Highway Safety
Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU Gao ID: GAO-08-1015T July 17, 2008About 43,000 traffic fatalities occur annually, and another 290,000 people are seriously injured on the nation's roads. 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), authorizing $5.1 billion for 2006 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for states to develop strategic highway safety plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral (education and enforcement), and emergency medical services projects; develop crash data analysis systems; and publicly report on the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all their public roads. SAFETEA-LU also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. This testimony provides preliminary information on the implementation of HSIP since SAFETEA-LU. It is based on ongoing work that addresses (1) states' implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) FHWA's guidance and assistance for states, and (3) results of HSIP to date, including for the two set-aside programs. To conduct this study, GAO visited 6 states, judgmentally selected based on highway safety attributes, analyzed plans and reports from these 6 states and 19 randomly selected states, and interviewed FHWA and state safety officials.
All states submitted strategic highway safety plans and reports listing the top 5 percent of their hazardous locations, according to FHWA. The 25 state plans GAO reviewed generally cover all aspects of highway safety, but the 25 states have not fully developed the required crash data analysis systems. FHWA and state safety officials cited the collaboration that occurred among safety stakeholders in developing the plans as a positive influence on state safety planning. Many of the 25 states lacked key components of crash data analysis systems, including crash location data, roadway characteristics data, and software for analyzing the data. As a result, most states cannot identify and rank hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate remedies, and estimate costs, as required by SAFETEA-LU, and their 5 percent reports often lack required information on remedies and costs. FHWA provided written guidance and training to assist the states, especially in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in every state's strategic safety planning process. However, FHWA has not required states to submit schedules for obtaining complete roadway characteristics data, and because states lack complete data, FHWA's guidance on the 5 percent reports did not specify a methodology. As a result, states' 5 percent reports vary widely, raising questions about how this report can be used. It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP as carried out under SAFETEA-LU because states need more time to identify, implement, and evaluate projects they have undertaken since adopting their strategic highway safety plans. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some HSIP provisions may not be aligned with states' safety priorities. First, most states have not taken advantage of a new spending provision that allows states to use some HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency medical services projects, partly because a certification requirement--that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have been met--may make them reluctant to do so. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not target the top safety priorities of some states. Lastly, states are still in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road set-aside program, and data limitations may make it difficult for some of them to identify qualifying projects, especially for locally owned rural roads. FHWA agreed with GAO's findings.
GAO-08-1015T, Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1015T
entitled 'Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to
Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since
SAFETEA-LU' which was released on July 17, 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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, July 17, 2008:
Highway Safety:
Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway
Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU:
Statement of Katherine A. Siggerud:
Managing Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-08-1015T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1015T, a testimony before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
About 43,000 traffic fatalities occur annually, and another 290,000
people are seriously injured on the nation‘s roads. 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), authorizing $5.1 billion for 2006 through 2009. SAFETEA-
LU also added requirements for states to develop strategic highway
safety plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including
infrastructure, behavioral (education and enforcement), and emergency
medical services projects; develop crash data analysis systems; and
publicly report on the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all
their public roads. SAFETEA-LU also set aside funds for a legacy rail-
highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program.
This testimony provides preliminary information on the implementation
of HSIP since SAFETEA-LU. It is based on ongoing work that addresses
(1) states‘ implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) FHWA‘s
guidance and assistance for states, and (3) results of HSIP to date,
including for the two set-aside programs. To conduct this study, GAO
visited 6 states, judgmentally selected based on highway safety
attributes, analyzed plans and reports from these 6 states and 19
randomly selected states, and interviewed FHWA and state safety
officials.
What GAO Found:
All states submitted strategic highway safety plans and reports listing
the top 5 percent of their hazardous locations, according to FHWA. The
25 state plans GAO reviewed generally cover all aspects of highway
safety, but the 25 states have not fully developed the required crash
data analysis systems. FHWA and state safety officials cited the
collaboration that occurred among safety stakeholders in developing the
plans as a positive influence on state safety planning. Many of the 25
states lacked key components of crash data analysis systems, including
crash location data, roadway characteristics data, and software for
analyzing the data. As a result, most states cannot identify and rank
hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate
remedies, and estimate costs, as required by SAFETEA-LU, and their 5
percent reports often lack required information on remedies and costs.
FHWA provided written guidance and training to assist the states,
especially in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and
participated in every state‘s strategic safety planning process.
However, FHWA has not required states to submit schedules for obtaining
complete roadway characteristics data, and because states lack complete
data, FHWA‘s guidance on the 5 percent reports did not specify a
methodology. As a result, states‘ 5 percent reports vary widely,
raising questions about how this report can be used.
It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP as carried out under
SAFETEA-LU because states need more time to identify, implement, and
evaluate projects they have undertaken since adopting their strategic
highway safety plans. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some
HSIP provisions may not be aligned with states‘ safety priorities.
First, most states have not taken advantage of a new spending provision
that allows states to use some HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency
medical services projects, partly because a certification
requirement”that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have
been met”may make them reluctant to do so. Second, the rail-highway
crossing set-aside program does not target the top safety priorities of
some states. Lastly, states are still in the early stages of
implementing the high-risk rural road set-aside program, and data
limitations may make it difficult for some of them to identify
qualifying projects, especially for locally owned rural roads. FHWA
agreed with GAO‘s findings.
Figure: Rumble Strips and Cable Median Barriers to Improve Highway
Safety:
[See PDF for image]
Photograph of a highway with a cable median barrier.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1015T]. For more
information, contact Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss
highway safety. My statement today focuses on our ongoing work on the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP). The program, established in 1973, provides funds
through the Federal Aid Highway Program to states primarily for
infrastructure and other improvements designed to reduce the number of
crashes, serious injuries, and fatalities on the nation's roads. During
2006, about 43,000 traffic fatalities occurred and 290,000 people were
seriously injured. Congress significantly revised HSIP through the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), passed in August 2005.[Footnote 1] Key
revisions include the following:
* The annual authorization for HSIP nearly doubled to about $1.3
billion per year.[Footnote 2]
* States must now prepare a strategic highway safety plan that
addresses all aspects of highway safety, which include infrastructure
improvements, behavioral approaches such as education and enforcement
projects meant to change drivers' behavior, and emergency medical
services approaches.[Footnote 3] Eight types of stakeholders must
participate in developing the strategic highway safety plan.
* States must now develop crash data analysis systems that they can use
to identify hazardous locations, potential remedies, and the costs of
these remedies.
* To advance public awareness of highway safety, states must now
analyze safety hazards on all their public roads and report the most
hazardous 5 percent of these locations, in what is known as the "5
percent report," to FHWA for posting on its public Web site.
* The act authorized a $220 million per year set-aside of funds for
rail-highway crossing improvements under an existing rail-highway
crossing program established in the Highway Safety Improvement Act of
1973.
* The act created a new $90 million per year set-aside for
infrastructure projects on high-risk rural roads and defined these
roads.
* The act added a provision that allows states to transfer, or flex, up
to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical
services projects[Footnote 4] provided the state has adopted a
strategic highway safety plan and certified that it has met all its
safety infrastructure needs.
FHWA is not alone in funding state safety programs. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) administer almost half of federal
safety funding through grants provided to states for their safety
programs. These grants are generally for behavioral projects. The
Department of Transportation (DOT) encourages states to align their
NHTSA-or FMCSA-funded programs with the strategic highway safety plans
they develop in implementing HSIP, but such alignment is not required.
My testimony today addresses (1) the extent to which states have
implemented HSIP requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU, including key
elements of strategic highway safety plans and crash data analysis
systems, (2) the types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the
states to support them in planning and carrying out HSIP, and (3) the
results to date of states' efforts in carrying out HSIP, including the
results of the set-aside programs for rail-highway crossings and for
high-risk rural roads.
My testimony is based on preliminary work we are doing for this
Committee for a review of HSIP scheduled for release later this year.
To examine states' strategic highway safety planning, we reviewed
strategic highway safety plans and related program reports for a total
of 25 states, including 19 randomly selected states and 6 states we
visited--California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and
Pennsylvania. We based our judgmental selection of these 6 states on
our analysis of attributes associated with highway safety, such as
fatalities and roadway characteristics, in each of these states and
based on comments from highway safety experts. For these 6 states, we
also obtained information on the development of their strategic highway
safety plans and state officials' views. To identify and assess the
types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the states in
planning and carrying out HSIP, we reviewed FHWA guidance and
interviewed FHWA headquarters officials and, in the 6 states we
visited, FHWA division and state officials. To determine the results of
the states' efforts since SAFETEA-LU, we reviewed strategic highway
safety plans and analyzed data from HSIP annual reports for our 25
selected states. The results of our review of strategic highway safety
plans and associated reports and site visits are not necessarily
representative of all states. To address all our objectives, we also
interviewed other DOT safety program officials and other highway safety
stakeholders. We began this performance audit in May 2007, 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 based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings based on our
audit objectives.
Summary:
States have developed strategic highway safety plans that meet the
requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU, but have not fully implemented
the required crash data analysis systems. According to FHWA, all 50
states and the District of Columbia submitted strategic highway safety
plans, and all 25 plans we reviewed generally covered all aspects of
highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral, and emergency
medical services projects. The plans also contained other elements
prescribed by SAFETEA-LU. State officials we interviewed described the
results of the new planning requirement as positive, and FHWA officials
said they considered the collaboration among various stakeholders in
developing these plans as the most important result to date of SAFETEA-
LU's HSIP revisions. However, states do not yet have the crash data
analysis systems needed to identify and select possible safety
improvements as prescribed by SAFETEA-LU. These systems include (1)
data from crash reports in a geographic format suitable for mapping
crashes on all public roads; (2) data on the characteristics of all
public roads, such as the number of lanes, width of shoulders, and
other roadway features; and (3) software for mapping and analyzing the
data. While states have data on crash locations, these data are often
not in a format for geographic analysis and many states lack data on
roadway characteristics, especially for locally owned roads. Typically,
states have better data on the roads they own than on locally owned
roads in the state, but state-owned roads account for a relatively
small proportion of the public road miles in most states, averaging 20
percent nationwide and ranging from 8 percent to 33 percent in the 6
states we visited. Therefore, most states cannot currently perform
analyses to identify hazardous locations on all public roads, determine
appropriate remedies, and estimate the costs of these remedies as
required to identify and select safety improvements and to fully meet
the requirements for the 5 percent reports. FHWA is developing software
that may help states perform their safety analyses once their data
improve.
FHWA provided guidance and assistance to the states to support them in
planning and carrying out HSIP, but has not yet established deadlines
for key efforts related to crash data analysis. FHWA developed guidance
to help states prepare their strategic highway safety plans, 5 percent
reports, and other required reports; provided technical assistance and
training for state officials; and participated at the division level in
every state's strategic planning process. FHWA set an August 2009
deadline for states to have crash location data suitable for mapping,
but has yet to establish deadlines for states to have the required data
on roadway characteristics. In its guidance on the 5 percent report,
FHWA gave states leeway in interpreting the act's requirements and,
recognizing their data limitations, did not specify a methodology. As a
result, states developed widely varying versions of the report, some of
which use a format that may make it difficult for the public to
identify listed sites. Consequently, it is unclear if this report is
meeting its public information purpose.
It is too soon to evaluate the results of states' efforts to carry out
HSIP since SAFETEA-LU's enactment because states need time to identify,
implement, and evaluate HSIP projects undertaken after adopting their
strategic highway safety plans. Given that states submitted their
strategic highway safety plans to FHWA in 2006 and 2007, and that
project selection and construction can take a year or more, it is too
early to know whether the HSIP projects selected will make a difference
in reducing crashes, serious injuries, or fatalities at project sites.
Already, however, preliminary evidence raises questions about how well
some HSIP provisions are aligned with states' safety priorities. First,
few states have taken advantage of a provision that allows states to
transfer some HSIP funds to behavioral programs and emergency medical
services projects if they certify they have met all the highway safety
infrastructure needs they can address through HSIP. As of the end of
June 2008, seven states had received approval for transfers. Other
states told us they are interested in transferring funds but have not
done so, partly because of concerns about the certification
requirement. Second, about two-thirds of the strategic highway safety
plans we reviewed (17 of 25) did not include rail-highway crossings as
a top priority, or emphasis area, but SAFETEA-LU reserves about 17
percent of HSIP's authorized funding for these projects through the
rail-highway set-aside program, leading some states to question the
size of this set-aside program. A June 2008 act provides states with
flexibility to use their rail-highway set-aside funds for other types
of infrastructure improvements under HSIP if they certify that they
have met all their rail-highway crossing needs.[Footnote 5] Finally,
implementation of HSIP's high-risk rural roads set-aside program is in
the early stages, and although 16 of the 25 states we reviewed had
identified and funded projects by the end of fiscal year 2007, 5 of the
states we visited were having difficulty identifying qualifying
roadways and appropriate remedies because they lacked data on crash
locations and local road characteristics.
Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA-
LU, but States Lack Data for Analysis Specified by the Law:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted strategic highway
safety plans to FHWA before October 2007, a deadline established by
SAFETEA-LU. Additionally, the 25 state strategic highway safety plans
we reviewed generally contained the key elements specified in SAFETEA-
LU, such as consideration of all three approaches to improving highway
safety, including infrastructure improvement, behavioral approaches
(education and enforcement), and emergency medical service
improvements, and evidence of involvement by a broad set of
stakeholders. For example:
* All 25 plans included infrastructure improvement and behavioral
approaches among the emphasis areas or key strategies that states
identified to address their top priorities. Twenty-two of the plans
included emergency medical services improvements.
* Our review of the plans indicated that 20 of 25 states consulted with
at least five of the eight specified types of stakeholders, including
representatives of the state agencies that administer NHTSA and FMCSA
safety grants.
As a result, the new planning process helped break down the separation
between engineering and behavioral program planning that existed prior
to SAFETEA-LU. Highway safety officials in states we visited said the
extent of cooperation between stakeholders that occurred when
developing the strategic highway safety plan was a largely new
development after SAFETEA-LU. FHWA officials told us that they believe
this change in planning is the most important result to date of the
changes in HSIP. Likewise, officials responsible for safety programs at
NHTSA, FMCSA, and in the states we visited agreed that HSIP's strategic
highway safety planning process facilitated more integrated safety
planning than had occurred in the past.
While the state plans we reviewed indicated general compliance with
SAFETEA-LU's requirements for preparing strategic highway safety plans,
states do not yet have the crash data analysis systems needed to
identify and select possible safety improvements as set forth in
SAFETEA-LU. These systems include crash location data in a geographic
format suitable for mapping and roadway characteristics data--such as
lane and shoulder dimensions--for all public roads, together with
software that can analyze the data. With these components, states can
identify hazardous locations, develop appropriate remedies, and target
resources to the greatest hazards. The requirement to obtain and
analyze data for all public roads is a significant departure from past
practice for many states. Before SAFETEA-LU, states generally had such
information only on the roads they owned, because that information was
useful for managing the maintenance and operation of their state-owned
roads. However, state-owned roads account for a relatively small
proportion of the public road miles in most states, averaging 20
percent nationwide. In the six states we visited, the state-owned
portion of all public roads ranged from about 8 percent in Iowa to
about 33 percent in Pennsylvania, and the remaining roads were locally
owned. This data gap presents a challenge for states that may be costly
for many to address, but the increased funding authorized for HSIP is
generally available for data improvements as well as safety projects.
Our review of 25 state strategic highway safety plans and six site
visits indicated that, to varying degrees, states lack key components
of crash data analysis systems:
* All 50 states maintain data on the crashes that occur on all public
roadways in the state, but in the 25 states we reviewed, the
information on crash locations was typically not in a geographic format
(GIS or GPS) suitable for mapping. Safety engineers use crash location
data to determine if accidents recur, or cluster, at specific sites.
Among the states we visited, Iowa and California had crash data in a
geographic format that allowed accidents to be located precisely on any
public road in the state, but the other four states did not have such
data for nonstate roads. According to our review of 25 states'
strategic highway safety plans, some states are working toward
improving their crash location data by upgrading their crash reporting
systems with GPS capabilities, yet it is still common for crash
location data to come from handwritten crash reports that use mile-post
markers, intersections, or street addresses to identify crash
locations.
* Most of the 25 states included in our review did not have data on
roadway characteristics for all publicly owned roads, especially
locally owned roads. As noted, states generally maintain these data
only for roads they are responsible for maintaining and operating. For
example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation originally
established, and now maintains the data for, a roadway characteristics
database to support its management and operation of state-owned roads.
The department still uses the database primarily for this purpose, but
the data can also be used for safety analyses. Furthermore, because it
is costly and time consuming to gather and maintain roadway
characteristics data, states generally have not expanded their roadway
characteristics databases to include locally owned roads. For example,
Florida officials estimated that it would initially cost $300 million
and could take 3 years to develop such a database. In addition, they
noted there would be annual maintenance costs to keep the data current.
Of the six states we visited, only Iowa had roadway characteristics
data for all public roads.
* Most of the 25 states we reviewed have not developed software or
other analytic tools to use the crash location and roadway
characteristics data to perform the analysis required by SAFETEA-LU.
FHWA is developing a software system, known as "Safety Analyst," that
is designed to help states use crash location and roadway
characteristics data to determine their most hazardous locations, rank
them, identify possible remedies, and estimate the costs of
implementing the remedies. FHWA estimates that it will complete the
development of this software and release it to the states later in
2008. In the meantime, some states may also be developing their own
approaches. For example, Mississippi is developing its own software,
which is similar to Safety Analyst.
Until states have obtained the necessary data and software, they cannot
conduct the kind of data analysis specified by SAFETEA-LU--namely,
identifying and ranking hazardous locations on all public roads,
determining appropriate remedies, and estimating project costs. This
kind of analysis is also necessary to generate 5 percent reports that
fully meet the requirements for these reports set forth in SAFETEA-LU,
including requirements for information on remedies and costs. Many of
the 5 percent reports we reviewed lack this required information.
FHWA Assisted States in Preparing Strategic Highway Safety Plans, but
Has Not Set Deadlines to Obtain All Needed Data:
FHWA provided guidance and technical assistance to states in preparing
strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA division officials
participated in each state's planning process. FHWA's guidance included
memorandums describing new HSIP program procedures and a reference
guide on strategic planning. Furthermore, FHWA held training symposiums
and provided technical assistance through its division offices and
resource center. According to our review of 25 strategic highway safety
plans and six site visits, FHWA division staffs were actively involved
in the state planning efforts that resulted in states' adoption of
strategic highway safety plans and FHWA's acceptance of these plans.
In its guidance to states on implementing HSIP, FHWA stopped short of
requiring states to gather all the data needed for the type of safety
analysis specified in SAFETEA-LU. FHWA set August 31, 2009, as a
deadline for states to develop the crash location data needed to map
crashes on all public roads. FHWA officials told us that they believe
that states will meet this deadline. However, recognizing the data
limitations many states face, FHWA has not set a date for states to
have the other required data on roadway characteristics for all public
roads. Without roadway characteristics data, states cannot identify
remedies and estimate the costs of infrastructure projects using
analytic tools, such as Safety Analyst, but must instead rely on older
approaches that combine data analysis with field surveys of potential
improvement locations, roadway safety audits, or other information
sources.
In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states leeway in
interpreting the act's requirements and did not specify a methodology.
Recognizing the states' data limitations, FHWA advised the states to
prepare their 5 percent report using available data. Consequently,
states prepared widely varying 5 percent reports. For example, some
reports included remedies and costs for each location while others
showed remedies and costs only for certain locations or for none at
all. In our review of the 2007 reports for 25 states, the number of
locations reported ranged from 5 to 880, with 3 states reporting 10 or
fewer locations and 6 states reporting over 100. Additionally, many
reports list locations in a format that the general public may find
difficult to use. For example, the public may find it hard 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. We found that
some states were using their 5 percent reports to help identify
projects for funding, but where the format for identifying the sites
was not readily accessible to the public, it was not clear whether the
reports would enhance public awareness of highway safety, as intended.
It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Results of States' Efforts Since SAFETEA-LU,
but Preliminary Evidence Raises Questions about whether Certain Program
Provisions Are Aligned with States' Safety Priorities:
As previously noted, federal and state officials told us that the
strategic highway safety planning process improved collaboration and
safety planning, but it is too early to evaluate the results of states'
efforts to carry out HSIP since SAFETEA-LU's enactment, especially the
results of infrastructure projects identified through the strategic
highway safety planning process. However, preliminary evidence from our
review of 25 states' plans and six site visits indicates that three
provisions in SAFETEA-LU may not be aligned with states' safety
priorities. First, states have generally not taken advantage of HSIP's
flexible funding provision, which allows them to use HSIP funding for
noninfrastructure projects.[Footnote 6] Second, the rail-highway
crossing set-aside may target a low-priority type of project for some
states, although other states continue to emphasize this area. Third,
states have just begun to implement the high-risk rural road program,
but data limitations may be making it difficult for some states to
allocate program funds to qualifying projects.
More Time Needed to Evaluate HSIP Projects Since SAFETEA-LU:
Too little time has passed for states to select and build
infrastructure projects identified in their strategic highway safety
plans and, as a result, it is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP
projects funded under SAFETEA-LU's authorization. Given the October
2007 deadline for states to submit their strategic highway safety plans
to FHWA, states finalized their plans relatively 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 a
year or more to select and build, and subsequent project evaluations
require 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 program.
Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and
Emergency Medical Services Projects:
States made limited use of the HSIP flexible funding provision that
allows them to transfer 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
their safety infrastructure needs. As of the end of June 2008, seven
states had applied to FHWA, and been granted approval, to transfer
about $13 million in HSIP funds to behavioral or emergency medical
services projects (see table 1), according to FHWA data. Though none of
the six states we visited has requested approval to transfer 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 requirement because of ongoing infrastructure needs and
concerns about the potential legal liability a state could incur by
certifying that all its infrastructure safety needs have been met.
Officials in the other states we visited agreed that certification
would be difficult, but did not express interest in transferring funds
because they had enough infrastructure projects to use all the
available HSIP funds.
Table 1: Information on Funding and Projects in Seven States Approved
to Transfer 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 safety 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.
Total:
Approved funding: $12,783,799.
Source: FHWA.
[End of table]
At least in part because of these conditions attached to transferring
funds, most HSIP funding remains focused on infrastructure. In some
instances, the funding allocated between approaches may not be aligned
with the emphasis areas laid out in the state strategic highway safety
plan. Nevertheless, states may use NHTSA and FMCSA grants as well as
transfer HSIP funds to address behavioral and emergency medical
services approaches to improving highway safety. In contrast to HSIP
funding, though, grants from related NHTSA and FMCSA programs are not
formally aligned with the strategic highway safety plan developed as
part of HSIP. In our interviews with federal officials at FHWA, NHTSA,
and FMCSA, we found that stakeholders from those three organizations
were collaborating, usually informally, but to date, the flexible
funding provision in HSIP has not significantly altered the sources of
federal funding states use to fund infrastructure, behavioral, and
emergency medical services safety projects. Additionally, because
states' NHTSA and FMCSA grant awards are not formally aligned with
states' strategic highway safety plans, it is unclear to what extent
states have aligned their total federal highway safety funding with
priorities identified in their strategic highway safety plans.
Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Set-aside May Target Low-Priority
Projects in Some States:
HSIP's funding set-aside for rail-highway crossing improvements may
target projects that are a low priority and yield low safety benefits
for some states, but other states continue to emphasize rail-highway
crossing improvements. Our review of 25 strategic highway safety plans
showed that improving rail-highway crossings was often a low priority
for states. As noted earlier, states designate their top safety
priorities as emphasis areas in their strategic highway safety plans
and identify their most hazardous locations in their 5 percent reports.
Seventeen of 25 states had not identified rail-highway crossings as an
emphasis area. In our review of the 5 percent reports submitted by
these 25 states in 2007, we found that Oregon alone identified a rail-
highway crossing in its 5 percent report of most hazardous locations.
[Footnote 7]
States' relatively low emphasis on safety improvements at rail-highway
crossings may be related to their evaluations of the effectiveness of
recent improvements. In reviewing our 25 selected states' rail-highway
crossing program annual reports for 2007, we found 21 reports that
included before-and-after crash data for rail-highway crossing
improvement locations. In 15 of these 21 states, almost all of the
improved locations showed zero incidents both before and after the
improvement. Nevertheless, West Virginia's annual crossing report noted
that as long as federal funding through the set-aside program
continues, the state's strategic highway safety plan will address rail-
highway crossings despite low project benefits.
The six states we visited varied in their views on the set-aside for
rail-highway crossing improvements. Officials in two of the states said
that the set-aside may be disproportionately high given the low risk
rail-highway crossings pose compared with other hazardous locations.
FHWA Office of Safety officials agreed that the program's funding,
which accounts for approximately 17 percent of HSIP authorizations, was
high based on the number of fatalities that occur at rail-highway
crossings. Conversely, officials in Illinois noted that rail-highway
crossings are a safety priority for the state. Additionally,
Mississippi demonstrated the importance of improving crossings through
their safety programs by augmenting federal set-aside funds with state
funds.
The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act[Footnote 8] provides states
with flexibility to use rail-highway crossing set-aside funds for other
types of HSIP projects if they certify that they have met all their
rail-highway crossing needs. While it remains to be seen how states
will respond to this amendment, they may be reluctant to certify that
they have met all their needs. As noted earlier, some states have been
reluctant to make use of HSIP's flexible funding provision because they
may still have some infrastructure needs or may have legal concerns
about the potential liabilities of such a certification.
States Are in the Early Stages of Implementing the High-Risk Rural Road
Program, and Data Limitations May Be Slowing Implementation:
Many states are still in the early stages of implementing the set-aside
program for high-risk rural roads and have yet to obligate significant
funds for projects, and data limitations may be hindering their ability
to target program funds to eligible projects. SAFETEA-LU created this
program because over half of highway fatalities occur on rural roads.
The act authorizes $90 million per year to address hazards on rural
roads defined as high risk.[Footnote 9] Projects on roadways that meet
the act's definition are eligible for funding under the program.
According to reports on the program to FHWA by the 25 states we
selected, 23 of these states had implemented 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.
Because states remain in the early stages of implementing the program,
obligations made to date are low; for example, through June 2008,
program obligations for all years under SAFTETEA-LU totaled $50.3
million, compared with almost $270 million authorized through that time
period.
Limited data on rural roads--including data on crash locations and
local roadway characteristics--may be 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 in SAFETEA-LU.
Officials in 5 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. Additionally, in
our review of 25 state reports, we found states cited data limitations
as a difficulty in implementing the program. For example, at the end of
fiscal year 2007, Texas had yet to implement the program due to data
limitations.
Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared
statement. We plan to report in more detail on changes in the Highway
Safety Improvement Program and may have recommendations at that time. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members
of the Committee might have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine A.
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony were Rita Grieco, Assistant Director;
Richard Calhoon; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann
Moessbauer; John W. Stambaugh; and Frank Taliaferro.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 109-59. SAFETEA-LU amended provisions of Title 23 of
the United States Code. For the purposes of this testimony, we refer
generally to SAFETEA-LU instead of the United States Code when
describing various requirements.
[2] The HSIP funding that states receive is generally higher than the
amount authorized, mainly because of the Equity Bonus program. The
Equity Bonus program, authorized by SAFETEA-LU, provides funding to
states based on equity criteria such as a minimum return on state
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. For fiscal year 2008, SAFETEA-
LU authorized $1,275.9 million for HSIP, including two set-asides for
rail-highway crossings and high-risk rural roads. After adjustments,
including the equity bonus, FHWA apportioned $1,550.6 million to states
for HSIP--over 20 percent more than the authorized amount.
[3] Emergency medical services approaches to improving highway safety
include projects to reduce response time to crash locations and improve
medical care in the aftermath of a crash, for example.
[4] SAFETEA-LU states that approved states can flex HSIP funds to
noninfrastructure projects that are identified in their strategic
highway safety plans. According to FHWA officials, noninfrastructure
projects are generally behavioral and emergency medical services
projects.
[5] SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act, Pub. L. No. 110-244.
[6] Noninfrastructure projects are generally behavioral and emergency
medical services projects, according to FHWA officials.
[7] Because the locations in 5 percent reports are sometimes described
in vague or technical terms, such as by mile markers, it may be
difficult to determine if an included location is a rail-highway
crossing.
[8] Pub. L. No. 110-244 (2008).
[9] The program defines high-risk rural 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.
[End of section]
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 Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
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:
