DECEMBER 2018

Advancing Local

Road Safety

Practices with

State DOTs

1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Executive Summary

Project Scope

Data Collection and Analysis

Stakeholder Meetings

Appendix A: Stakeholder Meeting Attendees

Appendix B: Data Collected

Appendix C: Noteworthy State Practices

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS

This work was performed through a Safe Systems Innovation Grant awarded to the National Association of

County Engineers (NACE) through the Road To Zero Initiative. The Road to Zero (RTZ) initiative was launched in

October 2016 by the National Safety Council, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the goal of eliminating roadway

deaths within 30 years.

The following project team members oversaw the grant:

Brian Roberts, Project Manager

Brian Keierleber, County Engineer (Buchanan County, Iowa) and Past NACE President

Scott Davis, Thurston County and NACE Safety Committee Chair

Hillary Isebrands, Federal Highway Administration

Jerry Roche, Federal Highway Administration

Marie Walsh, Director, Louisiana Local Technical Assistance Program

The authors also acknowledge the assistance of the following organizations in conducting the Stakeholder

Meetings:

California Department of Transportation

California Local Technical Assistance Program

Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Local Technical Assistance Program

Ohio Department of Transportation

Ohio Local Technical Assistance Program

County Engineers Association of Ohio

New York Local Technical Assistance Program

Georgia Department of Transportation

Georgia Local Technical Assistance Program

Federal Highway Administration

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2016, 37,461 people died on U.S. roadways1 . Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimated that

between 40% to 60% of all deaths occurred on locally owned roadways based on a sample of state crash data

reported in the Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Highway Safety Improvement Program reporting.

Furthermore, the fatality rate on local roads is nearly three times higher than the interstate system. 2

Local agencies own approximately 75% of America’s roadway miles3 with counties owning and operating

about 46%. The large number of miles owned and managed by locals, and the magnitude of the traffic safety

issues on these roadways create a need for local agencies to plan and invest their limited dollars and staff time

as strategically as possible. Although Federal Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) funds are eligible to be used

on all public roads, there is a disproportionate amount of HSIP funds used towards safety projects on local

roadways given the number of fatalities. With the passage of the FAST Act (Fixing America’s Surface

Transportation Act), the “statute also specifies that a State shall advance the capabilities of the State for data

collection, analysis, and integration in a manner that includes all public roads, including non-State-owned

public roads and roads on tribal land in the State.” It will be impossible to achieve the goals within the

National safety strategies of the Toward Zero Deaths, Road to Zero, Vision Zero and State safety performance

management targets without addressing the local component.

Given these facts and goals to reduce fatal and injury crashes, there needs to be a better understanding about

the challenges of the safety problem on local roads at a national level. There is currently no comprehensive

review available of crash data on locally owned roadways. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to

review existing crash data sources for as many states as possible to better understand the safety challenges on

local roads. The crash data sources included Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), state Strategic

Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) reports, and State crash data

bases. It also included documenting the share of federal safety funds allocated to local agencies by State

Departments of Transportation in the annual HSIP reports

Results of the Review of Fatal Crash Data from all 50 States:

• It is estimated that 36% of all fatalities occur on local roads, nationally, based on the reference sources

noted above.

• The top ten States with the highest local fatalities account for 60% of all local fatalities, yet receive only

7% of the total HSIP funds.

• It is estimated that 29% of all the rural fatalities are on local roadways based on FARS data.

Review of HSIP Funding

• From 2014 through 2016 approximately 17% of Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funding

is obligated to local roads.4 This is similar to the results that FHWA has provided for 2017 HSIP

Obligations to local safety projects shown in the figure below.

1 Source: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration 3 Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration 4 Based on a three-year average from 2015 – 2017 HSIP reports

3

• During the period reviewed, 2014-2016, a total of $483,927,848 was transferred from HSIP to other

programs.

Source: FHWA

The second objective of this study was to facilitate Stakeholder Meetings in five states to discuss local road

safety. Using the crash data collected, five states with the generally highest local road fatalities were

identified, and Stakeholder meetings were conducted in each state with federal, state and local agencies. The

intent of the meetings was to raise awareness of local road safety issues with all agencies present, and to

identify and document successes and opportunities within the States to improve local roads safety.

Partnering meetings took place in California, Texas, Ohio, New York and Georgia.

Discussion topics included:

• State crash data overview

• Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Planning Process

• Funding Local Safety Programs and Projects

• Program Delivery

• Access to Crash Data and Crash Data Analysis

• Development and Implementation of Local Road Safety Plans

• Systemic Approach to Safety

Consistent messages heard from the Partnering meetings:

• A desire to work with local partners and to increase the efforts on local road safety to reduce fatalities

and serious injuries.

• Consideration for expenditure of resources should be more in line with the portion of fatalities.

• Commitment to help local agencies develop and implement Local Road Safety Plans.

4

• Supporting access to crash data for locals.

• While all States recognized the need for a systemic approach, there are various levels of adoption and

implementation.

Recommendations

Based on the discussions in the Stakeholder Meetings, the following recommendations are provided:

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) reports

• Provide additional guidance to promote consistent reporting from state to state.

• Require crash data by roadway ownership. See Washington State 2017 HSIP report for an example.

Source: 2017 WA HSIP Report

• Require information on funding by roadway ownership and include all sources of safety funding

provided.

State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP)

• Local Road Crash Data (fatalities and serious injuries) should be included by road ownership and

identify measures to reduce them. Ohio SHSP and North Dakota SHSP are excellent examples.

Source: ND Vision ZeroPlan, 2018

K – Fatalities; A = Serious Injuries

5

Source: ND Vision ZeroPlan, 2018

Engagement of Local Agencies in the Safety Planning Process

• Include local representatives in development (e.g., steering committee) and become signatories to the

plan. See Florida’s SHSP for an example.

• Provide a strategy in the SHSP for increasing engagement at the local level in statewide safety planning

like North Dakota has done.

• State Departments of Transportation should be partnering with local agencies to join with their state

and federal colleagues in navigating the complexities of the Federal-Aid program and successfully

delivering projects. This collaboration among representatives at each government level helps ensure

that the program encompasses the needs of all involved. See Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Everyday Counts (EDC) Program 3 Stakeholder Partnering for further information and resources.

• State Departments of Transportation should also organize a Local HSIP Advisory Committees to help

oversee the implementation of the HSIP program similar to Caltrans.

“The 2013 SHSP documented that more than one-half of serious crashes in North Dakota occur on the local road system and, historically, there has been little safety project development engagement with local agencies and even less safety investment along the local system. To address these issues, the SHSP committed NDDOT to increasing the level of engagement with local agencies in statewide safety planning and committed to dedicating one-half of the Highway Safety Improvement Funds to local system projects. To that end, NDDOT partnered with the 53 counties (including the 12 largest cities, four Native American reservations, and one national park) to prepare safety studies of their road systems. Safety plans (that included a systemic risk evaluation, system prioritization, and project development) were completed for these local agencies in 2016. Following completion of the individual plans, agencies began submitting projects for HSIP funding using application forms that were prepared and included in each plan. These projects are now being implemented and there is a 50-50 distribution of HSIP funds between the state and local system.” (ND Vision ZeroPlan, 2018)

6

Data and Analysis

• State Departments of Transportation should

provide easily accessible crash data

information to local agencies when they

manage that data. If outside agencies

manage that data, DOTs should facilitate

access by locals.

• State Departments of Transportation or

partners (e.g., Local Technical Assistance

Programs) should consider providing safety

data summaries such as those used in

Washington State and Crash Tree Diagrams

(see below). Accessible data and useable

information allow local officials to more

readily conduct data driven safety

decisions. Source: California Highway Patrol

Sample Crash Data Summary, Washington DOT

7

Sample Crash Tree Diagram (Source: FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool)

Local Road Safety Plans and the Systemic Safety Approach

• State Departments of Transportation should support development of Local Road Safety Plans with

their local partners. Implementation of LRSP’s has been shown to reduce deaths on Minnesota

county roads. Plans can be developed through a variety of ways as documented in this report,

including county wide, through MPOs or regionally.

8

• Provide Local Road Safety Plan development

training, such as the NACE/FHWA Pilot Program

for Developing LRSPs.

“NACE forged partnership with the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), and National Local Technical

Assistance Program Association (NLTAPA) to deploy

the use of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) through

an innovative pilot program. The pilot provided

agencies with a blended learning experience over

several months culminating in a completed LRSP.”

Scott Davis, PE, Thurston County, WA

9

• Increase the training and implementation of

the systemic approach to safety, particularly with

local audiences.

Future Steps

• Future Research should be conducted through the NCHRP program (Synthesis or Problem Statements),

Pooled Fund projects, National Center on Rural Road Safety, State Local Road Research Program, etc.

• Continue to find, report and analyze fatal and injury crash data on the locally owned roadways for all

50 states, by roadway ownership.

• Expand crash data review to include reported serious injury crashes to further help define safety

challenges on all public roads.

• Continue to monitor total investments in local road safety.

• Conduct Stakeholder Meetings in all states with high local fatalities and serious injuries.

“Systemic safety planning is the process of evaluating

an entire system using a defined set of criteria to

identify candidate locations for safety investments to

reduce the occurrence of and the potential for severe

crashes. The systemic approach to safety is a

complementary analytical technique intended to

supplement the traditional site analysis approach and

results in a more comprehensive safety management

program.” FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection

Tool

10

PROJECT SCOPE

This grant program is intended to identify five key states and replicate a successful process piloted between the National Association of County Engineers (NACE) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). In July 2016, the National Association for County Engineers met with FDOT to discuss local road safety partnering. Florida has an extremely high number of fatalities, both total and local, compared to other states but had allocated few federal dollars to address this issue. NACE organized a meeting of stakeholders to discuss best practices used by other states. At the conclusion, the Florida Association of County Engineers and Road Supervisors (FACERS), a NACE affiliate, became a signatory of Florida's Strategic Highway Safety Plan and Florida DOT districts were directed to improved collaboration with local agencies. In addition, the Florida DOT safety engineer began a program to assist rural counties in addressing local road safety (See Appendix C). First, state data was reviewed to determine which states have the largest fatalities on local roads and largest percentage of local fatalities. Next, five states were selected for further analysis and collaboration at Stakeholder Meetings. The ultimate goal of the project is to

• Raise awareness of the importance of local road safety

• Improved collaboration between state and local agencies

• Encourage adoption of "new" proven practices that other states have used successfully

• Changed behaviors on allocation of resources to localities

Data Collection and Analysis An integral part of this effort was to collect available crash data on local road fatalities by ownership and determine nationally the scope of the issue as well as identify five target states for Stakeholder Meetings. Data sources included FARS, State HSIP Reports and when necessary, individual state sources.

Stakeholder Meetings Based on the crash data collected, five states were identified and stakeholder meetings were conducted.

Federal, state and local agencies including LTAP representatives were invited to participate. With the

exception of New York State, all parties were present in each State. The intent of the meetings was to raise

awareness of local road safety issues and explore successes and opportunities between States and local

partners.

In addition to discussing the overall grant findings at each meeting, the following local road safety topics were

discussed:

• Inclusion and Engagement of Locals in the State Safety Planning Process

• Funding Local Safety Programs and Projects

• Delivery of the Federal Aid Program for HSIP

• Access to Crash Data and Crash Data Analysis

• Development and Implementation of Local Road Safety Plans

• Systemic Approach to Safety

11

DATA COLLECTIONA AND ANALYSIS

As mentioned, one of the primary objectives in this study was to quantify the fatalities on the locally owned

road network. Despite the extensive data reporting in the US, there has been a lack of data, at least

nationally, quantifying local road crash data. The contribution from the rural segment for all fatalities has

been well understood (from 53% to 57% according to FARS) and this number was often used as an estimate

for local fatalities. Many believed the local portion of fatalities was between 40% to 60% while knowing it

varied greatly from state to state.

All fifty states and the District of Columbia were evaluated using data from the following sources:

• Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): FARS is a nationwide census providing NHTSA, Congress and the American public yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic crashes.

• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reports: Federal legislation requires each State to submit a Highway Safety Improvement Program report to the Federal Highway Administration that:

o Describes the progress being made to implement highway safety improvement projects; o Assesses the effectiveness of those improvements; and o Describes the extent to which the improvements have contributed to reducing fatalities and

serious injuries on all public roads.

• State Data Sources: State sources vary such as their Strategic Highway Safety Plans as well as crash data bases such as Texas Crash Records Information System (C.R.I.S.)

HSIP Reports were reviewed beginning in 2015 and 2016, initially. During the data collection phase there was

a change in HSIP reporting. In 2017, States began reporting five-year averages for the fatality data being

reviewed. This is believed to be the most reliable data and was used whenever possible as the primary source

for state data. HSIP Funding was collected for three years beginning in 2014. This information comes

exclusively from the HSIP Reports.

It should be noted that this only represents federal funds that States have reported. It does not include safety

investments States may make on the local system through other programs like operations and maintenance.

It also does not include any contributions that local agencies make in their safety programs. A description of

these categories can be found at the end of this chapter.

Data Challenges

FARS

FARS has been an excellent source of fatality data and has been particularly helpful in quantifying the break

down by land use (rural vs. urban). In the past, data was not available based on roadway ownership, however

that changed beginning in 2015. While the 2015 data was questionable in several States, 2016 saw a vast

improvement with only a few States not reporting ownership. In the future, FARS will likely be an important

source for quantifying fatalities by ownership.

HSIP Reports

Each State is required by FHWA to submit an annual HSIP Report. This includes much information on their

safety programs including fatality data and funding data. Unfortunately, in some cases the data is incomplete

12

or inconsistently reported and, in many cases, not provided at all. For instance, the table below shows the

reporting for Arizona.

It should be noted that the data is used from various sources and is a limitation of this study. FARS data was

used for twenty-six States while HSIP Reports were used in twenty-four States. In the case of Texas, it is

based on a three-year average of State data. This means that in some States we are looking at multi-year

averages while in FARS data states we are considering 2016 data.

Figure 1: Arizona Crash Data by Ownership (AZ 2017 HSIP Report)

Data Summary

Based on the analysis of available data described above, it was found that local fatalities make up 36% of all

fatalities, nationally. However, this varies from 2% to 63% in each State. Figures 2 and 3 provide the

percentage of local road fatalities and total number of local fatalities for each State, respectively.

Data for the Top Ten States for local fatalities are provided in Table 1. It should be noted that these ten

States account for 60% of that fatalities on local roads while only 7% of the total HSIP Funds Program are

obligated to these local roads.

13

Figure 2: Percent Local Fatalities by State

40%7%

45%15%

55%38%

28%81%

2%40%

39%24%

41%46%45%

50%43%

11%20%

36%27%

55%58%

50%36%

26%18%

42%41%

29%53%

31%53%

3%31%

63%35%

38%15%

29%5%

40%33%

22%33%

32%15%

53%3%

54%11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

ALAKAZ

ARCACOCTDCDEFL

GAHIIDILINIAKSKYLA

MNMDMAMI

MNMSMOMTNENVNHNJ

NMNYNCND

OHOKORPARISCSDTNTX

UTVTVA

WAWVWI

WY

Percent Local Fatalities by State

14

Figure 3: Total Local Fatalities by State

4154

435

79

1988233

8322

2

1277

510

2987

494

373

174185

92

144

58

125

214

551

190244

24438

94

10532

275

92

53043

42

666232

188183

15

54

38343

811

92

20

103

259

9

328

12

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Total Local Fatalities by State

15

Table 1: Top Ten Fatalities by Ownership

State Source Total

Fatalities

State

Fatalities

County

Fatalities

Municipal

Fatalities

Total

Local

Fatalities

Percent

Local

Percent

HSIP Funds

Obligated

on Locals

(3-YR Ave)

California 2016 FARS 3622 1434 664 1324 1988 55%

16%

Florida 2016 FARS 3174 1832

1277 40% 12%

Texas TxDOT 3-

Year

Average

2014-2016

3627 2816 244 567 811 22% 1%

Ohio 2017 HSIP

Report

1019 394 126 540 666 63% 20%

Michigan 2017 HSIP

Report

957 406

551 58% 25%

New York 2017 HSIP

Report

991 461 204 356 530 53% 21%

Georgia 2017 HSIP

Report

1305 795 350 160 510 39% 7%

Illinois 2016 FARS 1082 586 151 343 494 46% 11%

Arizona 2016 FARS 962 398 70 365 435 45% 30%

Alabama 2016 FARS 1038 623 284 131 415 40% 5%

Urban vs. Rural

According to 2016 FARS data, of all the rural fatalities in the US, 29% are on the Local System. This also varies

significantly from state to state. Figure 4 provides the breakdown between land use (Urban vs. Rural) and

ownership (State vs. Local).

Rural and urban boundaries are determined by the State highway departments and approved by the Federal

Highway Administration. The State highway departments use the U.S. Census Bureau’s rural and urban

boundaries. The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas:

– Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;

– Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

16

Figure 4: State and Local Fatalities by Land Use (FARS 2016)

HSIP Funding

The HSIP Program is a part of the overall Federal

Apportionments for transportation as shown in Figure

5 below. According to FHWA, “The term "HSIP funds"

includes those funds that are available (programmed)

to implement highway safety improvement projects

that have been identified as part of the State's HSIP. At

a minimum, this includes highway safety improvement

projects obligated using HSIP funds (23 U.S.C. 148),

funds obligated under the High Risk Rural Roads

(HRRR) special rule (23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1)), penalty funds

used for HSIP purposes (23 U.S.C. 154 and 164), and

the Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP) funds

used for HSIP purposes (23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2)).

In addition, the report should include other non-safety

funds (e.g., Surface Transportation Block Grant Program

(STBG), National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), State, local) that are programmed to implement

highway safety improvement projects (i.e., those identified through the HSIP).

0

5000

10000

15000

Rural UrbanState Local

Figure 5 - Source: FHWA 2017 HSIP Summary Report

17

If the High Risk Rural Roads Special rule applies to a State, then in the next fiscal year the State must obligate an amount at least equal to 200% of its FY 2009 HRRR set-aside for high risk rural roads. [23 U.S.C. 148(g)] Further, States that are subject to the 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164 penalties may also receive additional funding for HSIP projects.”

For these reasons, HSIP Funding data is presented as a percent of the Total HSIP Program Funds which

includes all the funding items. These are further discussed at the end of this section.

Figure 6: Sample HSIP Funding Table (Source: CA 2017 HSIP Report)

The use of HSIP funds on local roads varies significantly, from 0 to over 70%. Based on a three-year period

from 2014 - 2016, approximately 18% of the total HSIP Program funds are programmed to the local system

while 17% are obligated.

Figure 7 below provide a comparison of the Percent Local Fatalities vs. the Percent Total HSIP Funds Obligated

to local projects.

18

40%7%

45%15%

55%

38%

28%81%

2%40%

39%24%

41%46%

45%50%

43%11%

20%

36%27%

55%

58%

50%

36%

26%

18%42%

41%29%

53%

31%53%

3%

31%

63%

35%

38%

15%29%

5%

40%33%

22%33%

32%15%

53%

3%

54%11%

5%10%

30%

0%

16%6%

12%0%

0%12%

7%

1%

23%11%

38%

12%

32%

1%

1%0%

0%

22%

25%

19%1%

0%

2%

18%

7%1%

54%9%

21%

0%

10%

20%0%

31%0%

8%

0%

25%

23%

1%7%

20%

10%79%

0%

21%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

Figure 7: Percent Local Fatalities vs. Percent Total Local HSIP Program Obligated

Percent Total Local HSIP Program Obligated Percent Local Fatalities

19

Under 23 U.S.C 126, HSIP funds are eligible to be transferred to other core programs. During the period

reviewed, 2014-2016, a total of $483,927,848 was transferred from HSIP to other programs from the following

States:

• Alabama

• Arkansas

• Connecticut

• Florida

• Hawaii

• Indiana

• Kansas

• Kentucky

• Maryland

• Minnesota

• New Jersey

• New Mexico

• Rhode Island

• South Carolina

• Tennessee

• Wisconsin

High Risk Rural Roads

According to a December 20, 2017 FHWA Memo, the following States are required to obligate the funds below

in their FY19 Program:

20

HSIP Funding Categories

Penalty Funds – 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164

States that fail to enact or enforce compliant Open Container and/or Repeat Offender laws by October 1 of

each fiscal year will have an amount equal to 2.5 percent (previously 3 percent) of Federal-aid funds

apportioned for the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program

(STP) (apportioned under 23 U.S.C. § 104(b) (1) and 23 U.S.C. § 104(b)(2)) reserved until the State certifies how

it will use the reserved funds. The penalties are cumulative; that is a 2.5 percent penalty applies separately for

each program (i.e., Section 154 or 164) where non-compliance occurs.

RHCP (for HSIP purposes under 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2))

The Railway-Highway Crossing Program (Section 130) provides funds for safety improvements to reduce the

number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway-highway grade crossings. The Section 130 program,

in accordance with 23 USC 130(d), requires each state to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all

highways to identify those railroad crossings that may require separation, relocation, or protective devices,

and establish and implement a schedule of project for this purpose.

21

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

The objective of the grant was to select five target states to conduct Stakeholder Meetings to determine ways

to advance local road safety. In general, states with the highest number of fatalities were given the highest

priority. NACE worked with Florida in 2016 so it was not considered, although follow-up is warranted.

As mentioned previously, the following issues were discussed at each Stakeholder Meeting:

• Inclusion and Engagement of Locals in the State Safety Planning Process

• Funding Local Safety Programs and Projects

• Delivery of the Federal Aid Program for HSIP

• Access to Crash Data and Crash Data Analysis

• Development and Implementation of Local Road Safety Plans

• Systemic Approach to Safety

California

The HSIP Reports submitted to FHWA by California do not break down fatalities by ownership. The total

county fatalities can be found in Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) (see below) but it is

difficult to break out the other ownership statistics. The 2016 FARS data for counties was consistent with

SWITRS so this is the source that was used in the analysis.

Table 2: CA Fatalities by Ownership

Fatalities by Ownership

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local

Percent Local HSIP

FARS 2016 2016 1432 664 1 1323 200 3622 1988 55% 16%

In reviewing the FARS data in terms of rural vs. urban fatalities, it was found that 97% of the county fatalities

were on rural roads which warrants further investigation.

Table 3: California Land Use by Ownership

Blank Rural Urban total

Blank 108 0 0 108

State Highway Agency 5 815 614 1434

County Highway Agency 0 650 14 664

Town or Township Highway Agency 0 0 1 1

City or Municipal Highway Agency 3 9 1311 1323

Not Reported 0 45 47 92

Unknown 0 0 1 1

Total 116 1519 1988 3623

Source: FARS 2016

22

Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Process

California has a long history of working closely with local agencies. Their stakeholder partnering committee,

the Transportation Co-op Committee, has been in existence for over 50 years. This successful relationship

lead to the formation of the California Local Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) Advisory Committee with a

formal Charter, which is co-chaired by a County Engineer. This has been identified as an excellent example of

including locals in the safety planning process and should be considered by other states.

Figure 8: California Local Highway Safety Program Advisory Committee

Funding Local Safety Programs

Because of the close working relationship with local agencies, Caltrans has historically dedicated a significant

portion of their HSIP funds to locals. Based on the crash data collection for this study, Caltrans has obligated

approximately 16% of their HSIP funds to local agencies. At one point, Caltrans had shared half of their safety

funds with local entities. There is a desire among all stakeholders in California to increase the funds and

resources to improve local road safety. It is believed that this can be achieved through better information and

education to locals. Stakeholders have also inquired as to whether the Penalty Funds be directed to local

agencies.

Program Delivery

Caltrans has attempted to ease the burden of program delivery by making it easier for locals to apply for and

receive HSIP funds. They have developed an online electronic application for HSIP funds (See Appendix C). In

addition, they have developed an HSIP Analyzer Tool with an accompanying Manual for HSIP Analyzer.

23

According to Caltrans, “the HSIP Analyzer is a PDF form-based software that streamlines the project cost

estimate, safety improvement countermeasure evaluation, crash data input and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)

calculation. For an application that is not required to have the BCR, the HSIP Analyzer will be used for cost

estimate only. The use of the HSIP Analyzer is required for all applications in HSIP Cycle 9.”

Caltrans has also developed the Local Roadway Safety Manual for California Local Road Owners. Development

and use of a guide or manual are a common practice observed in several states. This documentation guides

local agencies through the process of acquiring federal safety funds. In California, the manual assists local

agencies in preparing a proactive safety analysis of their roadway networks, identifying their safety

improvement priorities and applying appropriate countermeasures.

Access to Data and Data Analysis

Crash data in California is owned by the California Highway Patrol and is published through the Statewide

Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). “SWITRS is a database that serves as a means to collect and

process data gathered from a collision scene. The Internet SWITRS application is a tool by which California

Highway Patrol (CHP) staff and members of its Allied Agencies throughout California can request various types

of statistical reports in an electronic format. Custom reports can be created by the user to capture data

relevant to specified criteria such as Jurisdiction, Location, or Annual or Quarterly reports by date.”

Locals also have access to the crash data through TIMS, the Transportation Injury Mapping System developed

by the University of California Berkeley. Numerous tools are available in TIMS with the intent of providing

quick, easy and free access to SWITRS data. TIMS was developed by taking the data from SWITRS and

geocoding it to make it easier to map crashes.

Figure 9: Available Tools in TIMS

24

Locals do not have access to roadway inventory data. Caltrans is working on this based on FAST Act

requirements and expects to have a system in place in the next three to four years. Despite these tools and

activities, access to useable data and the skills to analyze it remains an obstacle. Caltrans expressed an

interest in developing tools such as the crash data spreadsheets like what is used in Washington State (see

Executive Summary).

Local Road Safety Plans

Implementation of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) in California is relatively new. They appear to have begun with the NACE/FHWA LRSP Pilot Program in 2017/2018 and other FHWA activities. Caltrans is supportive of LRSPs and they could play a large role in reducing fatalities on the local system. CA will be hosting a local data/LRSP conference/summit/peer exchange in February 2019 and take what they have learned through LRSP Pilot, Wash DOT, SSARP and update to their SHSP.

Systemic Approach

Caltrans has established the state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP). The intent of this

program is to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway

networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP

and other safety program applications.

While outreach has been provided on systemic approaches, there does not appear to be county-wide

implementation of systemic analysis and implementation. It is recommended that widespread training be

provided to locals on this approach.

Texas

The Texas HSIP Reports do not provide fatality data based on road ownership and the FARS data is also

unreliable with most fatalities listed as not reported. TxDOT, however, provides Texas Motor Vehicle Crash

Statistics online. This crash data was used in the analysis and is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Texas Fatalities by Ownership

Fatalities by Ownership

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total

Local Percent

Local

Percent

Local HSIP

TxDOT 2014 – 2016

3-YR Ave. 2816 244 567 3627 811 22% 1%

Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Process

Texas is a decentralized DOT and HSIP funds are distributed through the 25 TxDOT Districts. The expectation is

that the Districts will promote the HSIP program to the local agencies but as in many decentralized DOTs,

25

there are various levels of success. More outreach is needed to inform and educate local agencies on the

availability of funds and the safety planning process.

Funding Local Safety Programs

TxDOT obligates approximately 1% of their HSIP funds to local agencies. Compounding the problem is that

locals must compete with the Districts for the funds and the Districts decide who receives the funding.

Headquarters also has a limited staff to implement their $300M program. TxDOT is reviewing their process

and appears genuinely interested in better addressing local road safety issues.

Program Delivery

The Texas Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is limited to improvements that address the crash

types identified in the Texas Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Funds are provided for construction and

operational improvements both on and off the state highway system. TxDOT solicits applications for HSIP

Projects each year.

Access to Data and Data Analysis

TxDOT Headquarters has a very robust crash data program and a well-qualified staff to oversee it. Their crash

data is updated daily and they receive many requests for data each day. The crash data covers all roads within

the entire state. Queries can be made online as well as specific requests for data not generally published.

Two issues appear to be, local agencies lack of awareness of the availability of the data; and the data being in

a useable form to guide the locals in developing a program. These issues could be addressed through

outreach and education, and development of tools such as those used in Washington State and Ohio.

26

Local Road Safety Plans

There are 254 counties and 1216 incorporated cities in Texas. A LRSP is currently under development in

Waller County through technical support services provided by FHWA Office of Safety. Wide spread

implementation of LRSPs could have a dramatic impact at reducing fatalities on Texas locally owned roads.

Systemic Approach

It does not appear that the systemic approach has been implemented on locally owned roads in Texas. With

the vast number of counties in Texas, and particularly in rural areas, a systemic approach could identify low

cost safety measures for implementation. In addition, this could be done on a district level and cover multiple

counties through project bundling.

Ohio

Data sources for Ohio included both HSIP Reports and FARS. As can be seen in Table 5 below, there is a large

discrepancy between the two sources. The 2017 HSIP Report is a five-year average and appears more

consistent with the Ohio SHSP in Figure 10. For this reason, the HSIP values were used. HSIP data shows a

majority of the fatalities occurring in cities.

Table 5: Fatalities by Ownership in Ohio

Fatalities by Ownership

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local

Percent Local HSIP

HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 394 126 50 490 1060 666 63% 20%

FARS 2015 2015 649 281 79 96 5 1010 456 41%

FARS 2016 2016 688 267 52 114 11 1132 433 38%

Figure 10: Ohio Serious Injuries and Fatalities by Ownership (Ohio SHSP 2014-2019)

27

Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Process

Through their stakeholder partnering committee, the Ohio LPA Advisory Group, local agencies oversee the

overall implementation of the local program. It is recommended that this advisory group have a formal

charter and regular meetings to oversee the implementation of the HSIP Program, like that of California.

Funding Local Safety Programs

ODOT recognizes the significance of local fatalities and distributes 20% of their HSIP funds to local agencies. In

addition, other sources of funds are allocated to local road safety including LTAP program funding. ODOT

works with the Districts to get funding to locals. Funds have been set aside to assist locals through consultant

services with safety studies and systemic analysis (see Appendix C).

Program Delivery

There are a variety of delivery mechanisms with ODOT. Locals can compete for safety funds twice a year

through the regular process. ODOT has recently implemented an abbreviated online process for up to

$500,000 distributed throughout the year. ODOT is also prepared to deliver local projects themselves like they

do their bridge program. This could include a systemic approach within the districts. ODOT may also consider

bundling projects within the districts.

Access to Data and Data Analysis

Extensive safety data exists within ODOT. In addition, ODOT provides locals with assistance in data analysis

and analysis tools. Their Crash Tree Diagrams are widely regarded as models for providing useable

information for local agencies. The MPOs also have the skills for data analysis. The LTAP has in the past and

will continue to provide outreach and training on data.

Local Road Safety Plans

Ohio participated in the NACE/FHWA Pilot LRSP Workshop which got them started on LRSP implementation.

ODOT envisions multiple approaches to LRSPs. There are 17 MPOs in Ohio and in some cases, they will take

the lead. In other cases, the counties will have their own separate LRSP. Regardless, Ohio supports LRSPs as

an important approach to local road safety and in time should result in significant reductions in fatalities on

the local network.

Systemic Approach

Ohio embraces the systemic approach and is in the process of allocating significant resources, including

consulting services, for implementation.

The Ohio DOT's (ODOT) Office of Local Programs, with the assistance of the Ohio Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Center, administers a nationally recognized systemic signage intersection and curve upgrade program for targeted Ohio Townships. The program provides opportunities for townships to apply for free safety and advanced warning signs.

28

As a part of the program, the Ohio LTAP Center provides crash data and information on the types of sign packages available for specific situations. Townships can choose from the signage packages or build their own sign orders. The ODOT Office of Local Programs also provides guidance and assistance to Townships on sign installation if necessary.

New York

As can be seen in the Table 6 below, there are discrepancies between HSIP reported data and FARS data in

New York. Keeping in mind that the 2017 HSIP Report is a five-year average, the State, City and total fatalities

are similar but there are large differences between the County and Town fatalities. The 2017 HSIP data was

used in the analysis.

Table 6: New York Fatalities by Ownership

Fatalities by Ownership

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total

Local

Percent

Local

Percent

Local HSIP

HSIP 2015 2014 393.8 181.2 49.4 247.8 252.8 1125 478.4 43%

HSIP 2017 2016

5YR 461 204 51 275 991 530 53% 21%

FARS 2015 2015 446 85 296 280 17 1124 661 59%

FARS 2016 2016 420 79 264 262 1025 605 59%

The New York Stakeholder Meeting was held in Utica after the NYSDOT/FHWA Local Road Safety Peer

Exchange. At that exchange, the 33 attendees discussed local road safety program across New York State with

additional presentations from Michigan and New Jersey. The local Stakeholders met the following day to

discuss their program and develop recommendations but NYSDOT and FHWA did not attend that meeting.

Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Process

While NYSDOT enlists numerous local partners in developing their SHSP, there does not appear to be a

committee including local agencies to oversee the implementation of their safety planning activities and HSIP

Program. It is recommended that NYSDOT assemble an HSIP Committee like Caltrans to oversee the

implementation. Such a committee should include representatives from the counties, towns, villages and

MPOs.

Funding Local Safety Programs

The review of the last three years of the NY HSIP Reports indicate approximately 21% is obligated to local

projects. According to NYSDOT, in the last four years, 33 of the 166 safety projects were on the local system.

29

Program Delivery

It is unclear if NYSDOT has a manual such as TxDOT to guide local agencies through the HSIP process. Such a

manual and electronic submission process would be extremely helpful.

Access to Data and Data Analysis

There are various data sources available in New York. Accident Location Information System (ALIS) uses crash

data stored in the Safety Information Management System (SIMS) database in conjunction with location

information produced by location coders at the Department of Motor vehicles (DMV). ALIS provides the ability

to query all public roads in New York State with a few different report options and formats. Efforts are

underway to develop the Crash Location Engineering & Analysis Repository (CLEAR). CLEAR, a web-based

application, will replace ALIS and SIMS over the next few years.

Generally, lack of access to data and analysis remains a barrier for local agencies. NYSDOT believes there are

potential liability issues that may require the local agencies to do their own analysis, like the findings in

California. This is compounded by limited ability of locals to perform the data analysis. In order to reduce

fatalities on the local system, NYSDOT will need to dedicate resources to assist local agencies in acquiring data

and deriving useable information.

Local Road Safety Plans

One LRSP is currently under development in Chemung County through technical support services provided by

FHWA Office of Safety. Chemung County has chosen to include the city of Elmira in their plan which serves as

an excellent model for other counties in New York to address the high fatalities in villages, cities and towns.

MPOs in New York could play a key role in working with their local agencies in developing regional LRSPs.

However, there are many areas in New York where there are no MPOs. In the end, a comprehensive strategy

is needed to address the entire state which would include both regional and county-wide LRSPs.

Systemic Approach

While NYSDOT does not appear to be implementing a systemic approach at a significant level, it has been used

in Long Island for High Friction Surface Treatment projects (HFST). As with the other states visited, training

and awareness is needed to promote and implement a systemic program.

Georgia

Data sources for Georgia included HSIP Reports and FARS data. Again, considering that the 2017 HSIP Report

is a five-year average, the data sources are fairly consistent. The HSIP data was used given that it was a five-

year average. The outstanding data element is the high number of county fatalities which was one of the

reason Georgia was selected as a target State. Figure 11 from the most recent GA SHSP was used as a

comparison.

30

Table 7: Fatalities by Ownership in Georgia

Fatalities by Ownership

Source Year State County Town City Total Total

Local

Percent

Local

Percent

Local HSIP

HSIP 2017 2016

5 YR AVE 795 350 160 1305 510 39% 7%

FARS 2015 2015 873 318 14 226 1431 558 39%

FARS 2016 2016 953 343 0 258 1554 601 39%

Figure 11: Georgia Traffic Deaths

31

Table 8: GA Fatalities by Land Use

Rural Urban total

State Highway Agency 413 540 953

County Highway Agency 132 211 343

City or Municipal Highway Agency 58 200 258

Total 603 951 1554

Source: FARS 2016

Inclusion of Locals in the State Safety Process

As in all States, GA has an SHSP Committee comprised of numerous Stakeholders which includes the Georgia

Municipal Association. There is, however, a need to bring more local stakeholders to the table. One of the

challenges is that NACE does not currently have an affiliate in the State of Georgia. The National Association

of Counties (NACo) has an affiliate called the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) who

could play a larger role in local safety issues.

Funding Local Safety Programs

GDOT recognizes that more resources should be allocated to local road safety and is willing to do so. While

GDOT obligates approximately 7% of their HSIP funds to local agencies, this has not been a metric that they

have tracked in the past. However, they also believe that much effort is put into safety aspects of their local

program, even though those funds may not originate from the HSIP program. GDOT sees many opportunities

for projects under $250,000.

According to the 2017 GA HSIP Report, “The Department employs District Coordinators that work with the

Department's District Traffic Operations and local government to identify a group of roads that are not part of

the state highway system that have safety deficiencies. Once the roads are selected, the list is prioritized and

selected by a review team. The cost of the planned safety improvements are taken into consideration as well

as the effectiveness of each countermeasure. The Department dedicates $1 million annually for each of the

state's seven construction districts. This money is solely used to fund our off-system safety program.

Additionally, larger HRRR projects are individually programmed using HSIP funds. The work normally consists

of installing retro-reflective signage, applying pavement markings, installing rumble strips or guardrail.”

Program Delivery

As with Texas, GDOT relies on their Districts to promote safety funding opportunities with local agencies (see

above). It appears that local agencies may not be aware of the HSIP program or how to request funds.

Improved outreach through the districts, well documented procedures and an online application process like

California and Texas could help.

32

Access to Data and Data Analysis

In Georgia, Law Enforcement Agencies submit accident information to the Georgia Electronic Accident

Reporting System (GEARS). GDOT has thoroughly reviewed the last five years of the data and can now make

data driven decisions. They have developed “report cards” for each county. Cobb County, who participated in

the Stakeholder Meeting, maintains their own crash data.

While high quality crash data exists, it is unclear if local agencies take advantage of this data or have the skills

to analyze it to make investment decisions.

Local Road Safety Plans

While Georgia has not implemented LRSPs, they have developed the report cards for each county. These

report cards could be used to develop LRSPs and GDOT is willing to use HSIP funds to accomplish this. Phase 2

of the NACE/FHWA LRSP Pilot Program has identified nine counties to work with in developing LRSPs. This

could provide the beginnings of a state-wide program for implementation of LRSP.

Systemic Approach

GDOT embraces the concept of a systemic approach for local road safety and is willing to pursue this but also

realizes that training is needed for locals on this approach. They have successfully implemented systemic

practices throughout the state-owned system and the Districts could play a large role in assisting local

agencies.

33

Appendix A: Stakeholder Meeting Attendees

The California Stakeholder Meeting was held on July 27, 2018 in Sacramento with the following attendees:

• Brian Roberts, Project Manager/Consultant

• Tom Mattson, Humboldt County

• Rick Tippett, Trinity County

• Richard Ke, Caltrans

• Chiu Liu, Caltrans

• Tracy Coan, California LTAP

• Scott Davis, NACE

• Robert Peterson, Caltrans

• Ken Cochevar, FHWA (by phone)

The Texas Stakeholder Meeting was held on August 7, 2018 in Austin with the following attendees:

• Brian Roberts, Project Manager/Consultant

• Tony Vasquez, NACE State Director, Bexar County

• Yancy Scott, TACERA, Waller County

• Terry Pence, TxDOT

• Heather Lott, TxDOT

• Larbi Hanni, TxDOT

• Dawn Hinton, TX LTAP

• Roopa Banerjee, FHWA Division

The Ohio Stakeholder Meeting was held on August 13, 2018 in Columbus with the following attendees:

Brian Roberts, Project Manager/Consultant

Victoria Beale, OH LTAP

Jordan Whisler, ODOT

Andrea Stevenson, ODOT

Michele Risko, CEAO

Stephen McCall, Champaign County Engineer and NACE State Director

Jerry Roche, FHWA (by phone)

Dean Ringle, CEAO Executive Director

The New York Stakeholder Meeting was held on August 17, 2018 in Utica with the following attendees:

Brian Roberts, Project Manager/Consultant

David Orr, NY LTAP

Andy Avery, NACE State Director

Bernie Meyer, Town of Canaan Highway

Dennis Davis, Oneida County

34

The Georgia Stakeholder Meeting was held on September 27, 2018 in Atlanta with the following attendees:

Brian Roberts, Project Manager/Consultant

David Adams, GA DOT

Scott Zehngraff, GA DOT

Beverly Fontenot, GA LTAP

Greg Morris, FHWA Division

Antonio Valenzuela, Deputy Director, Transportation, Fulton County Georgia

Kelly Patrick, Cobb County

Michael Francis, Transportation Division Manager, Cobb County

Blair Barnhardt, Rockdale County

Brian Keierleber, NACE

Hillary Isebrands, FHWA

Jerry Roche, FHWA

35

Appendix B: Data Collected

State Data Fatalities by Ownership Ownership Funding

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local

Percent Local

Ownership

Percent Total HSIP

Obligated

AL FARS 2016 2016 623 284 1 130 1038 415 40% 88% 5%

AK HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 51 0 4 55 4 7% 38% 10%

AZ FARS 2016 2016 398 70 15 350 129 962 435 45% 61% 30%

AR FARS 2016 2016 447 46 15 18 18 544 79 15% 81% 0%

CA FARS 2016 2016 1434 664 1 1323 200 3622 1988 55% 87% 16%

CO FARS 2016 2016 374 94 4 135 607 233 38% 81% 6%

CT FARS 2016 2016 205 6 77 5 293 83 28% 81% 12%

DC FARS 2016 2016 3 22 2 27 22 81% 13% 0%

DE FARS 2016 2016 117 0 1 1 119 2 2% 0% 0%

FL FARS 2016 2016 1832 9 6 2 65 3174 1277 40% 88% 12%

GA HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 795 350 160 1305 510 39% 84% 7%

HI FARS 2016 2016 90 29 1 120 29 24% 74% 1%

ID HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 123 87 210 87 41% 44% 23%

IL FARS 2016 2016 586 151 91 252 2 1082 494 46% 88% 11%

IN FARS 2016 2016 445 154 9 210 3 821 373 45% 87% 38%

IA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 172 126 48 346 174 50% 92% 12%

KS FARS 2016 2016 242 11 54 120 2 429 185 43% 92% 32%

KY FARS 2016 2016 740 50 33 9 2 834 92 11% 64% 1%

LA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 588 79 65 732 144 20% 72% 1%

ME FARS 2016 2016 98 1 48 8 5 160 58 36% 62% 0%

MD HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 338 115 10 463 125 27% 80% 0%

MA FARS 2016 2016 175 101 113 389 214 55% 90% 22%

MI HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 406 957 551 58% 91% 25%

MN HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 190 137 20 33 380 190 50% 88% 19%

MS FARS 2016 2016 441 165 0 79 685 244 36% 85% 1%

MO FARS 2016 2016 696 111 1 132 5 945 244 26% 73% 0%

MT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 150 24 14 19 207 38 18% 65% 2%

NE HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 129 58 36 223 94 42% 89% 18%

NV HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 151 55 50 256 105 41% 79% 7%

NH HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 77 21 11 109 32 29% 74% 1%

NJ HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 241 180 95 516 275 53% 91% 54%

NM HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 183 43 49 23 298 92 31% 67% 9%

NY HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 461 204 51 275 991 530 53% 85% 21%

NC HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 1225 43 24 1292 43 3% 21% 0%

ND HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 88 32 10 6 136 42 31% 90% 10%

OH HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 394 126 50 490 1060 666 63% 83% 20%

OK HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 437 110 122 669 232 35% 88% 0%

OR FARS 2016 2016 303 118 70 3 494 188 38% 60% 31%

PA FARS 2016 2016 831 2 111 70 173 1187 183 15% 65% 0%

RI FARS 2016 2016 36 0 1 14 51 15 29% 79% 8%

SC FARS 2016 2016 961 54 1015 54 5% 43% 0%

36

State Data Fatalities by Ownership Ownership Funding

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local

Percent Local

Ownership

Percent Total HSIP

Obligated

SD HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 58 26 3 9 96 38 40% 86% 25%

TN FARS 2016 2016 688 188 0 155 9 1040 343 33% 84% 23%

TX TxDOT 2016 3YR Ave 2816 244 567 3627 811 22% 73% 1%

UT FARS 2016 2016 184 24 68 4 280 92 33% 77% 7%

VT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 42 17 3 62 20 32% 80% 20%

VA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 607 7 2 94 710 103 15% 18% 10%

WA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 226 136 0 123 485 259 53% 70% 79%

WV HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 300 9 309 9 3% 8% 0%

WI FARS 2016 2016 269 158 67 103 10 607 328 54% 89% 21%

WY FARS 2016 2016 100 3 9 112 12 11% 61% 5%

Total 22566 4525 729 5790 710 36131 12856 36%

State Data Serious Injuries Fatal Rate SI Rate

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local State County Town City State County Town City

AL HSIP 2015 2014 7971 2449 1997 12417 4446 36%

AK HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 141 8 149 8 5%

AZ FARS 2016 2016

AR HSIP 2017 2013 5 YR 2,576 227 343 3146 570 18% 1.64 2.03 0.96 10.18 7.26 6.47

CA FARS 2016 2016

CO FARS 2016 2016

CT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 824 731 1555 731 47%

DC FARS 2016 2016

DE FARS 2016 2016

FL FARS 2016 2016

GA HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 10,226 4,737 2,442 17405 7179 41% 1.16 1.12 0.69 9.33 9.32 10.7

HI FARS 2016 2016

ID HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 609 693 1302 693 53% 1.4 1.16 6.9 9.23

IL HSIP 2017 2015 5 YR 1994 542 506 362 3404 1410 41% 0.49 0.65 1.11 0.13 3.56 4.94 8.17 1.4

IN HSIP 2017 2015 5 YR 1447 808 1180 3435 1988 58% 1.07 1.1 0.73 3.66 4.32 5.83

IA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 698 478 361 1537 839 55% 0.5 0.68 0.34 2.12 2.56 2.55

KS HSIP 2017 2015 5 YR 647 1397 750 54% 1.12

3.59

KY HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 2499 227 399 15 3140 626 20% 1.32 5.21

LA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 8856 1540 3292 13688 4832 35% 1.5 4.19 1.1 22.23 82.2 55.8

ME HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 688 140 828 140 17% 0.96 1.58 0.96 5.59 7.72 5.59

MD HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 1932 824 231 2987 1055 35%

MA HSIP 2017 2015 5YR 990 2039 3029 2039 67% 0.46 0.84 2.95 8.95

MI HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 2201 5256 3055 58% 0.8 4.34

MN HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 450 482 56 286 1274 824 65% 0.6 0.98 1.64 0.36 1.35 3.45 4.71 3.1

MS HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR 401 185 70 656 255 39% 1.76 1.7 0.69 1.76

37

State Data Serious Injuries Fatal Rate SI Rate

Source Year State County Town City Other Total Total Local

Percent Local State County Town City State County Town City

MO HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR 3,235 4,879 1644 .86 4.57

MT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 678 132 139 60 1009 271 27% 1.7 1.69 0.73 7.84 9.43 7.3

NE HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 712 341 531 1584 872 55% 1.3 3.1 0.95 7.07 18.3 14.2

NV HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 497 417 256 1170 673 58%

NH HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 294 103 97 494 200 40% 0.8 2.55 0.86 2.98 12.43 7.96

NJ HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 378.6 376 223 165 1143 599 52% 0.8 1.23 1.81 1.12 2.58 4.24

NM HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 565 123 602 39 1329 725 55% 1.1 0.92 0.93 3.45 2.63 11.4

NY HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 3732 1633 480 3857 3765 0.4 0.16 0.04 0.22 2.77 1.28 0.38 3.03

NC HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 4038 154 100 4292 154 4% 1.2 0.37 3.85 1.33

ND HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 279 110 90 2 481 200 42% 1.0 1.26 1.06 3.18 4.21 10.5

OH HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 2696 871 318 5300 32.4 9217 6489 70%

OK HSIP 2017 2016 5 YR Ave 1566 444 1041 3051 1485 49%

OR HSIP 2017 2014 5YR 650 220 420 1290 640 50%

PA HSIP 2017 2015 5YR 2525 19 694 3238 713 22% 1.02 0.01 0.2 2.48 0.02 0.69

RI HSIP 2017 2014 5YR 191.2 101.4 292.6 101.4 35%

SC HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 2945 3195 250 8% 1.73 6.08

SD HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 303 120 29 135 587 284 48% 0.9 2.01 1.4 0.65 4.89 9.4 11.88 10.2

TN HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 3660 1193 1171 6024 2364 39%

TX TxDOT 2016 3YR Ave

UT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 920 495 1415 0% .94 4.86

VT HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 192 75 33 300 108 36%

VA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 6117 84 24 1513 7738 1626.8 21% 0.9 0.54 0.29 0.68 9.48 6.49 4.95 11

WA HSIP 2017 2016 5YR Ave 810 490 785 0.7 1.43 0 0.75 2.49 5.17 0 4.77

WV HSIP 2017 2015 5YR Ave 1442 159 1601 159 10% 1.6 7.58

WI FARS 2016 2016

WY HSIP 2017 2016 5YR 338 45 383 45 12% Total and Ave, 83914 19810 2563 30210 908 131318 54808 42% 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 5.4 10.2 6.3 8.9

38

Appendix C: Noteworthy State Practices

39

40

41

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/apply_nowHSIP.htm

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/2018/Apr/HSIPAnalyzer2018.pdf

42

43

Ohio DOT Assistance to Local Agencies

44

New York State DOT Sample County Analysis

45

46

47

Sample Screen Shots from Georgia DOT County Report Cards

48

49

50

51