# Presentation: 677779

## Highway Safety Improvement Program Reporting Requirements   Web Conference 

- FHWA Office of Safety
- June 20, 2006

## Meeting Agenda

- Welcome and conference operating procedures
- Overview of all 3 reporting requirements
- Reiteration of specific reporting requirements by each lead person followed by questions and answers.
- Two ways to participate in the discussion:
- Ask a question during open discussion (press *1).
- Submit your question through the “chat” pod.

## Presenters     

- HSIP--Ken Epstein and Leslie Wright
- Highway-Railway Crossings—Guan Xu
- 5% Report—Ed Rice

## General Information

- Guidance on each of the reporting requirements disseminated during April and May
- Guidance now on the Safety Website
- 	http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu
- Request for Clearance by the Office of Management and Budget—60-day *Federal Register *notice published on May 4
- Guidance will be continually monitored and updated as we gain additional experience

## Report Submittal

- Reports are due annually by **August 31 **to  Division Offices, and to the Office of Safety by** **
**	****September 30**
- State Options—Three separate reports or one report with three distinct sections
- Electronic submission of reports

## Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence

- 23 U.S.C. §148(g)(4)—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purposes directly relating to . . . [the HSIP and 5% Reports] . . . shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data

## HSIP Report

- Section 148(g) and Section 152(g)
- Purpose of report -- to assess whether the HSIP is accomplishing its intended purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on public roads

## HSIP Report

- _Report Contents [Section 148(g)]_
- (1) Description of progress being made to implement HSIP projects
- (2) Assessment of the effectiveness of the projects
- (3) Description of  the extent to which the HSIP 	  	    improvements contribute to:
- (a) Reducing fatalities
- (b) Reducing injuries
- (c) Reducing crashes
- (d) Mitigating the consequences of crashes
- (e) Reducing rail-highway crossing crashes

## HSIP Report

- The report should also contain:
- Information on the State’s High Risk Rural Roads Program
- Relationship of the HSIP projects to the State’s SHSP

## Progress in Implementing HSIP Projects

- Description of:
- HSIP funds available
- Number and general listing of HSIP projects initiated—how they relate to the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
- How projects are chosen for the HSIP

## Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Improvements

- Demonstration of program effectiveness—
- general information and trends
- Overview of general highway safety trends
- Description of the overall effectiveness of the HSIP
- Summary of the High Risk Rural Roads program effectiveness

## Project Evaluation—How improvements contributed to specific goals

- Addresses requirements from both SAFETEA-LU and Section 152(g)
- Overall purpose—To determine if the project achieved its purpose

## Project Evaluation

- Information being requested
- Location/identifier for project
- Type of improvements(s)—Table provided
- Cost of improvement
- “Before” and “After” crash results—Use 3 years of “before” and 3 years of “after” data
- Evaluation results—Benefit/Cost or other methodology

## Reporting on High Risk Rural Roads Program

- HRRR report criteria is included as a section in the HSIP report guidance
- Basic program implementation information
- Methods used to select HRRR
- Detailed information assessing the HRRRP projects

## HRRR Program Implementation

- Based on the most recent completed State FY
- # and type of HRRRP projects initiated
- HRRRP funds available

## HRRR Selection Process

- With a comprehensive statewide crash and roadway data system
- Methodology used
- Data used
- #fatalities, #incapacitating injuries, etc.
- VMT, ADT, lane miles, number of vehicles entering an intersection, etc.

## HRRR Selection Process

- Working towards a comprehensive statewide crash and roadway data system
- Interim Methodology used (data-based)
- Possible interim data used
- #fatalities, #incapacitating injuries of a defined area
- “per capita” data (registered vehicles, licensed drivers, population, etc.)

## HRRR Selection Process

- Techniques used to identify roadways with projected increases in traffic volumes that cause a projected increase in crash rates exceeding the statewide average. [23 U.S.C. §148(a)(1)(B)]
- Steps underway to improve crash and roadway data systems
- considering all public roads

## Assessment of HRRRP Project Effectiveness

- Present/describe evaluation data for projects
- Location/identifier
- Federal functional class of roadway
- Type of improvement
- Cost of improvement
- “Before” and “After” crash results
- Evaluation Results

## Rail-Highway Crossings Report

- Sections 130(g) and 148(g) [SAFETEA-LU Section
- 	1401(d)]
- Purpose of report - to assess whether the program is accomplishing its intended purpose
- Annual report is due by August 31 each year to Division Offices, to Office of Safety by September 30
- Biennial report due to Congress on April 1, 2006 and every 2 years thereafter

## Section 130 Projects

- Purpose: Eliminate hazards of HRGX
- Project types
- Crossing Approach Improvements
- Crossing Warning Sign and Pavement Marking Improvements
- Active Grade Crossing Equipment Installation/Upgrade
- Visibility Improvements
- Roadway Geometry Improvements
- Grade Crossing Elimination
- Crossing Inventory Update

## General Program
Overall efforts funded by Section 130 including total number of projects and costs 
Status of data acquisition and analysis efforts and expenditures;
Total number of public crossings within the State, including type of crossing protection;
Specific program emphasis areas; and
Assessment of overall Section 130 program effectiveness.

- Overall efforts funded by Section 130 including total number of projects and costs
- Status of data acquisition and analysis efforts and expenditures;
- Total number of public crossings within the State, including type of crossing protection;
- Specific program emphasis areas; and
- Assessment of overall Section 130 program effectiveness.

- Rail-Highway Crossings Report_Report Contents_

**Notes:**
Number of projects undertaken and their distribution by cost range and nature of treatment
Effectiveness of improvements (“before” and “after” crash experience)
Recommendations for future implementation of the program

## Rail-Highway Crossings ReportReport Contents

- Project Metrics
- Location of projects;
- USDOT crossing numbers;
- FHWA roadway functional classification;
- Crossing protection (i.e., active, passive);
- Crossing type (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, etc.);
- Specific project type and description;
- Cost of project;
- Funding types (Section 130 or other);
- Crash data
- Effectiveness of prior year projects.

## Railway-Highway Crossings Project Metrics

- Serious

- Injury

- Other

- Injury

- PDO

- Fatal.

- Serious

- Injury

- Other

- Injury

- PDO

**Notes:**

- 1.  See FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec2_1.htm

- Project Type and

- Description

- (using the suggested

- groupings provided in

- guidance)

- Before Crash Data

- ( ______ years)

- After Crash Data

- ( ______ years)

- Effectiveness (see Note 2)

- Funding Type

- Total Project Cost

- 2.  Show whether the project achieved its purpose using benefit-cost or other methodology developed by

- the State.  These analyses may include all crashes, or targeted crash types, depending on the nature of

- the improvement that was implemented.

- Project Number

- 23 USC 130

- STATE

- Crossing type

- (vehicle, pedestrian, etc)

- Crossing Protection

- (active, passive)

- Location

- (County/Municipality,

- Highway)

- USDOT Crossing Number

- FHWA Roadway Functional

- Classification (see Note 1)

## Rail-Highway Crossings Report

- States can use up to 2% of their rail-highway crossing funds to compile and analyze data for the reports required under Section 130(g)

## “5% Report”

- Mandated by Section 148(c)(1)(D)
- Is a condition to obligating annual HSIP funds

## “5% Report”

- As part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plans, States must have crash data systems capable of:
- Identifying hazardous locations on _all public roads_;
- Establishing the relative severity of those locations _using criteria deemed appropriate to the State_, in terms of crashes, injuries, fatalities, traffic volumes, and other relevant data.
- The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads – Section 148(b)(2)

## “5% Report”

- The annual report should then identify not less than 5% of those locations in the State exhibiting the most severe safety needs.
- Purpose - to raise public awareness of the safety needs and challenges in the States

## 	“5% Report”	

- It is recognized that not all States are currently able to identify crash locations on non-State-maintained roads
- Current methodology can be used for the initial report(s)
- The Guidance recommends that States improve their data systems so that full public road coverage can be achieved by 8/31/09

## “5% Report”

- Methodologies used by the States should include fatalities and serious injuries and may be based on one or more of the following:
- Frequencies
- Rates per 100 MVMT
- Rates per million entering vehicles (intersections)
- Rates per mile
- Fatal and serious injury crashes as a % of total crashes
- Crash loss (dollars)
- Other as identified by a State

## “5% Report”

- Number of locations in the report should be:
- Commensurate with the size of the State
- Reflect the locations the State DOT believes have the greatest safety needs in the State to raise public awareness of these needs
- No minimum or maximum number of locations can be recommended at this time
- Some examples are presented in the Guidance

## “5% Report”

- The reports shall also include:
- Potential remedies for the identified locations (in any of the “4E” areas)
- Estimated costs of the remedies
- Impediments to implementation other than cost

## “5% Report”

- It is recommended that the report submissions include:
- The State’s methodology used to determine the locations (will vary among the States)
- Extent of public road coverage
- Schedule for updating crash data system to full coverage (if applicable)
- Calendar years used in the data analyses (most recent
- 	3-5 years of data recommended)
- State contact person and/or office

## “5% Report”

- Sample tabular report format is included in the Guidance
- Reports will be made available to the public on the USDOT web site - Section 148(g)(3)(A)
- Reports must be 508 compliant (any maps used must have a text equivalent)

## “5% Report”

- States have much flexibility in determining their locations with the most severe safety needs – shouldn’t compare States’ reports
- Most Federal-aid highway funds can be used for crash database and analysis improvements
-     (refer to  www.dottrcc.gov/pages/funding.htm)

## Thank You!

- Questions?
- Suggestions??
- Thoughts???