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 18.
Safety emphasis area: Improving decision support systems;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16.
Safety emphasis area: Pedestrians;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16.
Safety emphasis area: Head-on and cross median crashes;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16.
Safety emphasis area: Motorcyclists;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 16.
Safety emphasis area: Heavy trucks;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 15.
Safety emphasis area: Bicyclists;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 14.
Safety emphasis area: Older drivers;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 14.
Safety emphasis area: Work zones;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 12.
Safety emphasis area: Increasing EMS capabilities;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 11.
Safety emphasis area: Licensed, competent drivers;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 9.
Safety emphasis area: Vehicle-train crashes;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 8.
Safety emphasis area: Keeping drivers alert;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 8.
Safety emphasis area: Graduated drivers licensing;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 4.
Safety emphasis area: Driver safety awareness;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 3.
Safety emphasis area: Processes and safety management systems;
Number of state plans that incorporated emphasis area: 2.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of 25 state strategic highway safety plans.
Note: Eighteen states include "Young drivers" as an emphasis area in
their strategic plans. Although not an AASHTO-recommended area, it is
closely related to AASHTO's "Graduated drivers licensing" area.
[End of figure]
State Plans Included Strategies and Projects to Address
Multidisciplinary Safety Emphasis Areas and Goals to Measure Overall
Progress, but Generally Did Not Include Set-aside Programs:
Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required in their strategic highway
safety plans to develop strategies to reduce roadway hazards and
identify programs of projects to address all aspects of highway safety,
including (1) infrastructure (engineering, management, and operations);
(2) behavior (education and enforcement); and (3) emergency medical
services. Almost all of the 25 state strategic highway safety plans we
reviewed included strategies to reduce safety hazards and identified
programs of projects to address all 3 aspects of highway safety. For
example, all 25 of the state plans called for infrastructure
improvements, such as installing rumble strips or cable median barriers
on roadways to help keep drivers on the roadway and to reduce head-on
collisions (see fig. 4). All 25 plans also identified potential
behavioral projects, such as projects to enforce seat belt laws or
speed limits or provide education to reduce driving under the influence
(DUI). Twenty-two of the 25 plans included some emergency medical
services projects, either within its own or another emphasis area.
These projects ranged from decreasing accident response times to
improving medical outcomes data.
Figure 4: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers in Iowa Designed to
Keep Drivers on the Road and Reduce Head-on Collisions:
This figure is a picture of rumble strips and cable median barriers in
Iowa designed to keep drivers on the road and reduce head-on
collisions.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
In the 25 state plans we reviewed, the safety emphasis areas identified
by stakeholders frequently did not include rail-highway crossings or
high-risk rural roads, and projects that could be funded through the 2
set-aside programs within HSIP were also not typically identified as
high priorities. For example, about two-thirds of the state strategic
plans we reviewed (17 of 25), did not identify improvements to rail-
highway crossings in their strategic highway safety plans as a key
safety emphasis area. According to some state department of
transportation officials we interviewed, rail-highway crossings were
not included as safety emphasis areas because few fatalities were
associated with these areas.
Similarly, state strategic highway safety plans did not specifically
include high-risk rural roads as a safety emphasis area or high-risk
rural road projects within an emphasis area. Many plans identified
projects that could be applicable to improving rural road safety, such
as DUI programs or efforts to minimize the frequency and consequences
of roadway departures. However, only one plan, from Indiana, included
high-risk rural roads as an emphasis area. Furthermore, although 18 of
the 25 plans we reviewed identified rural roads among the hazardous
locations in the state in their 5 percent reports, these locations may
not meet SAFETEA-LU's definition of high-risk rural roads--that is,
rural major and minor collectors or rural, locally owned roads where
the rates of fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceed, or are
expected to exceed, the statewide averages.[Footnote 16] According to
state department of transportation officials we interviewed in 5 of the
6 states we visited, it was difficult to identify potential high-risk
rural road projects, in part because states often had limited data on
locally owned roads. As a result, states did not develop an overall
list prioritizing hazardous locations on high-risk rural roads. Some
states that lacked crash data for locally owned rural roads had to rely
on local governments' road safety audits or anecdotal information to
identify hazardous locations and propose projects for their high-risk
rural roads.
Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required to evaluate their HSIP
programs and projects by establishing strategic and performance-based
goals, such as an overall fatality-reduction goal, and measuring their
program or project performance against those goals. All 25 of the state
plans we reviewed identified an overall state fatality-reduction
goal.[Footnote 17] In addition, 13 of these plans also established
goals for the specific emphasis areas described in their plan. For
example, California's strategic plan has an emphasis area goal of
reducing annual impaired driving fatalities by 15 percent through
activities such as driver education and enforcement. This reduction,
combined with the goals for the other emphasis areas in the strategic
plan, is designed to meet the statewide fatality-reduction goal.
Another of the six states we visited also monitored performance in
achieving fatality-reduction goals for specific safety emphasis areas,
and reported those results periodically to state transportation
leaders.
Many States Lack the Full Data and Analysis Capabilities to Rank
Hazardous Locations According to Severity and to Report on the State's
Most Severe Hazardous Locations:
Since SAFETEA-LU, states have been required to have crash data systems
that can identify, locate, and rank the severity of safety hazards at
crash locations and can analyze crash data and roadway conditions to
develop potential remedies. These crash data systems must include three
components: (1) the capability to locate crashes on all public roads,
including both state-owned and locally owned roads (e.g., crash data in
a geographic format[Footnote 18] that can be used with a system to map
clusters of crashes); (2) roadway inventory data that include roadway
characteristics, such as the number of lanes, width of shoulders, or
types of signaling devices at intersections; and (3) a data analysis
system (i.e., software program) to analyze the crash location and
roadway inventory data to identify potential remedies for the hazards.
States are required to use their crash data systems to report annually
on at least 5 percent of their most severe hazardous locations (i.e., 5
percent report).
Many States Lacked Crash Location Data on Locally Owned Roads in a
Usable Format for Analysis:
All 25 states we reviewed had crash data, and in our review of their 5
percent reports for 2007, only 1 of the 25 states indicated that it was
limited in its ability to map crash locations on state-owned roads.
However, many of the 25 states whose plans and associated reports we
reviewed did not have crash data on locally owned roads in a usable
geographic format that could readily be used to locate crashes on all
public roads, as required since SAFETEA-LU with, for example, commonly
available mapping software. While FHWA does not require states to
report on their capability to map crash sites and identify clusters of
crashes on all public roads, in our review of the 5 percent reports for
the 25 states (2007), about half of the 25 states (14 of 25) indicated
that they had significantly limited or no ability to use mapping to
locate crashes on locally owned roads in their states.[Footnote 19]
Among these 25 states we reviewed, all 6 of the states we visited had
the ability to map crash locations on state-owned roads, and 2 states,
California and Iowa, also had the ability to map crash locations on
locally owned roads (i.e., their crash data for locally owned roads was
in a geographic, readily analyzable format and they had a mapping
system) and to use that information to identify the most severe
hazardous locations. The other 4 states had information on crash
locations on locally owned roads, but this information was not in a
format that could be used with standard geographical data systems to
map the crash sites and identify clusters of crashes on all public
roads.
The inability to locate crashes on locally owned roads is significant
because, nationally, locally owned roads account for about 77 percent
of all public roads, while state-owned roads represent about 20 percent
of the total road mileage.[Footnote 20] In the six states we visited,
the state-owned portion of the public roads ranged from about 8 percent
in Iowa to about 33 percent in Pennsylvania (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: State Ownership of Total Roadway Miles in Six States:
This figure is a combination bar graph showing state ownership of total
roadway miles in six states. One bar represents nonstate miles, and the
other represents state miles. The X axis represents state, and the Y
axis represents percentage.
State: California;
State miles: 8.9;
Nonstate miles: 91.1.
State: Florida;
State miles: 9.9;
Nonstate miles: 90.1.
State: Illinois;
State miles: 11.6;
Nonstate miles: 88.4.
State: Iowa;
State miles: 7.8;
Nonstate miles: 92.2.
State: Mississippi;
State miles: 14.7;
Nonstate miles: 85.3.
State: Pennsylvania;
State miles: 32.8;
Nonstate miles: 67.2.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA's 2008 highway statistics.
[End of figure]
States with significantly limited or no ability to map crash location
data for locally owned roads would be unable to identify and rank all
hazardous locations on locally owned roads. Of the six states we
visited, two (California and Iowa) were able to locate crashes on all
public roads, including locally owned roads, enabling these states to
identify hazardous locations. The other four states had recently
obtained or were planning to obtain mapping systems that would allow
them to identify crash locations on all public roads, including locally
owned roads.
FHWA established August 31, 2009, as the deadline for all states to
have enough data to locate crashes on all public roads and be able to
rank these locations according to their relative severity. FHWA has not
required the states to submit schedules detailing when they would have
the data, but FHWA officials said all states were on track to meet the
deadline. Additionally, all six states we visited indicated that they
would have sufficient crash data in a geographic format and a mapping
system to identify crash locations to meet FHWA's requirements by the
end of August 2009.
Many States Lacked Roadway Inventory Data, Especially for Locally Owned
Roads:
With complete roadway inventory data, a state can analyze the safety
characteristics of crash locations to identify potential remedies and
estimate costs for each location. These data include characteristics of
the road related to safety, such as number of lanes, pavement
conditions, shoulder width, lighting, signs, and intersections.
Although roadway inventory data have been required since SAFETEA-LU,
most of the 25 states we reviewed did not have adequate data,
especially for their locally owned roads, to generate an analysis of
potential remedies. For example, almost all of the states (22 of the
25) lacked complete roadway inventory data for locally owned roads in
the state, and over one-third of the states (11 of the 25) lacked
complete roadway inventory data for state-owned roads. Of the 6 states
we visited, 2 states lacked roadway inventory data for all state-owned
roads and 5 states lacked roadway inventory data for locally owned
roads.
AASHTO also reported in 2006 that many states struggle with the
adequacy, currency, and quality of data, especially for local
roads.[Footnote 21] Most states have not developed roadway inventory
data for locally owned roads because they do not operate and maintain
those roads, according to state transportation officials we
interviewed. FHWA officials told us they do not expect states to obtain
roadway inventory data for all of their public roads by August 31,
2009, and officials in 5 of the 6 states we visited said they would not
have such data by that date. For example, officials in Illinois
estimated that they would not have roadway inventory data for all of
their public roads until sometime after 2013. FHWA has not established
a deadline for states to have roadway inventory data for all public
roads, nor has it required states to submit schedules for achieving
compliance with this requirement. According to an FHWA official, before
establishing such a deadline, FHWA would need to define the specific
roadway data elements needed to meet federal requirements. FHWA has
taken a first step in defining these data elements by developing a
proposal for a set of 180 roadway inventory and traffic data elements-
-called the Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE)--that
can be used to address HSIP's roadway inventory requirements as well as
other safety analysis needs. FHWA officials told us that they
anticipate testing a set of the MMIRE elements at selected states in
2009. However, FHWA has not yet defined which of the specific roadway
data elements contained in MMIRE are needed to meet HSIP's
requirements.
FHWA Is Developing Software to Analyze Data on Hazardous Locations,
Remedies, and Costs:
The third component needed for the data-driven project selection
process is software that can analyze crash location and roadway
inventory data to identify potential remedies for hazardous locations.
FHWA is developing a software tool, Safety Analyst, that should be able
to support the safety hazard analysis adopted by SAFETEA-LU by using
the crash data and roadway inventory data to determine the most severe
hazardous locations, rank them, identify possible remedies, and
estimate the cost of implementing the remedies. FHWA estimates that it
will complete the development of Safety Analyst and release it to the
states in the summer of 2009. However, the system will not be of use to
states that lack complete crash location and roadway inventory data.
Three of the states we visited anticipated using Safety Analyst when it
becomes available. In addition, Mississippi has independently developed
its own program to analyze hazards and identify remedies. This program
is similar to Safety Analyst, but requires fewer types of roadway
inventory data. According to a Mississippi state transportation
official, Safety Analyst requires too many types of roadway inventory
data, some of which are not yet available in most states. For example,
Safety Analyst requires data on roadside safety conditions, which no
state has included in its database, yet such data are considered
essential to a full understanding of highway safety, according to
AASHTO's 2006 report.
Lack of Data Limits States' Reporting on Their Most Severe Hazardous
Locations:
As we have previously mentioned, since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, states
have been required to prepare an annual report to FHWA--the 5 percent
report--that is intended to raise public awareness of the most severe
highway safety hazards and needs, according to FHWA's
guidance.[Footnote 22] The report must describe at least 5 percent of
the locations on a state's public roads that exhibit the most severe
safety needs and identify these locations in a clearly understandable
format. The report is to be based on each state's analysis of crash
data for locations on all public roads and ranking of the relative
severity of hazards at those locations. In addition, the report is to
describe potential remedies for the hazardous locations shown and the
estimated costs of those remedies. FHWA is required to post the states'
reports on its Web site. The 5 percent report was not intended to be a
list of projects with the highest priority for construction, but
inclusion on the list could make these locations candidates for HSIP
safety construction projects.
The lack of data and analytical capability to map crash locations and
clusters of crashes has limited the abilities of many states to comply
with the 5 percent reporting requirement, and the reports we reviewed
varied in the information they provided. As we have previously
mentioned, about half of the 25 states (14 of 25) indicated that they
had significantly limited or no ability to use mapping to locate
crashes on locally owned roads in their states. As a result of this
limitation, 11 of those 14 states were unable to include hazardous
locations on locally owned roads in their 5 percent reports for 2007,
because the states either did not have all of the required information
in a usable geographic format or lacked a system with capability to map
the locations.[Footnote 23] Four of the 6 states we visited (Florida,
Illinois, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania) were unable to report
hazardous locations on locally owned roads.
Limited roadway inventory data describing the safety-related
characteristics of roads also prevented most states from fully
identifying and reporting on potential remedies for hazardous locations
and estimating the costs of those remedies, as required for the 5
percent reports. For example, 1 state we visited, California, submitted
a 5 percent report for 2007 that identified over 800 hazardous
locations on state-owned and locally owned roads but identified no
specific remedies, costs, or implementation actions. According to
FHWA's review of all 51 of the 5 percent reports submitted by the 50
states and the District of Columbia in 2006:
* 4 of 51 reports contained potential remedies for all identified
locations, including the estimated costs of the remedies and the
actions needed to implement them, as required;
* 37 of 51 reports contained limited remedy, cost, or implementation
information for the locations they identified; and:
* 10 of 51 reports contained no information on potential remedies,
estimated costs, or implementation actions.
Improving States' Data and Analysis Capability May Be Costly and Will
Take Time:
Officials from FHWA headquarters and from the six states we visited
said that developing a roadway inventory to meet the data requirements
of Safety Analyst could be costly. Also, in a 2002 report, AASHTO
estimated a cost of $3 million to $5 million per state to develop the
inventory and another $1.5 million per year to operate and maintain the
system.[Footnote 24] Mississippi officials we interviewed estimated it
could cost their state $50 million to develop a roadway inventory that
would give them the analytical capability described in SAFETEA-LU for
all public roads. In addition, a Florida department of transportation
official with whom we spoke estimated that developing these data for
the state's local roads could cost several hundred million dollars and
take several years or more.
While efforts to improve and maintain states' crash data analysis
systems may be costly, SAFETEA-LU greatly increased the authorized
funding levels made available to states for these purposes. Although no
high-risk rural road program funds and no more than 2 percent of rail-
highway crossing program funds can be used for data improvements, there
is no limit on the use of authorized HSIP safety construction funds for
data gathering and maintenance. These authorized HSIP funds nearly
doubled under SAFETEA-LU, from about $500 million per year to nearly $1
billion per year.
It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Project Results Since SAFETEA-LU, but Two of
the Program's Funding Provisions May Not Be Aligned with States' Safety
Priorities Identified in Strategic Highway Safety Plans:
Because states were not required to submit their strategic highway
safety plans to FHWA until October 2007, they have not yet had time to
select and build infrastructure projects under these plans.
Consequently, it is too soon to evaluate the results--that is, the
impact on safety--of HSIP projects funded under SAFETEA-LU's
authorizations. However, in the 3 years since SAFETEA-LU's enactment in
2005, states' experience with HSIP indicates that some funding
provisions in HSIP may not always target states' greatest safety needs
and priorities as identified in the states' strategic highway safety
plans. First, most states have not used the program's flexible spending
provision, which allows them to use some HSIP funding for
noninfrastructure projects. Second, the set-aside program that funds
infrastructure improvements at rail-highway crossings targets a low
safety priority in some states, according to those states' strategic
highway safety plans, although other states continue to emphasize
crossing improvements. Finally, states have just begun to implement the
high-risk rural road program, so it is too soon to evaluate the
program's results. Obligations of program funds have been limited,
however, suggesting that states may be having difficulty implementing
the program. Lack of data on targeted roads and administrative
challenges may be obstacles to implementation.
More Time Is Needed to Evaluate the Results of HSIP Projects Authorized
under SAFETEA-LU:
It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP infrastructure projects
because too little time has passed for projects to be selected and
built in accordance with priorities in states' strategic highway safety
plans. Given the October 2007 deadline for states to submit their
strategic highway safety plans to FHWA, states finalized their plans
recently--28 states did so in 2006, and the remaining 22 states, plus
the District of Columbia, did so in 2007. Because infrastructure
projects can take 1 year or more to select and build, and subsequent
project evaluations typically rely on 3 years' worth of crash data
after the projects have been implemented, it is too soon to assess the
effectiveness of projects undertaken under the new HSIP program. FHWA
and state officials we interviewed in all six of our site visits also
told us that it is too soon to measure the effectiveness of the
strategic planning process and other changes under SAFETEA-LU in
reducing fatalities and serious injuries. However, in the 25 state
annual reports on HSIP projects for fiscal year 2007 that we reviewed,
the states typically reported that the HSIP projects completed prior to
SAFETEA-LU were generally effective in reducing crashes and fatalities
at the project locations, according to evaluations of crash data at
improved locations for the 3-year periods before and after the projects
were completed.
It is also too soon to evaluate the results of rail-highway crossing
projects selected and built since SAFETEA-LU's passage in 2005, but the
overall number of fatalities at rail-highway crossings continues to
drop. Since the crossing program was established in 1973, rail crossing
safety has improved considerably nationwide.[Footnote 25] A 2005 study,
published in a multidisciplinary journal dealing with risk analysis,
attributed some of the decline in fatalities at crossings to the
program, while noting that other factors, such as the decline in the
number of crossings in recent decades, may have contributed more to
improved safety. For example, the study noted that between 1975 and
2001, almost 30 percent of crossings had been closed across the
country.[Footnote 26] Currently, rail crossing deaths amount to less
than 1 percent of traffic fatalities, and the number of fatal accidents
at crossings has been declining (see fig. 6). In the states we visited,
transportation officials said that rail crossing safety had improved
substantially and some of the fatalities that occur now--when drivers
commit suicide or deliberately avoid warning devices--are difficult to
address with infrastructure improvements.
Figure 6: National Trend in Fatal Accidents at Rail-Highway Crossings,
1975 through 2007:
This figure is a line graph showing the national trend in fatal
accidents at rail-highway crossings, 1975 through 2007. The X axis
represents the year, and the Y axis represents the number of fatal
accidents at rail-highway crossings.
Year: 1975;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 728.
Year: 1977;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 784.
Year: 1979;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 684.
Year: 1981;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 561.
Year: 1983;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 440.
Year: 1985;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 441.
Year: 1987;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 483.
Year: 1989;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 610.
Year: 1991;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 462.
Year: 1993;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 489.
Year: 1995;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 419.
Year: 1997;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 341.
Year: 1999;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 307.
Year: 2001;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 320.
Year: 2003;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 270.
Year: 2005;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 283.
Year: 2007;
Number of fatal accidents at rail-highway crossings: 251.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FRA data.
[End of figure]
Finally, it is too soon to evaluate the results of the high-risk rural
road program because more time is needed for high-risk rural road
projects, like other HSIP infrastructure projects, to be selected,
built, and evaluated. According to state officials we interviewed, it
is too soon to identify the impact of the high-risk rural road program
on safety because the states have only recently begun to fund projects.
Moreover, because the program was newly established in SAFETEA-LU,
there are no prior projects to evaluate.
Safety Priorities Identified in States' Strategic Highway Safety Plans
Raise Questions about the Use of HSIP Flexible Funding and Rail-Highway
Crossing Set-aside Provisions:
Following the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, a state may direct, or flex, up
to 10 percent of its HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical
services projects--if it adopts a strategic highway safety plan and
certifies that it has met all of its highway safety infrastructure
needs. The rail-highway crossing set-aside provision reserves $220
million a year for projects to improve rail-highway crossing safety.
Our analysis indicates that, in some states, these provisions may not
align federal funding with states' most important safety needs and
priorities identified in their strategic highway safety plans.
Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and
Emergency Medical Services Projects:
Although states' strategic highway safety plans include behavioral and
emergency medical services projects as well as infrastructure projects,
as required since SAFETEA-LU, few states have funded noninfrastructure
projects with HSIP funds. The 25 state strategic highway safety plans
that we reviewed called for behavioral projects and 22 of these plans
called for emergency medical services projects. In our visits to
states, state safety engineers particularly emphasized the importance
of behavioral approaches to safety, explaining that engineering
solutions cannot by themselves address problems such as impaired or
aggressive driving, and that the most effective remedies for these
hazards would be those addressing driver behaviors, rather than
improving infrastructure.
Although the states' strategic highway safety plans indicate
substantial interest in implementing behavioral and emergency medical
services projects, as of June 2008, FHWA had approved certifications
from seven states that their infrastructure needs had been met,
enabling those states to flex up to 10 percent of their HSIP funding
for behavioral and emergency medical services projects. Collectively,
these seven states plan to use approximately $13 million for such
projects (see table 1).[Footnote 27]
Table 1: Information on Funding and Projects in Seven States Approved
to Flex HSIP Funds for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services
Projects:
State: Alabama;
Approved funding: $5,671,268;
Projects: Education, emergency medical services, and enforcement
activities.
State: Colorado;
Approved funding: 1,867,737;
Projects: Work zone safety, traffic records, occupant protection, and
other activities.
State: Hawaii;
Approved funding: 579,662;
Projects: Specific information on projects not available from FHWA.
State: Michigan;
Approved funding: 380,000;
Projects: Various projects, such as work zone safety and winter driving
safety education.
State: Nebraska;
Approved funding: 2,100,000;
Projects: Impaired driving, occupant protection, and young driver
safety activities.
State: Utah;
Approved funding: 983,132;
Projects: Continuation of the Zero Fatalities Program, which
incorporates a number of behavioral approaches.
State: Wisconsin;
Approved funding: 1,202,000;
Projects: Various public education programs, such as work zone safety
and older and medically impaired driver safety.
State: Total;
Approved funding: $12,783,799;
Projects: [Empty].
Source: FHWA.
[End of table]
Other states are not using HSIP funds to implement behavioral and
emergency medical services projects and may be reluctant to do so, in
part because of the certification requirement. For example, although
none of the six states we visited has requested approval to flex HSIP
funds, officials in two of those states did express interest in doing
so. However, these officials noted that their states could not meet the
certification requirements because of ongoing infrastructure needs and
concerns about the potential legal liability a state could incur by
certifying that all of its infrastructure safety needs have been met.
Officials in the other states we visited agreed that certification
would be difficult, but these officials did not express interest in
flexing funds because they had enough infrastructure projects to use
all of the available HSIP funds.
The 10 percent limit on flexing HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency
medical services projects may also be problematic for some states. For
example, a California official questioned the 10 percent limit,
suggesting that the level of funding a state flexes should be based on
the state's determination of program needs. Of the seven states
approved to flex HSIP funds, five requested approval to flex 10 percent
of their HSIP apportionment, which is the maximum percentage allowed
under the program. These states' decisions to flex the maximum
allowable percentage may indicate the high value they place on
behavioral or emergency medical services projects in addressing their
highway safety priorities. In its July 2008 reform proposal, DOT
recommended that states be allowed to flex up to 25 percent of their
HSIP apportionment to behavioral and emergency medical services
projects, but DOT did not propose to eliminate or modify the
certification requirement.[Footnote 28]
At least in part because of these conditions attached to flexing funds,
most HSIP funding remains focused on infrastructure. Moreover, with few
exceptions, federal safety programs specify what types of programs and
projects states can fund with federal dollars, thus further ensuring
that most HSIP funds remain focused on infrastructure improvement
projects, and behavioral and emergency medical services projects
continue to be funded primarily through NHTSA programs, especially the
Section 402 program.[Footnote 29] As a result, federal safety dollars
may not be aligned with the priorities states identified in their
strategic highway safety plans and may not target the most effective
types of safety projects. According to some state safety engineers,
removing the restriction that HSIP funds be used solely for
infrastructure improvements would allow states to better address
fatalities and serious injuries by directing funds to behavioral
problems such as impaired driving, which is the cause of many
fatalities.
Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Funding Set-aside May Target a Low
Priority for Some States:
After years of improvements in crossing safety since the rail-highway
crossing program began in 1973, such improvements are a low priority
for some states in their strategic highway safety plans, and the
program may provide safety funds for projects that provide
comparatively low safety benefits. SAFETEA-LU authorized a set-aside of
$220 million per year for this program from HSIP funds and allocates
these funds among the states according to a formula that is based, in
part, on the number of rail-highway crossings in each state. About two-
thirds of the 25 state plans we reviewed (17 of 25) did not identify
improvements to rail-highway crossings in their strategic highway
safety plans as a key safety emphasis area. Officials in two of the six
states we visited said funding for crossing set-asides is unnecessarily
large, and they questioned the appropriateness of setting aside such a
large amount of HSIP funding for a program that addresses the cause of
less than 1 percent of fatalities. For example, state transportation
officials in Iowa noted that 20 percent of the nation's HSIP funds are
directed to crossing safety, but these officials said crossing
improvement is a low-priority area for the state in its strategic
highway safety plan. FHWA officials also indicated to us that the level
of funding for the rail-highway crossing program was disproportionately
high, given the number of fatalities and accidents nationally.
Additionally, in preparing their 5 percent reports, states generally
did not report crossings as top hazards. For example, in our review of
the 5 percent reports for 25 states, we found 1 state--Oregon--that
included a crossing on its list of top hazardous locations, indicating
that these locations are not high priorities for most states.[Footnote
30]
Rail-highway crossing projects generally produced limited safety
benefits, such as reducing crashes and fatalities, according to our
analysis of project evaluations from 25 states. In the 25 annual
reports we reviewed for 2007, we found 21 included crash data for years
before and after rail-highway crossing improvement projects were
completed (4 states did not include these data). Almost all of the
improved locations in 15 of these 21 states showed zero incidents both
before and after the improvement. For example, in its 2007 report, the
state of Washington reported no fatalities in the 3 years before and in
the 3 years after the completion of the 12 crossing projects completed
in 2003. Furthermore, in the few states, such as Delaware, that
reported benefit-cost ratios for crossing projects, ratios were
consistently less than one, reflecting infrequent incidents and
benefits too low to justify costs.
Nevertheless, other states prioritized rail-highway crossing safety in
their strategic highway safety plans because they have determined that
crossing safety projects are effective in improving overall highway
safety. About one-third of the plans we reviewed (8 of 25) identified
crossings as a key emphasis area. For example, Indiana, a state with
approximately 4,800 miles of railroad track, emphasized rail-highway
crossings in its strategic highway safety plan, noting that collisions
involving vehicles and trains are more likely to result in fatalities
and serious injuries than collisions involving 2 or more motor
vehicles. In its fiscal year 2007 rail-highway crossing program report,
Indiana noted that at 67 locations where crossing projects were
completed during 2002 and 2003, 5 crashes that resulted in fatalities
or injuries occurred in the 3 years before the improvements were made,
whereas 2 crashes that resulted in injuries--and no fatalities--
occurred in the 3 years after improvements were made. In addition, 2 of
the 6 states we visited, Mississippi and Illinois, have used state
money to augment federal funds for crossing safety. Specifically, in
2001 and 2003 Mississippi put a total of $8 million of state money into
crossing upgrades in addition to federal funding of $3.3 million for
such upgrades. Illinois, in recent years, has programmed $27 million
per year of state funds to rail safety (including crossings and grade
separations), in addition to the $10 million provided by the federal
government through the crossing program. Additionally, in our review of
state rail-highway crossing reports, we found 1 state, Ohio, that
reported crossings were significantly less dangerous following
improvement projects, according to the state's assessment of crash
risk.[Footnote 31] Finally, FRA officials noted that crossing safety is
particularly important for those states and communities with a large
proportion of crossings and train traffic, noting that accidents at
crossings can be catastrophic.
While the rail-highway crossing set-aside program, as implemented under
SAFETEA-LU, required that all of this program's funding be spent on
rail-highway crossing projects, the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections
Act[Footnote 32] amended the law to allow states to use rail-highway
crossing set-aside funds for other types of HSIP projects if they
certify that they have met all of their rail crossing needs. In its
July 2008 reform proposal, DOT called for funding rail-highway crossing
projects in accordance with each state's strategic highway safety plan,
without a specific set-aside, or for reducing the mandatory rail-
highway set-aside.[Footnote 33] While the impact of the recent
technical correction in the law remains to be seen, some states may be
reluctant to certify that they have met all of their rail-highway
crossing needs or they may have legal concerns about the potential
liabilities of such a certification, just as some states were reluctant
to make use of HSIP's flexible funding provision for those reasons.
High-Risk Rural Road Program Is Too Recent to Evaluate Results, but
Data Limitations and Localities' Inexperience Are Hindering
Implementation:
Most states are in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural
road set-aside program and have yet to obligate significant funds for
projects. Data limitations are hindering these states' ability to
target program funds to eligible projects, based on our review of the
25 states' strategic highway safety plans and associated reports and
interviews with officials in the 6 states.
SAFETEA-LU authorized $90 million per year, or a total of $360 million
for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, for states to address hazards on
roads designated as high risk.[Footnote 34] According to reports on the
program to FHWA by the 25 states we selected, 23 of these states had
begun implementing the program to some extent by the end of fiscal year
2007. Of these 23 states, 16 had already identified projects and
approved, funded, or contracted for at least one infrastructure
project, and 7 were still identifying potential projects, gathering
data, or performing other preliminary activities. Obligations made to
date are low because states remain in the early stages of implementing
the program. As of the end of June 2008, states had obligated $50.3
million, or about 19 percent of the $270 million authorized by FHWA for
the high-risk rural road program through that period.[Footnote 35]
Partly to address this issue, FHWA announced a rural road safety
initiative in early 2008 to highlight options for improving rural road
safety, thus encouraging states to take full advantage of the funding
available through the high-risk rural road program.
Limited data on rural roads--including data on crash locations and
local roadway characteristics--is hindering the program's
implementation by making it difficult for some states to identify roads
that conform to the definition of high-risk rural roads adopted by
SAFETEA-LU. For example, according to our review of 25 state strategic
highway safety plans and reports on the program, few states reported
having roadway inventory data for all public roads (3 of 25) or
complete, high-quality crash data for rural roads (5 of 25), leaving a
significant number of states without data on rural roads and,
therefore, without the means to effectively implement the program.
Additionally, officials in 5 of the 6 states we visited noted that
limitations in their crash location and roadway characteristics data
made it difficult for them to identify qualifying roadways and
appropriate remedies.
Even when data are available, the program may be challenging for states
to implement because of difficulties in analyzing those data. Some
state officials we interviewed said that selecting candidate projects
on the basis of data analysis was challenging because specific
locations on rural roads tend to have lower traffic volumes and few
crashes, fatalities, and incapacitating injuries, even though higher
numbers of fatalities happen on rural roads in general. Consequently,
it is difficult for safety engineers and planners to determine which
specific roadway segments, intersections, or other areas are most in
need of improvement. For example, state officials in Iowa noted that
many rural road projects would not be selected on the basis of crash
frequency data and, consequently, other selection criteria, such as
input from local transportation officials, are necessary to pick
locations for improvements in rural areas.
Additionally, implementing projects on roads that are not owned by the
state may be challenging because administering improvement projects can
be difficult for local governments. Because many of the roadways
targeted by the high-risk rural road program are locally owned and
managed, local agencies need to be involved in implementing projects on
those roads. However, according to a recent FHWA study, local agencies
may not have much experience in managing federal-aid highway
contracts.[Footnote 36] For example, Iowa officials commented that the
federal requirements associated with the high-risk rural road program,
like other federal aid highway projects, can be difficult for county
governments to handle.
FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance, Training, and Technical
Assistance to Support States' Planning and Implementation of HSIP, but
Its Guidance on the 5 Percent Reports Gave States Latitude:
To support states in planning and carrying out their HSIP programs,
FHWA officials provided comprehensive written guidance memorandums,
training, and technical assistance. FHWA's Office of Safety issued
guidance memorandums covering the states' planning, implementation, and
evaluation of HSIP programs and held training on strategic highway
safety planning for state officials. FHWA's division offices also
participated in state planning efforts. In developing guidance on the
new 5 percent report adopted by SAFETEA-LU, FHWA gave states latitude
in defining the methodology and scope of their reports, and
consequently, although these reports generally are consistent with
SAFETEA-LU, they may not be as useful to the public as intended. FHWA's
guidance on developing and implementing strategic highway safety plans
indicated that states should rely on the existing transportation
planning processes. In addition, FHWA provided guidance to states on
monitoring federal-aid highway projects, including safety projects, to
help ensure that local public agencies are administering projects in
accordance with federal requirements. FHWA's guidance for evaluating
HSIP projects directed states to evaluate all safety projects and
strategies and to use performance-based goals, established as part of
the strategic highway safety plan.
FHWA Provided Comprehensive Guidance and Technical Assistance, and FHWA
Officials Participated in States' Planning Processes:
FHWA's Office of Safety provided programmatic guidance to the states
through eight memorandums that introduced new HSIP features. These
memorandums explained how states should meet the new requirement for a
strategic highway safety plan, prepare annual reports on the HSIP
safety construction program and the 2 set-aside programs, apply to flex
funds between programs if needed to support their strategic plans, and
prepare annual 5 percent reports describing their most severe hazardous
locations. In addition, FHWA provided training through symposiums and
offered technical assistance to state departments of transportation to
help them establish a process for developing strategic plans that would
meet the requirements added by SAFETEA-LU. Although FHWA did not
initially issue regulations to implement SAFETEA-LU's revisions to
HSIP, it is now doing so. FHWA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on SAFETEA-LU's revisions to HSIP in April 2008 and, according to an
FHWA official, expects to propose a final rule late in 2008.
FHWA's most extensive guidance memorandum, a 38-page booklet, focused
on how states should comply with the new strategic highway safety
planning requirements in SAFETEA-LU. The booklet recommended several
detailed steps to prepare for developing the plans, including steps
designed to encourage coordination, such as the following:
* become familiar with existing safety plans developed for programs
funded by NHTSA and FMCSA, plus plans developed by statewide and
metropolitan planning agencies;
* establish a working group to guide the development of the strategic
plan; and:
* bring safety partners together at a safety summit to share safety
priorities and discuss critical safety issues.
FHWA division staff worked closely with the states to help them carry
out their HSIP planning processes. For example, we found FHWA staff
listed among the state planning partners in all 25 of the strategic
highway safety plans that we reviewed. In the six states we visited,
FHWA division officials helped arrange for planning summits to be held,
and, in two of the six states, FHWA staff encouraged highway safety
stakeholders to attend. In Pennsylvania, the FHWA division office
helped pay for the safety summit. In Illinois, FHWA officials helped
the state establish a state safety engineering office. Without that
office, compliance with new HSIP requirements would have been
difficult, according to FHWA division officials. The FHWA division also
helped with a summit and two planning workshops.
In all six states we visited, FHWA division officials were, to varying
degrees, involved in states' strategic highway safety planning
processes--for example, by attending safety summit meetings, working on
planning committees for state strategic planning committees,
facilitating meetings, and clarifying FHWA policies and requirements.
State officials in every state we visited indicated that FHWA officials
were highly instrumental and played an important role in providing
guidance and assistance during the development of their strategic
highway safety plans. In addition, in all 50 states, FHWA division
offices were responsible for reviewing strategic highway safety plans
to assess the planning process and the completeness of state plans,
including whether the states' data systems covered all public
roads.[Footnote 37]
FHWA Gave States Latitude on the Methodology and Scope of Their 5
Percent Reports, Limiting the Reports' Usefulness in Increasing Public
Awareness:
In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states broad
latitude in meeting this new reporting requirement. SAFETEA-LU did not
specify criteria or a methodology for states to use in defining the
hazardous locations (e.g., the universe of roads that would be used to
select the locations and the definition of severe or hazardous safety
needs) or determining the exact percentage of hazardous locations
states should identify--beyond specifying that the report should
include "at least five percent" of the most severe hazardous locations
in the state--nor did the legislation include a prescribed format for
the 5 percent reports, except to say that the report must be "clearly
understandable." FHWA officials told us that, consistent with the
changes made by SAFETEA-LU, they did not define a methodology and left
it to the states to set criteria for selecting locations. Also, as we
previously mentioned, FHWA recognized that states' data varied greatly
and that many states lacked data, particularly on local roads. The
guidance instructed states to work with the crash location data they
had and to submit 5 percent reports with an explanation of the data
limitations and a schedule for achieving full coverage of all roads. In
May 2007, to identify and share best practices, FHWA distributed
information on noteworthy practices and examples, based on its analysis
of the 5 percent reports received in 2006. This information contained
suggestions for organizing a 5 percent report, but did not specify a
methodology for states to use in identifying and reporting on the most
severe hazardous locations.
Consequently, the 5 percent reports submitted to FHWA to date vary
widely in the criteria and methodologies used for selecting the most
severe hazardous locations and, thus, the number of locations reported,
the information included, and the format for presenting the
information. First, states used markedly different definitions of the
universe of roads from which they selected their hazardous locations--
some states reported on 5 percent of a large set of roadway locations
(e.g., any public road with a crash involving a fatality or serious
injury) and other states reported on 5 percent of a much smaller set of
roadway locations (e.g., locations the state had defined as the "most
hazardous"). As a result of these differing methodologies, states
varied widely in the actual number of hazardous locations described in
their 5 percent reports. For example, according to FHWA's review of the
5 percent reports submitted by 50 states and the District of Columbia
in 2006, the number of locations reported per state ranged from 1 to
more than 3,200. Similarly, our review of 25 states' 5 percent reports
submitted in 2007 indicates that the variations in reporting have
continued, with the number of locations reported per state ranging from
5 to 880.
Second, the information included in 5 percent reports we reviewed also
varied. For example, some reports included remedies and costs for each
hazardous location, as required, while others showed remedies and costs
only for certain locations or for none at all. Third, states also used
different formats to identify the hazardous locations they listed in
their 5 percent reports, and some formats may not be meaningful or
readily understandable to the public. For example, the public may find
it difficult to identify a hazardous location when it is identified in
the report by the roadway mile marker, as is done in several reports we
reviewed. Given these differences in format--as well as the differences
in methodology and information included--the 5 percent reports may not
be providing consistent information to the public and fully serving
their purpose of raising public awareness of highway safety hazards and
needs, as specified in SAFETEA-LU and FHWA's guidance.
According to FHWA officials, DOT proposed eliminating the 5 percent
report requirement in its July 2008 surface transportation reform
proposal because the department believed that sufficient and more
useful information would exist through the publication of states'
strategic highway safety plans and HSIP annual reports.[Footnote 38]
Those officials told us that HSIP's strategic plans and annual reports
provide a more comprehensive and consistent summary of safety
challenges facing the states--and, thus, offer more promise in
contributing to public awareness of safety issues--than the 5 percent
report. We also found that some states were using their 5 percent
reports to help identify projects for funding. These states could
continue to do this analysis if the report were eliminated.
FHWA's Guidance on Implementing Strategic Highway Safety Plans Relied
on Existing Planning Processes and Informal Coordination among Key
Federal and State Stakeholders:
FHWA's guidance recommended that state transportation departments
implement their strategic highway safety plans through existing safety
programs administered by FHWA, NHTSA, and FMSCA, and through existing
federal and state transportation planning processes, as follows:
* FHWA directs states to implement HSIP infrastructure projects through
the same planning processes they use for other infrastructure projects-
-that is, states must include HSIP infrastructure projects in their
statewide transportation improvement program.[Footnote 39]
* NHTSA requires states to list projects funded through its grant
programs in annual highway safety plans.
* FMCSA requires states to list activities funded through its grant
programs in commercial vehicle safety plans.
To facilitate the coordination and implementation of the strategic
highway safety plan across these various federal programs, FHWA
recommended, but did not require, that states develop action plans with
further information on how they planned to implement projects through
their statewide transportation improvement programs, highway safety
plans, and commercial vehicle safety plans. The action plan was to
provide more detailed information about safety programs and projects
than the strategic highway safety plan, describe how programs and
projects should be coordinated and implemented, designate leadership
responsibilities for implementation, and specify funding sources.
Figure 7 illustrates the process for advancing programs and projects
from the strategic highway safety plan through an action plan to an
FHWA, NHTSA, or FMCSA safety funding program and plan.
Figure 7: Strategic Highway Safety Plan Implementation Uses Existing
Federal and State Planning Processes:
This figure is a flowchart showing the strategic highway safety plan
implementation uses existing federal and state planning processes.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
According to FHWA's guidance, an action plan could promote coordination
at the state level during the development of the HSIP strategic highway
safety plan and NHTSA's and FMCSA's program plans, particularly for
behavioral and emergency medical services projects that could be funded
through more than one program or agency. The action plan could be
developed with multiagency involvement and could address the
implementation of all related DOT safety projects within a specific
emphasis area identified in the strategic highway safety plan, rather
than within a specific DOT safety program. Two of the six states we
visited were developing or had completed action plans. Mississippi is
developing multiagency action plans for the safety emphasis areas
within its strategic highway safety plan. These action plans describe
the expected effectiveness of proposed projects and identify project
costs, keys to success, any state legislative actions needed, and the
lead state agency for implementing the proposed projects. In April
2008, California officials completed a formal strategic highway safety
action plan based on collaborative work by seven state safety agencies,
including the state department of transportation, the office
responsible for NHTSA safety grant programs, and the office responsible
for FMCSA programs.
In implementing strategic highway safety plans, FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA
and their grantees coordinate and collaborate informally when they have
no formal implementation agreements, according to officials we
interviewed from those three agencies. Even though the strategic
highway safety plans must consider a comprehensive set of potential
approaches to improve highway safety, only the HSIP funds administered
by FHWA must be spent in accordance with this plan. Nevertheless, both
NHTSA and FMCSA have encouraged their field office staff and grantees
to support the implementation of state strategic highway safety plans
through their respective agencies' highway safety plans and commercial
vehicle safety plans. For example, although NHTSA has not issued
comprehensive guidance to states on the relationship of the strategic
highway safety plan to NHTSA programs, a NHTSA official told us that,
in some cases, state officials responsible for implementing NHTSA
programs use the strategic highway safety plan as a basis for setting
their program priorities. Likewise, according to an FMCSA official, in
states that included motor carrier safety issues in their strategic
highway safety plan, FMCSA program stakeholders also use the state's
strategic highway safety plan to further their programmatic goals. This
coordination occurs naturally in states, such as Florida and
Pennsylvania, where the same officials are responsible both for
planning behavioral projects funded by NHTSA programs and for
implementing HSIP projects. In other states where these functions are
in different offices, such as California and Iowa, officials
responsible for behavioral projects held key leadership positions in
the development of the state's strategic highway safety plan. However,
the nature and extent of this coordination depends on the state, and
there is no federal requirement to encourage it. DOT, in its July 2008
surface transportation reform proposal,[Footnote 40] called for states
to submit their NHTSA grant applications in conjunction with their
strategic highway safety plans to better ensure coordination. However,
the DOT proposal does not require NHTSA grantees to align the
activities conducted under their grants with the emphasis areas
identified in their states' strategic highway safety plans.
FHWA Monitors HSIP through Reporting and Other Requirements:
FHWA division offices monitor states' performance through annual
reports for HSIP, including reports on the HSIP set-aside programs for
rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural roads. These reports, which
are submitted by state transportation departments to FHWA, describe the
state's progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects
and projects under the two set-aside programs; the effectiveness of
these projects; and the extent to which the projects helped reduce
roadway fatalities, injuries, and crashes. In addition to these
reports, states are required to prepare annually the 5 percent reports
that we previously discussed in this report.
As part of its oversight responsibilities, FHWA monitors the use of all
federal-aid highway funds, including HSIP funds. Under this oversight
program, FHWA has directed its division offices to work with states to
ensure that these projects are carried out in accordance with federal
requirements. For example, the FHWA division office and the state
transportation department enter into an agreement about how the federal-
aid highway projects in the state will conform to federal requirements
(e.g., the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, among others). In monitoring the federal-aid highway program,
FHWA conducts program reviews of state-administered projects on
predetermined schedules, using techniques such as risk assessments.
Additionally, FHWA division offices assess whether and how state
departments of transportation monitor locally administered federal-aid
projects for compliance with federal requirements. States are
responsible for determining that subrecipients of federal-aid highway
funds--that is, local agencies--have adequate project delivery systems
and sufficient accounting controls to manage those funds. Such systems
and controls are important to help ensure that HSIP projects will be
built and federal funds will be properly spent to reduce the share of
fatalities that occur on roads under local agencies' jurisdiction. FHWA
division offices periodically review state transportation departments'
processes and procedures for oversight of local agencies to determine
if improvements are warranted.
FHWA Guidance Describes Evaluation Requirements for Strategic Highway
Safety Plans and HSIP Projects:
Since SAFETEA-LU's enactment, states have been required to regularly
evaluate their strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA has issued
guidance that directs states to evaluate the plans annually after an
initial implementation period. FHWA's guidance encourages states to
continue coordinating with stakeholders who participated in developing
the plan and include in their evaluation all safety projects and
strategies, regardless of funding source or responsible agency. FHWA
noted that evaluating the strategic plan would help states determine
the impact of various strategies and make better decisions about the
allocation of resources. According to FHWA's guidance, the strategic
plan should be revised periodically--approximately every 4 to 5 years-
-to update safety goals and strategies for the state.
Both before and after SAFETEA-LU's enactment, states have also been
required to evaluate the results achieved through individual projects
carried out under HSIP. FHWA's guidance since SAFETEA-LU requires using
performance-based goals, established as part of the strategic highway
safety plan, to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan's strategies.
Task groups, formed during the strategic highway safety planning
process, set specific performance-based goals for a state's emphasis
areas and strategies to measure progress during the strategic highway
safety plan's implementation. For example, a task group might set a
strategy goal of reducing cross-median fatalities and serious injuries
by 20 percent within 4 years, as part of a larger emphasis area goal to
reduce roadway departure fatalities and serious injuries. Since SAFETEA-
LU, FHWA's updated guidance for evaluating HSIP projects directs that
states revise their performance goals from reducing the "number and
severity of accidents and potential accidents" to reducing the "number
of fatalities and serious injuries."
Conclusions:
The collaboration between safety stakeholders that resulted from the
strategic planning process added by SAFETEA-LU has helped states take a
more comprehensive approach to highway safety, but the data limitations
that many states face prevent them from fully implementing the data-
driven project selection process specified in SAFETEA-LU. Although FHWA
expects every state to have the crash location data and a system to
locate crashes on all public roads by August 2009, many states will
likely take longer to obtain the roadway inventory data needed to
identify remedies for hazardous locations and to estimate the costs of
those remedies, as required. FHWA has not set a deadline for states to
obtain these data, nor has it required states to submit schedules to
FHWA for achieving compliance with this requirement. To this end, FHWA
has taken a first step by proposing a large set of potential roadway
inventory data elements in its MMIRE. However, the agency has yet to
specify which of these proposed elements are essential to address
HSIP's requirements for analysis of hazardous locations on all public
roads. Implementing a data-driven project selection process is critical
because it provides a fact-based approach for identifying and ranking
safety priorities and demonstrating to the public that states are using
public funds effectively to address their highest safety priorities.
While states have estimated that the costs of complying fully with the
law's data requirements may be high, SAFETEA-LU significantly increased
states' authorized HSIP funding and placed no limit on the percentage
of HSIP safety construction funds that the states can use to address
data deficiencies.
While SAFETEA-LU added requirements for states to develop and implement
strategic highway safety plans that consider a wide range of approaches
to improving highway safety, states have limited flexibility to match
funds to their safety priorities. For example, the restrictions on
using HSIP funds for noninfrastructure remedies--including the
requirement for certifying that all highway safety infrastructure needs
have been met before flexing HSIP funds to noninfrastructure projects-
-may preclude some states from using these funds for high-priority
behavioral or emergency medical services projects that the states' data
indicate could save more lives, because of states' ongoing
infrastructure needs and concerns about the potential legal liability
of making such a certification. Conversely, the requirement to set
aside funds for rail-highway crossing improvements may lead states, in
some cases, to apply HSIP funds to projects that have a low priority in
those states' strategic highway safety plans. Both of these funding
restrictions have limited the ability of some states to implement the
full complement of approaches described in their strategic highway
safety plans and to fully achieve the goal of using data to identify
and select projects that best address their highway safety priorities.
Based on our work and FHWA's analysis, the quality and usefulness of
the 5 percent reports that states have submitted to FHWA is
questionable because of data and other limitations. To date, the
reports vary widely in the methodology used for selecting the most
severe hazardous locations and, thus, the number of hazardous locations
listed, the information included, and the format for identifying those
locations. While this variation is consistent with the limited guidance
FHWA provided on the reports, the quality and usefulness of reports
that list very few hazardous locations or use unfamiliar terms to
identify locations is unclear, and some reports may not be enhancing
public awareness of the most severe highway safety hazards and needs as
intended. FHWA officials told us that HSIP's strategic highway safety
plans and annual reports provide a more comprehensive and consistent
summary of safety challenges facing the states--and thus offer more
promise in contributing to public awareness of safety issues--than the
5 percent report. When DOT developed its reform proposal as part of its
preparation for the upcoming reauthorization of all surface
transportation programs, including HSIP, in 2009, it proposed
eliminating this reporting requirement.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
To improve HSIP's effectiveness, Congress should consider taking the
following two actions:
* To better align HSIP funding with states' top safety priorities,
restructure two of HSIP's statutory funding provisions by:
- modifying HSIP's flexible funding provision to either revise or
eliminate the certification requirement so that states can more freely
direct HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical services
projects--rather than infrastructure improvement projects--when data
analysis indicates more fatalities and serious injuries could be
prevented by doing so and:
- revising the rail-highway crossing set-aside program to ensure that
its funding level is more closely and appropriately tied to the number
of fatalities and serious injuries that such improvements can be
expected to prevent in the states, and to ensure that any resulting
additional funds be directed to highway safety projects that promise
greater benefits.
* Eliminate the requirement for states to prepare the 5 percent report,
given states' current data limitations that hinder their complete and
consistent reporting.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help states fully implement the data-driven project selection
process prescribed for HSIP, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the FHWA Administrator to take the following
three actions:
* define which roadway inventory data elements--contained in its
proposal for a Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements, as
appropriate--a state needs to meet federal requirements for HSIP;
* set a deadline for states to finalize development of the required
roadway inventory data; and:
* require states to submit schedules to FHWA for achieving compliance
with this requirement.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment prior
to finalizing the report. DOT generally agreed with the findings and
recommendations and provided technical comments, which we incorporated
as appropriate. FRA officials also provided their additional
perspective on HSIP's rail-highway crossing set-aside program--which is
administered by FHWA--emphasizing that such crossings have the
potential for serious or even catastrophic accidents and, as we noted
in our report, that crossing safety is particularly important for
states and communities with a greater proportion of crossings and train
traffic.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
interested congressional committees and the Secretary of
Transportation. The report also will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine A. Siggerud:
Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In this report, we assessed the Highway Safety Improvement Program's
(HSIP) progress toward enhancing highway safety through road
improvements--a goal set forth in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
To perform this assessment, we addressed the following questions: (1)
What steps have states taken to implement HSIP since SAFETEA-LU? (2)
What have been the results to date of states' efforts in carrying out
HSIP, including the results of their set-aside programs for rail-
highway crossings and for high-risk rural roads? (3) What types of
guidance and assistance has the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
provided to states to support their planning, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of HSIP?
In responding to these questions, our overall approach was to review
pertinent legislation; analyze the strategic highway safety plans and
related documentation that 25 states submitted to FHWA in 2007,
including 6 states where we conducted site visits; review FHWA guidance
to states and division offices; and interview FHWA Office of Safety and
division officials, state transportation and safety officials, and a
wide range of stakeholders and interest groups.
The legislation that we reviewed included:
* SAFETEA-LU's changes to the HSIP provisions and other highway safety
funding authorizations in the U.S. Code and:
* the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
For the 25 states we selected, we analyzed their:
* strategic highway safety plans;
* annual HSIP, high-risk rural road, and rail-highway crossing program
reports; and:
* 5 percent reports.
Our analysis of this documentation focused on the extent to which the
selected states had met key elements added by SAFETEA-LU, including:
* involving multiple stakeholder groups in the strategic planning
process;
* selecting projects that addressed all aspects of highway safety,
including infrastructure, behavioral, and emergency medical services
projects;
* developing a data-driven project selection process; and:
* incorporating an evaluation component in the strategic highway safety
plan.
We also determined the extent to which the plans included projects
addressing rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural roads.
To select the 25 states whose highway safety documentation we analyzed,
we randomly selected 19 states and judgmentally selected 6 other
states--California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and
Pennsylvania--where we conducted site visits and more in-depth reviews.
To select the 6 states for site visits, we considered several factors,
including:
* numbers of highway fatalities in 2005;
* numbers and rates of alcohol-related fatalities, rural deaths, and
pedestrian deaths;
* numbers of fatalities at rail-highway crossings;
* miles of urban and rural roads; and:
* geographic distribution.
Although our analyses covered about half of the 51 strategic highway
safety plans and related reports that the 50 states and the District of
Columbia submitted to FHWA, our analyses cannot be projected nationwide
because our sample did not include a sufficient number of randomly
selected states and we selected the 6 states we visited judgmentally.
Besides analyzing the 25 selected states' strategic highway safety
plans and related reports, we reviewed 8 guidance documents that FHWA
provided to the states on implementing their highway safety programs
and interviewed FHWA Office of Safety officials. Additionally, in the 6
states we visited, we interviewed FHWA division officials and state
transportation and safety program officials. We asked the FHWA
officials about the guidance and assistance they provided to the states
and sought the views of the state officials on the value and extent of
FHWA's involvement in the strategic highway safety planning process.
During our site visits, we also asked FHWA division officials and state
transportation officials for their views on how SAFETEA-LU had affected
HSIP and the implementation of the rail-highway crossing and high-risk
rural road programs in their states.
Finally, we interviewed representatives from a wide range of
stakeholder and interest groups to obtain their views on the program.
These groups included the following:
* Other federal agencies:
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
- Federal Railroad Administration:
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
* State and local organizations:
- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
- Governors Highway Safety Association:
- National Association of County Engineers:
- National Association of Counties:
* Education and research organizations:
- AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety:
- Operation Lifesaver:
- the University of California Berkeley Traffic Safety Center:
* Advocacy and industry groups:
- American Highway Users Alliance:
- Association of American Railroads:
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving:
We conducted this performance audit from May 2007 through November 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained meets these standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: HSIP Apportionments for States, Including Equity Bonus and
Other Adjustments:
Formulas in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) govern the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) apportionments to states for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP). FHWA bases its HSIP apportionments
initially on the amounts authorized by SAFETEA-LU for the program and
the related apportionment factors. FHWA then applies other adjustments
based on factors not related to safety.
First, SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that FHWA apportion HSIP funds to
individual states based on three equally weighted factors: (1) lane
miles of federal-aid highways in each state, (2) total vehicle miles
traveled on federal-aid highways in each state, and (3) number of
fatalities on the federal-aid system in each state. FHWA then adjusts
the HSIP apportionment for other factors identified in SAFETEA-LU and
other laws related to federal appropriations in general. Adjustments
made because of SAFETEA-LU provisions include the Equity Bonus Program;
the State Planning and Research set-aside; and, as applicable, revenue-
aligned budget authority. Other laws include rescissions due to
appropriations acts.
The Equity Bonus Program, authorized by SAFETEA-LU, creates the largest
adjustment that FHWA makes to state HSIP apportionments. The Equity
Bonus Program provides funding to states based on equity criteria, such
as a minimum return on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. Because
of the Equity Bonus Program, FHWA increased states' HSIP apportionments
by $281 million in fiscal year 2006, $281 million in fiscal year 2007,
and $301 million in fiscal year 2008. It added 23.6 percent to the
amount SAFETEA-LU authorized for HSIP in fiscal year 2008. Under the
program, two states and the District of Columbia did not receive an
adjustment because they did not meet program criteria, while the other
states, which met the bonus criteria, had their HSIP apportionments
increased by varying amounts.
States are required, since SAFETEA-LU, to set aside 2 percent of their
HSIP apportionments for specified state planning and research purposes.
In fiscal year 2008, this set-aside reduced the amount that FHWA
apportioned to states for HSIP by $27 million.
SAFETEA-LU included provisions for the distribution of revenue-aligned
budget authority. This adjustment, which reflects changed estimates in
highway account tax receipts, can cause a change in HSIP
apportionments, to bring budget authority in line with revised revenue.
FHWA made no revenue-aligned budget authority adjustments in fiscal
years 2006 or 2008, but did increase the HSIP apportionment in fiscal
year 2007 by $32.1 million due to this adjustment factor.
Appropriations laws can mandate a rescission of apportionments. In
2006, FHWA revised the HSIP apportionment down by 1 percent due to a
rescission. This reduced the HSIP apportionment by about $12.4 million
for fiscal year 2006. No rescissions were required for fiscal years
2007 and 2008.
Table 2 provides details of FHWA's fiscal year 2008 apportionments by
state.
Table 2: Apportionments of HSIP Funds, by State, Fiscal Year 2008:
State: Alabama;
HSIP for all public roads: $21,585,162;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: $4,402,428;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: $2,016,648;
Equity bonus for HSIP: $9,539,910;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: $662,834;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: $36,881,314.
State: Alaska;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,907,146;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 223,474;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,050,239.
State: Arizona;
HSIP for all public roads: 20,670,374;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,643,819;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,931,182;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,788,759;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 647,806;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 34,386,328.
State: Arkansas;
HSIP for all public roads: 14,703,681;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,715,371;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,373,729;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,638,716;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 414,323;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,017,174.
State: California;
HSIP for all public roads: 94,542,807;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 15,799,013;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 8,832,902;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 19,037,163;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 2,448,257;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 135,763,628.
State: Colorado;
HSIP for all public roads: 15,692,814;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,130,510;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,466,141;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,020,772;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 403,595;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 22,906,642.
State: Connecticut;
HSIP for all public roads: 7,634,037;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,308,802;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 713,229;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,006,594;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 207,077;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,455,585.
State: Delaware;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 751,047;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 120,352;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,997,262.
State: District of Columbia;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,261,236.
State: Florida;
HSIP for all public roads: 50,848,349;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 8,536,504;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 4,750,636;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 30,712,493;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 1,726,230;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 93,121,752.
State: Georgia;
HSIP for all public roads: 34,004,366;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 8,181,350;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,176,944;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 19,527,994;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 1,134,186;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 63,756,468.
State: Hawaii;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 516,791;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 115,667;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,767,691.
State: Idaho;
HSIP for all public roads: 6,946,249;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,656,853;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 648,971;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,138,513;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 214,675;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,175,911.
State: Illinois;
HSIP for all public roads: 33,302,208;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 10,055,232;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,111,343;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,783,419;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 923,939;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 55,328,263.
State: Indiana;
HSIP for all public roads: 18,953,829;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,204,490;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,770,809;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,402,398;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 622,541;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 37,708,985.
State: Iowa;
HSIP for all public roads: 14,534,318;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 4,947,537;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,357,905;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,415,309;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 346,151;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 21,908,918.
State: Kansas;
HSIP for all public roads: 16,594,875;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 6,123,937;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,550,418;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 812,955;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 379,165;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,703,020.
State: Kentucky;
HSIP for all public roads: 15,698,692;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,567,557;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,466,690;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,431,589;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 431,939;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 24,732,589.
State: Louisiana;
HSIP for all public roads: 15,843,364;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,159,189;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,480,207;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,025,349;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 386,978;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,121,131.
State: Maine;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,186,942;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,348,178.
State: Maryland;
HSIP for all public roads: 14,093,286;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,273,932;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,316,701;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,328,637;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 354,772;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 19,657,784.
State: Massachusetts;
HSIP for all public roads: 12,952,825;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,360,935;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,210,151;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 758,716;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 298,434;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 16,984,193.
State: Michigan;
HSIP for all public roads: 31,354,773;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,768,635;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,929,399;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,336,286;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 852,409;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 49,536,684.
State: Minnesota;
HSIP for all public roads: 19,767,073;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,914,043;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,846,789;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,933,531;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 550,948;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 32,910,488.
State: Mississippi;
HSIP for all public roads: 16,276,249;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,328,546;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,520,650;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,958,785;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 415,114;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,669,116.
State: Missouri;
HSIP for all public roads: 25,818,035;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 6,034,429;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,412,115;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,071,981;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 726,043;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 41,610,517.
State: Montana;
HSIP for all public roads: 7,437,206;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,748,422;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 694,840;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,840,259;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 239,446;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 13,481,281.
State: Nebraska;
HSIP for all public roads: 9,980,723;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,705,049;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 932,474;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,044,352;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 239,151;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 15,423,447.
State: Nevada;
HSIP for all public roads: 7,465,355;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 697,470;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,316,151;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 209,580;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,369,396.
State: New Hampshire;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 833,444;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 122,000;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 7,078,011.
State: New Jersey;
HSIP for all public roads: 17,422,236;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,588,846;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,627,717;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 5,499,292;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 490,985;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 27,647,106.
State: New Mexico;
HSIP for all public roads: 10,533,313;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,565,355;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 984,101;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 3,051,173;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 291,372;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 15,842,570.
State: New York;
HSIP for all public roads: 32,999,363;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 6,328,237;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 3,083,049;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,584,791;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 813,344;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 46,182,096.
State: North Carolina;
HSIP for all public roads: 25,069,804;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 6,171,837;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,342,210;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 9,343,151;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 735,103;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 42,191,899.
State: North Dakota;
HSIP for all public roads: 6,785,822;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,472,532;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 633,983;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 849,296;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 165,382;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 11,576,251.
State: Ohio;
HSIP for all public roads: 30,032,171;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 8,555,008;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,805,832;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,536,104;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 867,482;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 51,061,633.
State: Oklahoma;
HSIP for all public roads: 20,047,029;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,052,599;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,872,945;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 4,268,154;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 523,763;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 30,716,964.
State: Oregon;
HSIP for all public roads: 13,117,523;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 3,105,301;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 1,225,538;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,534,174;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 317,545;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 18,664,991.
State: Pennsylvania;
HSIP for all public roads: 31,809,303;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 7,191,491;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,971,865;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 6,726,382;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 830,151;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 47,868,890.
State: Rhode Island;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 0;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,331;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,261,236.
State: South Carolina;
HSIP for all public roads: 22,033,900;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 4,096,530;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 2,058,573;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,504,797;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 651,945;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 36,041,855.
State: South Dakota;
HSIP for all public roads: 7,978,365;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 2,308,872;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 745,399;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,926,252;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 213,000;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 12,745,888.
State: Tennessee;
HSIP for all public roads: 22,140,448;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,591,335;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,068,528;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,107,608;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 646,332;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 36,261,587.
State: Texas;
HSIP for all public roads: 76,832,361;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 16,934,757;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 7,178,258;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 36,200,902;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 2,404,230;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 134,742,048.
State: Utah;
HSIP for all public roads: 7,175,986;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,586,657;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 670,435;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,404,186;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 185,012;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 10,652,252.
State: Vermont;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 7,285;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 105,477;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 6,268,375.
State: Virginia;
HSIP for all public roads: 23,588,009;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 4,458,740;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 2,203,770;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 8,879,387;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 693,423;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 38,436,483.
State: Washington;
HSIP for all public roads: 16,847,426;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 3,991,859;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,574,013;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 1,137,725;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 391,183;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 23,159,840.
State: West Virginia;
HSIP for all public roads: 8,375,352;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 1,985,435;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 782,489;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 2,769,486;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 238,547;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 13,674,215.
State: Wisconsin;
HSIP for all public roads: 20,475,248;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: 5,361,084;
HSIP high-risk rural road set- aside: 1,912,952;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 10,620,380;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 660,172;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 37,709,492.
State: Wyoming;
HSIP for all public roads: 4,816,567;
HSIP rail-highway crossings set-aside: 1,100,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: 450,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: 893,838;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: 123,208;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: 7,137,197.
State: Total;
HSIP for all public roads: $963,313,412;
HSIP rail- highway crossings set-aside: $220,000,000;
HSIP high-risk rural road set-aside: $90,000,000;
Equity bonus for HSIP: $300,723,422;
2 percent state planning and research set-aside reduction: $27,080,735;
Total HSIP apportionment to states: $1,546,956,099.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.
Note: Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this
report were Rita Grieco (Assistant Director), Richard Calhoon, Bess
Eisenstadt, Susan Irving, Bert Japikse, Jacqueline Nowicki, Sara Ann
Moessbauer, John W. Stambaugh, and Frank Taliaferro.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Cambridge Systematics, Inc., prepared for American Automobile
Association, Crashes vs. Congestion: What's the Cost to Society
(Bethesda, Md.: March 2008).
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-59 § 1401. SAFETEA-LU amended provisions of Title
23 of the United States Code (U.S. Code). For the purposes of this
report, we refer generally to SAFETEA-LU instead of the U.S. Code when
describing various requirements.
[3] The Highway Safety Improvement Program is codified at 23 U.S.C. §
148. The rail-highway grade crossing program is codified at 23 U.S.C. §
130.
[4] Federal-aid highways include the National Highway System, a 160,000-
mile network that carries over 40 percent of the nation's traffic.
[5] SAFETEA-LU added a requirement that states without a strategic plan
in place by this October 2007, deadline would still receive funds for
highway safety improvement, but the amount would be capped at the
fiscal year 2007 level.
[6] Department of Transportation, Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New
Transportation Approach for America (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2008).
[7] The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and related
extensions, authorized highway safety program funding for fiscal years
1998 through 2005. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, HSIP was funded as part of the
Surface Transportation Program. SAFETEA-LU established HSIP as a "core"
FHWA program with its own separate funding.
[8] On June 6, 2008, President Bush signed Pub. L. No. 110-244, the
SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, which amended the U.S.
Code to allow states to direct, or flex, rail-highway crossing funds to
highway safety improvement purposes if the state demonstrates that it
has met its needs for installation of protective devices. Prior to this
technical correction, states were able to flex funds designated for
protective devices at rail-highway crossings to hazard elimination at
rail-highway crossings, if they could demonstrate to FHWA that they had
met their needs for protective devices.
[9] Emergency medical services approaches to improving highway safety
include, for example, projects to reduce response time to crash
locations and to improve medical care in the aftermath of a crash.
[10] NHTSA's alcohol penalty transfer program encourages states to pass
alcohol-related safety laws by transferring a portion of a state's
federal-aid highway allocation to qualifying safety programs if the
state has not enacted federally desired laws to prevent drunk driving.
[11] For the purposes of this report, we describe education and
enforcement activities as "behavioral activities" because these
activities attempt to change road users' behaviors.
[12] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach.
[13] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
National Review of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (Washington,
D.C.: November 2001).
[14] The eight types of stakeholders include (1) governors' highway
safety representatives; (2) regional and metropolitan planning
organizations; (3) stakeholders from the major transportation modes;
(4) state and local traffic enforcement officials; (5) federal
officials responsible for implementing the rail-highway crossing
program (Section 130); (6) representatives of Operation Lifesaver, a
nonprofit education organization dedicated to ending collisions,
fatalities, and injuries at rail-highway crossings and on railroad
rights of way; (7) representatives conducting a motor carrier safety
program; and (8) officials from state motor vehicle administration
agencies.
[15] Operation Lifesaver is a private, nonprofit organization supported
by federal and railroad funds and dedicated to improving rail crossing
and track safety through education and improved law enforcement.
[16] The purpose of the high-risk rural road program is to achieve a
significant reduction in traffic fatalities and incapacitating injuries
on rural major or minor collectors, or rural local roads.
[17] Typically, these goals are based on reductions in fatalities per
100 million vehicle miles traveled. For example, Illinois' goal was to
reach 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008.
States based their identification of emphasis area hazards, at least in
part, on numbers of fatalities.
[18] These include geographic information system (GIS) and global
positioning system (GPS) formats.
[19] Because FHWA does not require states to report on their capability
to map crash locations, our analysis of which states have significantly
limited or no capability in this area may represent an undercount.
[20] The remaining 3 percent of roads are owned by the federal
government (e.g., national park roads) and Indian tribes.
[21] CH2M HILL, prepared for the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Surface Transportation Safety and
Investment Update on Progress Since 2000 (Chicago, Ill.: September
2006).
[22] In its July 2008 proposal to Congress for reforming surface
transportation programs, DOT recommended eliminating the requirement
for the 5 percent report and instead requiring states to raise
awareness of highway safety by posting their strategic highway safety
plans and annual HSIP reports on their Web sites.
[23] For the remaining 3 of 14 states that had limited or no mapping
capability, 2 states reported some hazardous locations on locally owned
roads in their 5 percent reports, using alternative data sources and
analytic techniques, and 1 state was unclear about whether its listing
of hazardous locations in its 5 percent report included locally owned
roads.
[24] CH2M HILL, prepared for the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Surface Transportation Safety and
Investment (Chicago, Ill.: September 2002).
[25] The Highway Safety Act of 1973 established the rail-highway
crossing program (commonly known as the "Section 130" program) to
eliminate hazards at rail-highway crossings by improving crossing
infrastructure. SAFETEA-LU continued this program, which currently
distributes $220 million to the states each year. The funds must
generally be used for only two types of rail-highway crossing
improvements--installation of protective devices and hazard elimination
projects. SAFETEA-LU authorizes states to use not more than 2 percent
of their rail-highway crossing allocation for data compilation and
analysis.
[26] Shannon Mok and Ian Savage, "Why has Safety Improved at Rail-
Highway Grade Crossings?," Risk Analysis: An International Journal,
Vol. 25, no. 4 (McLean, Va.: Society for Risk Analysis, August 2005),
867-881. The authors attribute improved crossing safety to a number of
factors in addition to the rail-highway crossing program, including
reduced drunk driving, improved automotive braking, and more effective
emergency medical services and railroad improvements (e.g., oncoming
trains have become more visible with new locomotive lighting, and
public awareness of rail crossing hazards has improved through
educational campaigns such as Operation Lifesaver). The authors found
that these other factors have been more effective than the installation
of active warning devices at rail crossings in reducing rail crossing
hazards.
[27] Although flexed HSIP funds can be used in conjunction with state
efforts funded through other federal programs, such as NHTSA and FMCSA
programs, HSIP funds remain under the oversight of FHWA and states must
include noninfrastructure projects in their annual HSIP reports.
[28] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach.
[29] As we have previously mentioned, NHTSA's State and Community
Highway Safety grant program, commonly known as the Section 402
program, funds state projects that address issues such as impaired
driving and seatbelt use.
[30] Locations in 5 percent reports are sometimes described in vague or
technical terms, such as by mile markers, making it difficult in those
instances to determine whether an included location is a rail-highway
crossing.
[31] Ohio selected crossing improvement projects on the basis of a risk
assessment that considers factors, such as traffic volumes and train
speeds at crossing locations.
[32] Pub. L. No. 110-244 (2008).
[33] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach.
[34] The program defines high-risk roads as rural collectors or local
roads that have shown fatality or serious injury accident rates above
the state average for similar road types, or, based on projected
changes in traffic volume, are likely to show above-average rates in
the future.
[35] FHWA distributes HSIP funding to the states, including funding for
the high-risk rural road program, through annual apportionments
established by statutory formula. HSIP's annual apportionments are
"multi-year" funds that are available to the states for 4 years.
[36] Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, The
Administration of Federal-aid Projects by Local Public Agencies, Final
Report (Washington, D.C.: December 2006).
[37] Each state's road system includes federally designated
interstates, other state-owned roads, and locally owned roads
[38] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach.
[39] States develop statewide transportation improvement programs
(which incorporate projects proposed by local governments throughout
the state) in which they propose HSIP safety construction projects for
funding. States are required to include HSIP-funded behavioral or
emergency medical services projects in their statewide transportation
improvement program. State and local governments must seek public
comments on their proposed projects and meet other requirements of this
planning process to receive federal funds.
[40] Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation Approach.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
