This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-663 
entitled 'Highway Safety: Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural 
Road Safety Challenges' which was released on May 28, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2004: 

HIGHWAY SAFETY: 

Federal and State Efforts to Address Rural Road Safety Challenges: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-663]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-663, a report to congressional committees

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United 
States. In 2002, there were 42,815 fatalities and over 2.9 million 
injuries on the nations highways. Crashes on rural roads (roads in 
areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for over 60 percent 
of the deaths nationwide, or about 70 deaths each day. Further, the 
rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was over 
twice the urban fatality rate.

GAO identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, 
(2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nations rural 
roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making improvements in 
rural road safety. GAO obtained information from the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), and other organizations with knowledge of these 
issues. In addition, GAO analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from 
Department of Transportation databases and visited five states that 
account for about 20 percent of the nations rural road mileage. GAO 
also contacted academic experts and examined legislative proposals for 
improving rural road safety. We provided copies of a draft of this 
report to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment. 
In discussing this report, agency officials noted that safety should be 
part of every project designed and built with federal-aid highway 
funds. 

What GAO Found: 

Four primary factors contribute to rural road fatalitieshuman 
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the care victims receive 
after a crash. Human behavior involves the actions taken by or the 
condition of the driver and passengers. Human behaviors are important 
because almost 70 percent of the unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities 
between 2000 and 2002 occurred in rural crashes. Additionally, the 
majority of alcohol- and speeding-related fatalities occurred on rural 
roads. Roadway characteristics that contribute to rural crashes include 
narrow lanes, sharp curves, trees, and animals. Vehicle factors include 
problems that arise due to the design of vehicles and are important for 
both urban and rural roads. Care of crash victims also contributes to 
rural fatalities because of the additional time needed to provide 
medical attention and the quality of rural trauma care.

Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided about $27.4 billion in federal-aid 
highway funds to states. While many projects using these funds have 
safety features, the amount used for safety is not tracked. However, 
about $648 million of these funds went to the Hazard Elimination and 
Rail-Highway Crossings Programs and were specifically provided for 
safety purposesabout $330 million of which went to improve rural road 
safety. NHTSA provided about $671 million to states for activities that 
influence both rural and urban drivers behavior in such areas as 
safety belt use, drunk driving, or speeding. States are ultimately 
responsible for selecting the projects to support with federal funding. 
The five states we visited used a portion of the funding received for 
rural road safety. 

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safetyfor 
example, not all states have adopted safety belt and drunk driving laws 
that might curb behavior contributing to rural road fatalities. In 
addition, states are limited in using federal-aid highway funds for 
certain rural roads, and most rural roads are the responsibility of 
local governments that may lack the resources to undertake costly 
projects to improve road safety. Further, some states lack adequate 
crash data to support planning and evaluation of safety projects. 
Lastly, the nature of rural areas makes it difficult to provide 
adequate emergency medical care.

What GAO Recommends: 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-663.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact 
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities: 

Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural 
Roads: 

Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road 
Safety: 

Appendix III: Low-Cost Safety Improvements: 

Tables: 

Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by Road Type, Fiscal Year 
2002: 

Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States, 2002: 

Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional Classification, 
2002: 

Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002: 

Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles Traveled 
for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002: 

Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs under TEA-21: 

Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to 
States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003: 

Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State Jurisdiction, 
2002: 

Abbreviations: 

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials: 

BAC: blood alcohol concentration: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EMS: emergency medical services: 

FARS: Fatality Analysis Reporting System: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

GAO: General Accounting Office: 

HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

SAFETEA: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act of 2004: 

SUV: sport utility vehicle: 

TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century: 

TEA-LU: Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

Letter May 28, 2004: 

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John W. Olver: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury, and Independent Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Richard Shelby: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United 
States. In 2002 alone, there were 42,815 fatalities and more than 2.9 
million injuries on the nation's highways. Crashes on rural roads 
(roadways in areas with populations of less than 5,000) account for 
over 60 percent of these fatalities--25,849 deaths, or about 70 each 
day. Further, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural 
roads was more than twice the urban fatality rate. The magnitude of 
rural road mileage and the widespread dispersal of crashes makes 
preventing and responding to rural road crashes difficult. The federal 
government provides funds for states to use in addressing highway 
safety problems. These include construction and safety project funds 
administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to eliminate 
roadway hazards and improve rail-highway crossings and grants 
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) to encourage safe driving.

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation 
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and 
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this 
requirement, we identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road 
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the 
nation's rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making 
improvements in rural road safety. To identify the factors contributing 
to rural road fatalities, we used an earlier GAO report, Highway 
Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to 
Motor Vehicle Crashes (GAO 03-436, March 2003) and supplemented it by 
obtaining information from FHWA, NHTSA, and other organizations 
familiar with this issue. In addition, we analyzed fatal crash data on 
rural roads from Department of Transportation (DOT) databases. We 
assessed the reliability of these databases and determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To 
identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we 
interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in FHWA and NHTSA 
and visited five states that, in total, accounted for about 20 percent 
of the nation's rural road mileage. To identify challenges that may 
hinder making improvements in rural road safety, in addition to 
interviewing the above officials, we contacted experts from academia 
and from advocacy groups and reviewed various legislative proposals 
that may help address the issues. For each of the selected studies that 
are used in this report, we determined whether the study's findings 
were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated the methodological 
soundness of the studies using common social science and statistical 
practices. We performed our review in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides more 
details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief: 

One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities: human 
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the medical care victims 
receive after a crash. Human behaviors are the actions taken by or the 
condition of drivers and passengers, including the use or nonuse of 
safety belts, alcohol impairment, and speeding. Human behaviors are 
important to rural safety because, according to NHTSA data for 2000 
through 2002, rural crashes accounted for about 68 percent of 
unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities, about 63 percent of all alcohol-
related fatalities, and 62 percent of speeding-related fatalities. In 
addition, over 80 percent of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour 
or higher occurred in rural areas in 2001. Roadway environment 
characteristics that contribute to crashes and fatalities include the 
design of the roadway and roadway conditions: narrow lanes, sharp 
curves, lack of medians, small or non-existent shoulders, trees, 
utility poles, and animals. Such factors are important in rural 
crashes--more than 70 percent of the nation's fatalities from single-
vehicle run-off-the-road crashes occur on rural roads. Vehicle factors 
include any vehicle-related failures that may exist in the vehicle or 
the design of the vehicle and are important in both rural and urban 
crashes. For example, when heavy sport utility vehicles or pickup 
trucks collide with small compact cars, the occupants in the lighter 
and lower vehicle are more likely to die as a result of the crash, 
particularly if struck in the side. Finally, the lack of prompt and 
effective emergency medical services contributes to rural road 
fatalities. For example, NHTSA data for 2002 show that for 30 percent 
of the fatal crashes on rural highways, victims did not reach a 
hospital within 1 hour of the crash,while only 8 percent of victims in 
fatal urban crashes did not reach a hospital within 1 hour.

Federal and state agencies' efforts to improve rural road safety are 
generally included within programs that address broader aspects of 
highway construction or highway safety. For example, in fiscal year 
2003, FHWA provided the states and the District of Columbia 
approximately $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds, most of which 
can be used to construct new highways or to maintain or improve 
existing highways. While many of these highway improvement projects may 
include safety features that affect rural roads, the safety features 
are not specifically segregated for reporting purposes. Within the 
overall federal-aid highway funding for states, about $648 million was 
specifically identified for safety purposes--about $330 million of 
which went to rural road safety for highway Hazard Elimination or Rail-
Highway Crossing Programs. These programs enable states to address 
safety concerns on all rural roads through construction improvements. 
In addition, in fiscal year 2003, FHWA budgeted about $10.9 million for 
research into safety advancements and provided oversight and assistance 
to states that benefits both urban and rural roads. In fiscal year 
2003, NHTSA provided states with about $671 million for use in programs 
designed to reduce both rural and urban crashes caused by human 
behaviors. The five states we visited used a portion of the federal 
funding they received to support rural road safety improvements. 
However, the states did not track all funds used by rural and urban 
categories so the total amount spent on rural road safety is unknown. 
Most state officials we spoke with supported the current flexibility 
they have to use the funds provided in areas they determine are the 
most important and did not favor having a separate rural road program 
or initiative.

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For 
instance, not all states have adopted safety belt and alcohol laws that 
meet federal standards. For example, 30 states have not enacted primary 
safety belt laws, which allow police officers to pull over and cite 
motorists exclusively for the infraction of not using their safety 
belts, and 23 have not enacted alcohol laws that meet federal 
requirements relating to penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders 
and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in vehicles. In addition, 
the sheer volume of rural roads and the low volume of traffic on some 
of them, combined with the high cost of major construction 
improvements, make it difficult to rebuild rural roads with safer 
designs. Furthermore, while states can use federal safety funds for any 
public road, they are limited in using their federal construction funds 
on certain rural roads--particularly two-lane rural roadways that 
provide access to farms, rural residences, and other rural areas. 
Efforts to improve rural road safety are further complicated because 
most rural roads are not owned by states but rather are the 
responsibilities of municipal, county, or township governments. These 
local governments may not have resources available to undertake 
significant projects to increase rural road safety. Further, some 
states lack information upon which to make informed decisions on 
potential road safety solutions, regardless of whether the road is 
rural or urban. In addition, the ability to reduce rural road 
fatalities is hampered by difficulties in providing prompt medical 
services in rural settings. For example, rural areas are less likely to 
have 911 emergency dialing and it may take longer to reach a hospital. 
Legislation has been introduced in the Congress as it considers the 
reauthorization of Transportation Equity Act of the 21ST Century, which 
would address some of the factors that contribute to rural fatalities 
or that make it difficult to improve rural road safety. Some of the 
proposals include provisions for providing incentives for enacting 
stronger state traffic safety laws; funding for high-risk rural roads, 
state safety data systems, new safety research, and emergency medical 
services; and additional flexibility in states' use of some federal 
funds.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally 
agreed with the report's content. In discussing this report, agency 
officials noted that safety should be part of every project designed 
and built with federal-aid funds. In addition, the department provided 
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Background: 

There are more than 3.9 million miles of roadway in the United States, 
of which about 3.1 million miles, or about 77 percent, are considered 
rural roads.[Footnote 1] Rural roads are defined as those roads that 
are located in or near areas where the population is less than 
5,000.[Footnote 2] As figure 1 shows, rural roadways make up more than 
half of the road miles in 44 states.

Figure 1: Proportion of Rural Road Mileage in the 50 States, 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Rural roads can be further divided into six functional classifications-
-interstates, other principal arterials, minor arterials, major 
collectors, minor collectors, and local roads. Interstates and 
arterials allow the highest traffic speeds and often have multiple 
lanes and a degree of access control. Collector roads are designed for 
lower speeds and shorter trips and generally link areas to arterial 
roads and interstates. They are typically two-lane roads that extend 
into residential neighborhoods. Local roads are any roads below the 
collector system and may be paved or unpaved roadways that provide 
access to farms, residences, and other rural property. As shown in 
figure 2, local roads make up the majority of the nation's rural roads.

Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional Classification, 
2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Rural roads have more fatalities and a greater rate of fatalities than 
urban roads, when considering vehicle miles traveled.[Footnote 3] In 
2002, of the 42,815 fatalities on the nation's roadways, 25,849 (60 
percent) were on rural roads. Based on miles traveled, the overall 
fatality rate from traffic crashes on rural roads was about 2.29 
fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled, while urban fatality 
rates were about .97 fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled.

Fatalities occurred at higher rates on rural roads that have lower 
roadway functional classifications. As shown in figure 3, during 2002, 
rural local roads had the highest fatality rates at 3.63 per 100 
million miles traveled, while rural interstates had fatality rates of 
1.18. In an urban setting, the lowest rates are for urban interstates-
-.60 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled--about one-sixth the 
level of rural local roads.

Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In the past two decades, the total number of fatalities on the nation's 
roadways fell from 43,945 in 1982 to 42,815 in 2002. However, during 
this period, fatalities on rural roadways rose slightly from 25,005 in 
1982 to 25,849 in 2002. As shown in figure 4, during the period from 
1982 to 2002, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
on rural roads declined about 37 percent. During the same period, the 
fatality rate on urban roads declined about 54 percent.[Footnote 4]

Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles Traveled 
for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

FHWA and NHTSA are two agencies within the U.S. Department of 
Transportation responsible for road safety. FHWA's mission is to 
provide financial and technical support to state, local, and tribal 
governments for constructing, improving, and preserving the highway 
system. As part of this mission, FHWA seeks to reduce highway 
fatalities and injuries through research and by implementing technology 
innovations. In addition, its Office of Safety develops and implements 
strategies and programs to reduce the number and severity of highway 
crashes involving both motorized and nonmotorized travelers on the 
nation's highways, streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and at 
intermodal connections. NHTSA's mission is to reduce deaths, injuries, 
and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. The agency 
sets and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment and provides grants to state and local 
governments. NHTSA, among other things, also investigates safety 
defects in motor vehicles, helps states and local communities reduce 
the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety belts and child 
safety seats, and provides consumer information on motor vehicle safety 
topics. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST: 

Century (TEA-21),[Footnote 5] NHTSA provided the states with about $2.7 
billion for efforts to improve driver behaviors and safety data from 
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003.

Other organizations such as the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Governors Highway Safety 
Association also play important roles in highway safety. As an 
organization representing state transportation departments, AASHTO 
provides engineers with guidance on how to design safe and efficient 
roads through a publication referred to as the Green Book.[Footnote 6] 
In addition, AASHTO recently published a special guide on alternative 
designs for very low-volume roads.[Footnote 7] Furthermore, in 1997 
AASHTO also focused attention on improving roadway safety by developing 
a Strategic Highway Safety Plan that identified 22 key or emerging 
highway safety emphasis areas. Topics included (1) aggressive and 
speeding drivers, (2) keeping vehicles on the roadway and minimizing 
the consequences of leaving the roadway, and (3) supporting better 
state coordination and planning for behavioral and construction 
programs. For each of these areas, publications are being developed 
under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that address 
the issues and potential countermeasures.[Footnote 8] Another 
organization that plays a major role in highway safety is the Governors 
Highway Safety Association, which represents the highway safety 
programs of states and territories on the human behavioral aspects of 
highway safety. Areas of focus include occupant protection, impaired 
driving, and speed enforcement, as well as motorcycle, school bus, 
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and traffic records.

Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities: 

One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities--human 
behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the degree of care for 
victims after a crash.[Footnote 9] Human behavioral factors involve 
actions taken by or the condition of the driver and passenger of the 
automobile, including the use or nonuse of safety belts, the effects of 
alcohol or drugs, speeding and other traffic violations, and being 
distracted or drowsy when driving. Roadway environment factors that 
contribute to rural road fatalities include the design of the roadway 
(e.g., medians, lane width, shoulders, curves, access points, lighting, 
or intersections); roadside hazards (e.g., utility poles, trees, and 
animals adjacent to the road); and roadway conditions (e.g., rain, ice, 
snow, or fog). Vehicle factors include vehicle-related failures and 
vehicle design issues that contribute to a crash and are important in 
both rural and urban crashes. Lastly, victim care includes the quality 
of the emergency response and the hospitals that provide medical 
treatment for those involved in a crash.

Several Human Behaviors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities: 

Several human behaviors contribute to rural road fatalities, including 
nonuse of safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving, speeding, and being 
distracted or drowsy when driving. In general, human factors are 
considered the most prevalent in contributing to crashes.

* Not using safety belts contributes to fatalities in rural crashes. 
For example, of the approximately 53,000 unrestrained (unbelted) 
vehicle occupant fatalities that occurred from 2000 through 2002, about 
36,000 or 68 percent occurred in rural areas. NHTSA research on safety 
belt use in rural areas shows that rural areas are essentially similar 
to urban areas in safety belt use rates. In 2002, NHTSA data showed 
about 73 percent belt use in rural areas and 72 percent in urban 
areas.[Footnote 10]

* Alcohol-impaired driving contributed to 27,775 rural road fatalities 
from 2000 through 2002--about 63 percent of the 44,403 alcohol-related 
fatalities nationwide. While, according to NHTSA data, there is little 
difference between blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of rural and 
urban drivers involved in fatal crashes, state officials told us that 
risks from drinking and driving in rural areas are increased because of 
longer driving distances and the lack of public transportation options 
available to intoxicated drivers.

* From 2000 through 2002, about 62 percent of the nation's speeding 
related fatalities were on rural roads, amounting to about 24,000 of 
the 39,000 fatalities where speed was a contributing factor, according 
to NHTSA data. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
officials, speed influences crashes by increasing the distance traveled 
from when a driver detects an emergency until the driver reacts; 
increasing the distance needed to stop; increasing the severity of an 
accident (i.e., when speed increases from 40 to 60 miles per hour, the 
energy released in a crash more than doubles); and reducing the ability 
of the vehicles, restraint systems, and roadside hardware, such as 
guardrails and barriers, to protect occupants.

* Drivers who are distracted or drowsy also contribute to rural 
crashes. For example, a 2002 NHTSA national survey found that drivers 
involved in a distracted-related crash attribute their distraction to 
such items as looking for something outside the car (23 percent of 
drivers in a distracted-related crash), dealing with children or other 
passengers (19 percent), looking for something inside the car (14 
percent), or another driver (11 percent).[Footnote 11] A Virginia 
Commonwealth University pilot study of distracted drivers found that 
for rural drivers in the study, crashes often involved driver fatigue, 
insects striking the windshield or entering the vehicle, and animals 
and unrestrained pet distractions.[Footnote 12] The study found that in 
urban areas distracted driving crashes often involved drivers looking 
at other crashes, traffic, or vehicles, or using cell phones.

Roadway Environment Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities: 

Roadway factors also contribute to rural road fatalities. Rural roads 
can be narrow; have limited sight distance due to hills and curves; 
have small or nonexistent shoulders; have no medians; and may have 
hazards or objects near the roadway such as trees, utility poles, or 
animals. As a result of these features, fatal crashes on two-lane rural 
roads are significant. For example, FHWA reports that over 70 percent 
of single-vehicle run-off-the-road fatalities occur on rural roadways 
and that about 90 percent of these were on two-lane rural roads. 
Similarly, crashes involving vehicles crossing the centerline and 
either sideswiping or striking the front end of oncoming vehicles are a 
major problem in rural areas, accounting for about 20 percent of all 
fatal crashes on rural two-lane roads.[Footnote 13] In addition, 
crashes with animals--specifically larger animals such as deer and elk-
--are also prevalent in rural areas. For example, according to the 
Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, there were more than 
130,000 deer-vehicle crashes reported in five states in 2000.[Footnote 
14] In addition, a Highway Safety Information System report examined 
five states' experiences with motor vehicle collisions involving 
animals and found that from 1985 through 1990, 74 percent to 94 percent 
of reported crashes involving animals occurred on rural roads.[Footnote 
15] The report also found that collisions involving animals ranged from 
about 12 percent to 35 percent of all reported crashes on two-lane 
rural roads. Rural roadway conditions can also contribute to rural 
crashes and resulting fatalities. Surface conditions that can impair a 
driver's ability to control the vehicle include snow, ice, standing 
water, and oil, in addition to such road surface features as potholes, 
ruts, and pavement edge drop-offs. Lack of lighting also contributes to 
rural road fatalities. For example, a study performed for the Minnesota 
Department of Transportation found that the installation of street 
lighting at isolated rural intersections reduced both nighttime crash 
frequency (25 percent to 40 percent) and crash severity (8 percent to 
26 percent).[Footnote 16]

Vehicle Design Contributes to Rural Road Fatalities: 

The design of the vehicle can contribute to rural road fatalities. The 
wide variances in vehicle sizes and weights, as well as vehicle 
configurations, sometimes result in greater damage and injury to 
smaller vehicles and their occupants if a collision occurs. For 
example, when heavy sport utility vehicles (SUV) or pickup trucks 
collide with smaller cars, the occupants in the lighter and lower 
vehicles are more likely to die as a result of the crash, particularly 
if struck in the side. Vehicle design has been shown to affect vehicle 
handling in particular types of maneuvers. In rural settings this is 
important because the roads may be narrow and have sharp curves. The 
design of the vehicle in these types of crashes can make a difference 
in whether a run-off-the-road vehicle rolls over, one of the most 
serious types of crashes. Almost three-fourths of fatal rollover 
crashes occur in rural areas, according to a 2002 NHTSA study.[Footnote 
17] In 2002, rollover crashes killed 10,666 occupants in passenger 
cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. A study by the Insurance Institute 
for Highway Safety that examined single-vehicle rollover crashes 
concluded that the combined rollover crash rate for pickup trucks and 
SUVs was more than twice the rate for passenger cars.[Footnote 18] In 
addition, a NHTSA study found that in 2002, nearly two-thirds of the 
3,995 SUV occupant fatalities occurred in rollover crashes.

Lack of Effective and Available Emergency Medical Services Contribute 
to Rural Road Fatalities: 

Lack of effective and available emergency medical services (EMS) also 
contribute to rural road fatalities. For example, victims did not reach 
a hospital within an hour of the crash in about 30 percent of the fatal 
crashes on rural roads, according to NHTSA data for 2002. This compares 
with 8 percent of the fatal crashes on urban highways where victims did 
not reach a hospital within an hour. In addition, the Emergency Medical 
Services Division Chief at NHTSA told us that providing adequate 
medical care in rural areas is more challenging due, in part, to the 
lack of trauma services. A 2001 GAO report found that rural areas are 
more likely to rely on volunteers rather than paid staff, and these 
volunteers may have fewer opportunities to maintain skills or upgrade 
their skills with training.[Footnote 19] According to an opinion survey 
of state EMS directors in 2000, rural areas received significantly less 
coverage by emergency medical technicians, paramedics, enhanced 911 
services, and emergency dispatchers.[Footnote 20] Finally, a 1995 
Montana study concluded that the absence of an organized trauma care 
system contributed to preventable deaths from mechanical trauma, 
including motor vehicle crashes.[Footnote 21]

Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural 
Roads: 

Each year FHWA and NHTSA provide billions of dollars to states to 
improve roadways and eliminate roadway hazards, as well as to improve 
driver behavior. In addition to funding, FHWA and NHTSA provide 
technical guidance and support for state safety programs and conduct 
research on roadway safety. Neither agency has specific rural road 
safety programs, but efforts to improve rural road safety are generally 
included within programs that address broader aspects of highway 
construction or highway safety. The states are ultimately responsible 
for deciding on the use of the funding provided. The five states we 
contacted funded projects that improved rural road safety. However, not 
all the states could identify all funds used for rural road safety 
because the data were not collected nor maintained in that manner. 
Therefore, it is not possible to determine the relative emphasis that 
states place on rural road safety and whether the emphasis has changed 
over time.

Funding Is Provided to States to Eliminate Roadway Hazards and Improve 
Driving Behavior but Portion Used for Rural Safety Is Unknown: 

FHWA and NHTSA provide the states funding to support a variety of 
programs, part of which was used to improve rural road safety. In 
fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided states and the District of Columbia 
with about $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds. Under TEA-21, 
from fiscal year 1998 though fiscal year 2003, federal-aid highway 
funding totaled about $167 billion. States use these funds to, among 
other things, construct new roadways; maintain the interstate highway 
system through resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, or 
reconstructing activities; and replace or rehabilitate highway bridges. 
While many of these highway improvement projects may include safety 
features that affect rural roads, the safety features are not 
specifically segregated for reporting purposes. For example, expanding 
a stretch of roadway to ease congestion could have an added impact of 
improving safety but could be reported as reconstruction or 
rehabilitation, depending on the actual project. In addition, 
construction projects may include items that can improve or upgrade 
safety features such as installing new guardrails or impact barriers 
but may not be identified or accounted for as a safety improvement. 
However, the federal-aid highway funds include two specific safety 
programs--Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings--that can be 
used for rural road safety improvements. In addition, NHTSA also 
provided states with funds under TEA-21 to address driver behaviors.

As shown in figure 5, under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through 
fiscal year 2003, FHWA and NHTSA provided states about $6.7 billion 
specifically to improve roadway safety and improve driver behavior.

Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs under TEA-
21: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

From fiscal year 1998 through 2003, under TEA-21, FHWA provided about 
$4 billion to states specifically for highway safety construction under 
two programs--Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. 
Highway safety projects built with these funds include construction 
projects to eliminate highway design hazards, such as narrow lanes or 
sharp curves; improve intersections; or improve rail-highway grade 
crossings. Under these programs, states can spend funds to address 
safety construction issues on any public state or local roadway. 
Nationwide, about $1.4 billion, or 49 percent, of the funds spent by 
states were used for rural purposes. For fiscal year 2003, about $648 
million went to the states for hazard elimination and highway-rail 
crossings programs--about $330 million of which went to improve rural 
road safety.

Under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, NHTSA 
provided about $2.7 billion to states and the District of Columbia for 
programs addressing driving behavior through formula grants, incentive 
grants, and penalty transfer funds.[Footnote 22] (See fig. 6.) Under 
the formula grants program, about $859 million was provided to the 
states to carry out traffic safety programs designed to influence 
drivers' behavior in such areas as safety belt use, alcohol-impaired 
driving, regional traffic safety initiatives, traffic records and 
safety data collection systems, and pedestrian safety. Incentive grants 
of about $1.2 billion under TEA-21 were provided to states for 
achieving improvements in safety belt use, reducing drunk driving, and 
improving highway safety data. Penalty transfer of funds was required 
under TEA-21 for states that did not adopt specific laws prohibiting 
open alcohol containers in passenger compartments or setting minimum 
penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. Under these requirements, 
states that are currently subject to either penalty must transfer 3 
percent of their federal-aid highway construction funds to the NHTSA 
programs. The transferred funds can be used to support behavioral 
programs to limit drunk driving or can be spent on highway hazard 
elimination projects. In fiscal year 2004, 23 states were subject to 
one or both penalty transfer programs. From fiscal year 2001, when the 
penalties began, through fiscal year 2003, about $637 million has been 
transferred under this program. NHTSA does not collect information on 
the funds used for rural roads because it is difficult to distinguish 
between urban and rural benefits of many efforts, such as drunk driving 
television or radio spots or billboard ads.

Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to 
States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

FHWA and NHTSA Provide Technical Guidance and Support for State Safety 
Programs that Include Rural Road Projects: 

FHWA provides safety training and technical assistance to state and 
local governments, some of which pertains to rural road safety. For 
example, FHWA's National Highway Institute offers training for state 
transportation department staffs. Some training focuses on rural road 
safety issues, such as the 3-day course entitled "Safety and 
Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features on Two-Lane Rural 
Highways," which addresses the safety impacts of highway features like 
lane and shoulder width, curves, and intersection designs. FHWA also 
offers training and technical assistance to states and others through 
its Resource Center offices in Baltimore, Chicago (Olympia Fields), 
Atlanta, and San Francisco. For example, in 2003, the Safety and Design 
National Technical Service Team from the Chicago center conducted 23 
different workshops, some of them multiple times, for state and local 
officials. An example of a Resource Center activity that pertained to 
rural roads was a 1-day workshop on low-cost safety improvements. The 
workshop addressed more than 40 improvement measures and how they might 
reduce crashes.

FHWA also offers training to local communities through its Local 
Technical Assistance Program. Under this program, FHWA established a 
center in every state to provide technical assistance to local highway 
program managers. In addition, seven centers have been established to 
provide technical assistance for tribal governments. The centers 
provide training courses, outreach visits, newsletters, and technical 
resources to local highway managers. Program officials said they have a 
constant demand for a number of safety-related courses. Examples of 
course topics include road safety fundamentals, road safety audits, 
data collection, safety management systems, and construction zone 
flagger training. In addition, FHWA, along with the Federal Transit 
Administration, has funded a Safety Conscious Planning training course 
offered to state DOT officials and others that helps them integrate 
safety as a key planning factor. Lastly, FHWA provides guidance to 
states by issuing standards for traffic signs and signals in a 
publication called the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The 
manual sets minimum standards for topics like traffic sign size, 
placement, support, and nighttime visibility. In 2000, FHWA revised the 
manual and included a new section called "Traffic Control Devices for 
Low-Volume Roads.": 

NHTSA provides technical assistance to state traffic safety programs 
through its 10 regional offices. This assistance does not have a focus 
on rural road safety but rather is intended to help states identify 
their most important traffic safety problems, establish goals and 
performance measures, and review annual safety plans and reports. NHTSA 
regional offices provide training programs for state safety officials 
and encourage them to participate in national programs like the "Click 
It or Ticket" safety belt campaign.[Footnote 23] NHTSA staff from the 
regional offices and headquarters also provide technical assistance to 
rural and other areas of the states by participating in or supporting 
state assessments and forums on safety topics like safety belt use, 
impaired driving, or data improvements. For example, NHTSA's Region III 
provided local governments in their five states and the District of 
Columbia with a communication kit for conducting a sobriety checkpoint 
campaign. It included background information on drinking and driving, 
suggestions for core messages that the localities could share with news 
organizations, sample news releases for increasing public awareness of 
drunk driving and the checkpoint campaign, and suggestions for 
preparing op-ed articles in local newspapers. In addition, NHTSA 
published "Partners for Rural Traffic Safety Action Kit" in 2001, in 
conjunction with the National Rural Health Association. This action kit 
is based on the experience of 15 rural community demonstration sites 
that conducted 30-day campaigns to increase safety belt use. The 
association developed, tested, and revised a step-by-step guide based 
on a community development process model and created the Action Kit, 
which is available online and through NHTSA's resource center.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Congress also provided NHTSA $3 
million to support state efforts to increase safety belt use in 
minority, teen, and rural populations. Two initiatives to address rural 
populations are under way. One involves a 3-year demonstration program 
that tests community-based infrastructure development and delivery 
systems to increase rural safety belt use. Demonstration projects are 
being conducted in Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The 
second is a 2-year program designed to demonstrate the impact of 
various strategies to increase safety belt use in pickup truck 
occupants, with concentrated activities in rural areas. This 
demonstration program includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, Texas and Indian Nations.

NHTSA has also been involved with the "First There, First Care" program 
to increase bystander care for the injured. NHTSA, the Department of 
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services 
Administration, and the American Trauma Society developed this program 
to give motorists information, training, and confidence to provide 
basic lifesaving care at the scene of a crash, increasing the chances 
of survival for crash victims. Distribution of the program and its 
material to states and others has focused on rural implementation.

FHWA and NHTSA Conduct Research That Includes Rural Road Safety Issues: 

In 2003, FHWA budgeted $10.9 million, or about 12 percent of its 
research budget, for highway safety research and technology. This 
research addressed four key safety topics: run-off-the-road crashes, 
intersection crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and speed 
management. From a rural roadway perspective, research on run-off-the-
road and speed-related crashes is particularly relevant. Over 70 
percent of single-vehicle run-off-the-road fatalities occurred on rural 
roadways, and, according to a NHTSA official, in 2001 over 80 percent 
of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour or higher occurred in 
rural areas. Many safety research efforts apply to both rural and urban 
roads, but FHWA's work on the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 
specifically addressed two-lane rural roads. This computer model 
provides a means of measuring the safety and operational impacts of 
various design decisions that might be used in stretches of two-lane 
roadway. It is anticipated that state and local highway planners and 
designers will use the model to help them evaluate various construction 
and improvement options.

FHWA also provides funding for highway research by others. For example, 
under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, FHWA 
provided states $3.1 billion for Statewide Planning and Research. Under 
this program, TEA-21 required that the states use at least 25 percent 
of these funds, or $769 million, for transportation research, which 
includes conducting research on improving highway safety. Two of the 
states we visited provided examples of such research. For example, 
Texas sponsored research into crashes on low-volume rural two-lane 
highways and potential alternatives to avoid them, and Minnesota 
sponsored research on driver response to rumble strips and innovative 
research to address lane departures and intersection collisions, both 
safety issues on the state's rural roads.[Footnote 24] FHWA has also 
provided funding through the states for the National Cooperative 
Highway Research Program, conducted by the National Research Council, 
which has been working on a safety design model for multilane rural 
roads and a Highway Safety Manual that would provide commonly accepted 
safety guidance on rural and urban highway design.

NHTSA conducts research that addresses both driver behavioral and 
vehicle safety issues. NHTSA's behavioral highway safety research 
program had a 2003 budget of $7.4 million. It focused on areas such as 
impaired driving, occupant protection, pedestrians, bicyclists, and 
motorcycle riders. According to NHTSA officials, their research 
generally addresses safety problem areas rather than rural or urban 
localities, but the results may be applicable to both rural and urban 
areas. Furthermore, in 2003, NHTSA's vehicle safety research program 
received $69 million to, among other things, collect and analyze crash 
data. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) tracks fatality 
data at a cost of about $5.7 million per year, and the General 
Estimates System provides descriptive statistics about traffic crashes 
of all severities at a cost of up to $3 million per year, according to 
NHTSA officials.

States Are Responsible for Identifying and Implementing Improvements to 
Rural Road Safety: 

While DOT provides states with funding, research, oversight, and 
guidance, ultimately states are responsible for identifying and 
addressing their roadway safety problems. The five states we visited 
had plans and initiatives that addressed what they determined to be 
their most important safety problems on all roadways, including rural 
roads. State efforts to improve rural road safety include eliminating 
rural roadway hazards through construction projects to widen lanes and 
shoulders and through lower-cost approaches, such as adding shoulder 
and centerline rumble strips, expanding clear zones along the roadways, 
installing intersection beacon lights, and improving signage and road 
markings. In addition, each state had programs that attempted to alter 
driver behavior through such efforts as increasing enforcement of 
traffic laws and conducting community awareness campaigns that include 
the use of paid advertising on television and radio. Two states also 
increased enforcement by conducting sobriety checkpoints. All but one 
of the states could not provide details on all the funds used to 
address rural road safety because data were not collected and 
maintained in that way. Most state officials we spoke with supported 
the current flexibility they have to use the funds provided in areas 
they determine are the most important and did not favor having a 
separate rural road program or initiative. One official in Pennsylvania 
told us that having a separate rural road program would help bring 
needed attention to rural road safety.

The following are examples of rural-related projects supported in the 
five states we visited. Appendix II has additional information on the 
funding received by these states and the activities they support.

* California--The California Highway Patrol is leading a task force 
that is examining the safety of all state corridors based on fatality 
and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk corridors in 
the state, of which 16 were two-lane roads with a majority of the 
corridors in rural areas. The task force is responsible for making both 
infrastructure and behavioral improvement recommendations to address 
the safety issue with these high-risk corridors. In addition, 
California is supporting a Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads 
Project. For this effort, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from 
the California Office of Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county 
roads by increasing enforcement of traffic violations that often lead 
to collisions: speeding, right-of-way violations, failing to drive on 
the right half of the road, improper turning, and driving under the 
influence of alcohol or drugs. California also uses sobriety 
checkpoints to discourage drinking and driving.

* Georgia--Using FHWA hazard elimination funding, the state has 
undertaken several roadway improvement programs that address aspects of 
rural road safety. For example, Georgia identified four problem areas 
that it focused on in 2003--run-off-the-road crashes, intersection 
crashes, car-train crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia official said 
that the run-off-the-road and animal crashes were particularly 
prevalent in rural settings. A Georgia official said that the state is 
adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline reflectors to help reduce 
the run-off-the-road crashes, and, to reduce animal crashes, the state 
is expanding the recovery zone beyond the clear zone along some roads, 
culling deer herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn 
drivers of deer presence.

* Minnesota--State traffic safety officials have implemented several 
construction and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. 
The "Towards Zero Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing 
collaborative program among the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 
Public Safety, State Patrol, and local safe community organizations to 
provide grants to localities that work with safety officials to develop 
a plan to reduce traffic fatalities. In addition, the state Department 
of Transportation completed a statewide audit of intersections and 
corridors in 2003. The audit identified and ranked the top 200 
intersections and 150 corridors with the highest crash costs. Rural 
areas accounted for 54 of the intersections and 53 of the corridors. 
The Department of Transportation's goal is to address 40 of these high 
crash cost intersections and corridors for safety improvements each 
year in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Further, the 
Department of Transportation has made extensive use of shoulder rumble 
strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips on two-lane 
roadways.

* Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania has installed 300 miles of centerline 
rumble strips on rural roadways in an effort to help warn drivers that 
they have strayed from their lane. State transportation officials 
estimated that rumble strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road 
crashes by 25 percent. In addition, Pennsylvania implemented a 
Tailgating Treatment program in which dots are painted on the state's 
rural roadways to help drivers determine a safe following 
distance.[Footnote 25] Pennsylvania officials told us they also funded 
over 100 rural projects that focused on improving occupant protection, 
reducing impaired driving, and supporting community traffic safety 
efforts, and they conducted 722 sobriety checkpoints and DUI roving 
patrols during fiscal year 2002.

* Texas--For fiscal year 2004, the state identified 235 hazard 
elimination projects that it plans on undertaking, most of which were 
on rural roads. These $43.4 million in projects include such things as 
adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, and adding rumble 
strips to roadways. In addition, district engineers assessed 30,000 
miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003, checking the appropriateness 
of speed limits and the condition of signs and pavement markings and 
assessing pavement edge drop-offs and curve warnings. Based on these 
assessments, changes will be made to address the most important 
findings.

Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety: 

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For 
example, some states have not adopted the most effective safety belt 
use and impaired driving laws. In addition, the sheer volume of rural 
roads and the low volume of traffic on some of them, combined with the 
high cost of major construction improvements makes it difficult to 
rebuild rural roads with safer designs. Also, while states can use 
federal highway funds provided for hazard elimination and rail-highway 
crossing safety improvements on any public roads or public crossings, 
most of the federal-aid highway funds cannot be used on certain rural 
roads--the rural minor collector and rural local roads. In addition, 
most rural roads are not state owned but rather are the responsibility 
of municipalities, counties, or townships, which may have limited 
resources. Further, some states lack information upon which to make 
informed decisions on potential road safety solutions, regardless of 
whether the road is rural or urban. Lastly, reducing fatalities on 
rural roads is also made more difficult because of limitations in 
emergency medical services in rural areas. Several proposals that the 
Congress is considering could potentially improve rural road safety.

Some States Have Not Enacted Laws on Safety Belt Use and Drinking and 
Driving: 

While the Congress has provided incentives and penalties to encourage 
states to pass various laws to increase safety belt use and reduce 
drinking and driving, many states have not done so. These two factors 
are particularly important given that, in more than 36,000 rural 
fatalities due to passenger car, light truck, or van crashes, victims 
were not using safety belts, and more than 27,000 rural fatalities were 
identified as alcohol related, from 2000 through 2002. While these laws 
are not directed specifically to rural road safety, the issues they 
address are applicable to all types of roadways. According to a report 
by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, as of January 1, 2004: 

* Thirty states have not enacted primary safety belt laws, which allow 
police officers to pull over and cite motorists exclusively for the 
infraction of not using their safety belts.[Footnote 26] Twenty-nine of 
these states have enacted secondary safety belt laws. Secondary belt 
laws allow police to issue a safety belt citation only if the motorist 
is pulled over for another infraction, such as speeding or an expired 
license tag. One state allows occupants over 18 to not use safety 
belts. As noted in our prior report, states with secondary enforcement 
laws can increase safety belt use, but their success is limited by the 
difficulty in effectively enforcing the law.[Footnote 27]

* Fourteen states have not enacted laws consistent with federal 
requirements for prohibiting open alcohol container in motor vehicles. 
Open container laws prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic 
beverage container or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in the 
passenger area of a motor vehicle. In addition, 14 states have not 
enacted laws consistent with the federal requirement for penalizing 
repeat drunk driving offenders.[Footnote 28] Taken together, 23 
different states have not enacted laws that are consistent with at 
least one of these two program requirements.

* Three states have not established .08 blood alcohol concentration 
(BAC) as the legal limit for drunk driving.[Footnote 29] In 2000, the 
Congress provided that states that did not do so would have 2 percent 
of their federal-aid highway funds withheld in 2004. The penalty grows 
to a high of 8 percent in 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007 
would be reimbursed for any funds withheld.

Safety Improvements to Rural Roads Limited by the Combination of the 
Millions of Miles of Rural Roads, Low Volume of Traffic, and High Cost 
of Construction: 

Due to the extensive size of the rural highway system, the low volume 
of traffic on many rural roads and the high costs that would be 
incurred to make major safety changes, state and local governments find 
it difficult to undertake major safety construction programs on some 
rural roads. As a result, lower-cost alternatives are pursued to 
improve rural road safety in many situations.

Of the 3.9 million miles of the nation's road system, rural roads 
account for about 3 million miles (about 77 percent). In addition, most 
of the rural mileage is on the lowest functional class of rural roads-
-local rural roads--that account for about 68 percent of the rural 
roads (about 2.1 million miles). While making up three-fourths of the 
nation's road system, rural roads overall carry only about 40 percent 
of the traffic, with the rural local roads carrying about 5 percent of 
the traffic.

Although use of rural roads is low, the costs associated with major 
construction projects on rural roads are high. For example, FHWA's 
Highway Economic Requirements System model estimates the cost of 
widening 11-foot lanes to 12-foot lanes at about $186,000 per mile--
over five times the cost of resurfacing the 11-foot lanes.[Footnote 30] 
In addition, an official from FHWA's Kentucky Division Office told us 
it would cost about $200,000 to $250,000 per mile to widen low-volume 
rural roads by 1 foot. Further, a Transportation Research Board report 
noted that providing wider cross-sections (wider lanes, wider full-
strength shoulders, and enabling 100 percent passing sight-distance) on 
a two-lane roadway could cost from about $1 million to $3 million per 
mile.[Footnote 31] As a result, low-cost improvements are an option to 
be considered for many rural roads. For example, FHWA has identified 
more than 40 low-cost improvements that states can use on rural roads 
at high-crash locations. Examples include installing rumble strips to 
roadways, moving trees or utility poles away from the roadway, adding 
or improving roadside signs, and adding lighting or flashing beacons to 
intersections and rail-highway grade crossings. See appendix III for 
more information on the low-cost alternatives.

States Are Limited in Using Federal Aid Highway Funds for Certain Rural 
Roadways: 

Because of program requirements, states cannot use all categories of 
federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads. These limitations 
specify that funds used for constructing new roadways or conducting 
major renovations of roadways cannot be used for rural local roads, 
rural minor collectors, or for urban local roads. These program 
restrictions were made to ensure that the interstate highway system and 
other roads with higher expected traffic have adequate funds to meet 
the transportation needs of the public, according to a FHWA official. 
While some other federal-aid highway funds are available for all rural 
roads, such as the Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing 
Programs within the Surface Transportation Program, these roadways 
receive significantly less funding per mile than urban 
counterparts.[Footnote 32] As shown in table 1, of the $30 billion 
provided to states in fiscal year 2002, about $12.1 billion went to all 
rural roads, with $541 million going to rural local roads.

Table 1: State Use of Federal Highway Funds by Road Type, Fiscal Year 
2002: 

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban interstate; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $5,186,072; 
Road miles: 13,491.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban freeway/expressway; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 990,277; 
Road miles: 9,323.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban other principal arterial; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 4,904,704; 
Road miles: 53,439.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban minor arterial; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,474,298; 
Road miles: 90,411.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban collector; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 836,543; 
Road miles: 89,247.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban local road; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 580,367; 
Road miles: 638,813.

Functional roadway class: Urban roads: Urban other; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,127,437.

Functional roadway class: Total urban; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $17,099,698; 
Road miles: 894,724.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural interstate; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 2,726,350; 
Road miles: 32,992.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural other principal arterial; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 4,220,132; 
Road miles: 98,853.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural minor arterial; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,697,189; 
Road miles: 137,568.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural major collector; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,582,700; 
Road miles: 430,946.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural minor collector; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 243,670; 
Road miles: 270,700.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural local road; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 541,219; 
Road miles: 2,100,702.

Functional roadway class: Rural roads: Rural other; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,135,292.

Functional roadway class: Total rural; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $12,146,552; 
Road miles: 3,071,761.

Functional roadway class: Unclassified other; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): 1,555,771.

Functional roadway class: Total; 
Federal-aid highway funding: (in thousands): $30,802,021; 
Road miles: 3,966,485. 

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Note: This analysis includes only funding administered by FHWA and does 
not include funding from other federal agencies, state and local 
governments, or other sources. Fiscal year 2002 is the most current 
data regarding this information available from FHWA. Figures may not 
total precisely due to rounding.

[End of table]

States are also challenged in making improvements in rural road safety 
because, in most states, large portions of rural roads are not directly 
under the responsibility of the state but rather fall under the 
jurisdiction of counties, municipalities, or townships. Nationwide, 
about 78 percent of all rural roads (2.4 million of the nation's 3.1 
million rural miles) are not owned by the states. About 93 percent 
(about 2.0 million miles) of the rural local roads are not under state 
jurisdiction. In 45 states, jurisdictions other than the state own 75 
percent or more of their rural local roads. (See fig. 7.): 

Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State Jurisdiction, 
2002: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Some local officials in states we visited said they were challenged to 
make costly rural road construction improvements without finding other 
sources of funds to supplement those provided by states, such as 
issuing bonds or increasing local taxes. In addition, a study for the 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program noted that many of the 
roads most in need of roadside safety improvements are under the 
control of local governments that have the least amount of resources to 
address the needs.[Footnote 33]

Information Lacking on Crashes and the Effectiveness of Countermeasures 
Used: 

Accurate, timely crash data are important for planning future urban and 
rural highway safety programs and assessing the impacts of recent 
projects or programs to improve safety. States rely on crash data from 
fatality crashes, injury crashes, and property-damage-only crashes to 
identify safety problems and plan safety improvements. Some states we 
visited identified problems with their crash data system and were 
trying to improve their crash data to make them more accurate, 
complete, and timely. For example, Texas is about 2  years behind in 
entering crash data from police accident reports into its data system. 
State officials pointed out that without timely data, it is difficult 
to determine if the actions taken on a stretch of road had the intended 
effect. To make the data timelier, Texas plans to have a new system in 
place by fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $14 million. The new Texas 
system would encourage local law enforcement agencies to collect, 
validate, and report crash data electronically. It would also provide 
centralized analysis, review, and data reporting to agencies that plan 
and conduct state highway safety programs. Georgia modified its crash 
data processing in 1998, but the changes were not successful, according 
to a Georgia State Auditor's report. In 2001, a new agency took over 
the crash data system and, after a data recovery effort, eliminated a 
multi-year backlog of crash data reporting by 2003. In addition, 
California is testing a system that would allow data recorded by police 
to be directly reported into a database through handheld electronic 
systems, thereby speeding the availability of the information. The 
information would be recorded in the Statewide Integrated Traffic 
Reporting System database that is used to help traffic safety officials 
select safety initiatives.

Difficulties in Providing Adequate Emergency Medical Services: 

Reducing rural road fatalities is also hampered by the difficulty of 
providing prompt emergency medical services in rural settings. For 
example, we reported in 2001 that state and local officials told us 
that rural areas are less likely than urban areas to have 911 emergency 
dialing, and their communication between dispatchers or medical 
facilities and emergency vehicles are more likely to suffer from "dead 
spots"--areas where messages cannot be heard.[Footnote 34] The report 
also found that rural areas are more likely to rely on EMS volunteers 
rather than paid staff, and these volunteers may have fewer 
opportunities to maintain or upgrade their skills with training. In 
addition, the report noted that officials from national associations 
representing EMS physicians have indicated that long distances and 
potentially harsh weather conditions in rural areas can accelerate EMS 
vehicle wear and put these vehicles out of service more often. 
Survivability after a crash decreases as the time required for an 
injured person to receive medical treatment increases. Further, 
according to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 
report, a lack of rapid trauma treatment is critical during the seconds 
and minutes that immediately follow a crash.[Footnote 35] The report 
noted that the risk of dying before medical attention can be provided 
increases as the crash location is further removed from trained rescue 
staff and trauma medical facilities. A study of fatalities in Michigan 
also highlights the impact of providing emergency care in rural areas. 
The study found that of 155 fatalities in 24 Michigan rural counties in 
1995, 12.9 percent of the fatalities were definitely preventable or 
possibly preventable if rapid and appropriate emergency treatment had 
been available.[Footnote 36]

Proposals Being Considered to Improve Roadway Safety: 

Congress is considering legislation that includes proposals to improve 
highway safety, including safety on rural roads. The proposals include 
two bills for the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA), S. 
1072, passed by the Senate in February 2004, and (2) the Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), H.R. 3550, passed by the House 
in April 2004. Each of these proposals has features that could impact 
highway safety and, in some cases, directly address rural roads.

* Incentives for Enacting Stronger State Traffic Safety Laws. Safety 
belt use and impaired driving are important factors in rural road 
fatalities. S. 1072 would provide grants to states for enactment of 
primary safety belt laws and would reward those states that already 
have this law. The proposal offers a maximum of $600 million in 
potential grants to states that enact and retain primary laws. H.R. 
3550 requires states that do not meet federal open-container laws or 
federal requirements for penalizing repeat drunk driving offenders to 
transfer 3 percent of certain federal-aid highway program funds to 
their Section 402 State and Community Grants Program.[Footnote 37] H.R. 
3550 requires the transfer of 3 percent of certain federal-aid highway 
funds to Section 402 programs in states that have not enacted a primary 
seat belt law or achieved 90 percent belt usage.[Footnote 38] H.R. 3550 
also includes a penalty provision that requires the withholding of 2 
percent to 8 percent of certain federal-aid highway funds if a state 
has not enacted a law establishing .08 blood alcohol content as the 
legal limit for drunk driving.[Footnote 39] Finally, H.R. 3550 provides 
1 year of additional funding for seat belt and drunk driving incentive 
grants. In addition, S.1072 proposes to withhold 2 percent of certain 
highway construction funds to those states that have not enacted open-
container laws for fiscal years 2008 to 2011.

* Direct Funding for High-Risk Rural Roads. Poor roadway design can 
contribute to rural road fatalities. H.R. 3550 would authorize $675 
million over 6 fiscal years for safety projects on high-risk rural 
roads. States could use federal funding to improve the safety of rural 
major collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural local roads that 
have, or that are expected to have, higher than average statewide 
fatality and incapacitating injury rates.[Footnote 40]

* New Highway Safety Improvement Program. Both S. 1072 and H.R. 3550 
contain provisions for a new highway safety improvement program to 
replace the current statutory requirement that states set aside 10 
percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds for carrying out 
Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. S. 1072 would 
authorize $8.2 billion over 6 years for the program and H.R. 3550 
proposes a level of $3.3 billion over 5 years. S. 1072 requires states 
to have crash data systems and the ability to perform safety problem 
identification and countermeasure analysis to use safety improvement 
funds. Both bills maintain state flexibility to use safety improvement 
funds for safety projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle 
or pedestrian pathway or trail or public surface transportation 
facility. In both bills, states must identify roadway locations, 
sections, and elements that constitute a hazard to motorists, 
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users and develop and 
implement projects to address the hazards identified.

* Enhanced Federal Funding for State Safety Data. Some of the states we 
visited had identified weaknesses in their highway data systems. S. 
1072 and H.R. 3550 would each create a new State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvement grant. Funding would be authorized at 
$45 million per year under S. 1072 and $24 million to $39 million per 
year (for 5 fiscal years--2005 through 2009) under H.R. 3550. Larger 
states could qualify for larger grants, but the minimum grant amount 
would be $300,000 per year. By comparison, federal funding for data 
improvement grants under TEA-21 was never more than $11 million per 
year and was only available in fiscal years 1999 through 2002. H.R. 
3550 also allocates $4 million from NHTSA research authorizations to 
further develop a transportation safety information management system 
to provide for the collection, integration, management, and 
dissemination of safety data for state and local safety agencies.

* Proposals for New Safety Research. S. 1072 and H.R. 3550 would fund 
strategic highway research programs. S. 1072 would provide $450 million 
for this purpose and H.R. 3550 would provide $329 million. According to 
the related NCHRP planning study, 40 percent of the funds--$180 
million--would support safety research.[Footnote 41] The goal of this 
safety research is to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes 
through more accurate knowledge of crash factors and of the cost-
effectiveness of selected countermeasures in addressing these factors. 
The research plan focuses on road departure and intersection 
collisions, which represent 58 percent of traffic fatalities.

* Comprehensive Highway Safety Planning. S. 1072 requires states to 
develop and implement strategic highway safety plans that are 
comprehensive, data driven, and based on a collaborative process 
involving state and local safety stakeholders. The plans must be 
comprehensive, including all aspects of highway safety--
infrastructure, driver behavior, motor carrier, and emergency medical 
services. They must be based on improved crash data collection and 
analysis. While not directed specifically at rural road safety, the 
collaborative process required by this provision provides an 
opportunity for local rural officials and leaders to participate in 
developing the goals and investments included in the plan. H.R. 3550 
would encourage comprehensive safety planning for both behavioral and 
construction safety programs.

* Flexibility in Moving Funds between FHWA and NHTSA Programs. S. 1072 
allows states to use up to a quarter of their Highway Safety 
Improvement Program funds for behavioral projects, if the projects are 
included in a state comprehensive highway safety improvement plan.

* Improving Emergency Medical Systems. The presence of timely competent 
medical attention has been shown to reduce rural and other traffic 
fatalities. S. 1072 would create an Emergency Medical Services grant 
program to provide state EMS offices funds for conducting coordinated 
EMS and 911 programs. S. 1072 would provide $5 million annually and 
would create a Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical 
Services that would coordinate federal agencies' involvement with 
state, local, tribal, or regional emergency medical services and 911 
services and to identify the needs of those entities.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 
Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally 
agreed with the report's contents and provided some technical comments, 
which we incorporated where appropriate. In discussing this report, 
agency officials noted that safety should be part of every project 
designed and built with federal-aid funds.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, the Administrator of the Federal Highway 
Administration, and to interested congressional committees. We will 
also provide copies to others on request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were 
Samer Abbas, Rick Calhoon, Colin Fallon, Sara Moessbauer, Stacey 
Thompson, and Glen Trochelman.

Signed by: 

Katherine Siggerud,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated Appropriation 
Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety and 
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet this 
requirement, we identified (1) factors contributing to rural road 
fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the 
nation's rural roads, and (3) challenges that may hinder making 
improvements in rural road safety.

To identify the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, we 
supplemented an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research Continues 
on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-436], 
March 2003), with information from the Federal Highway Administration, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and other 
organizations with knowledge of this issue, such as the National 
Association of Counties and the American Association of State Highway 
and Transportation Officials. We also reviewed studies identifying 
factors that contribute to rural road fatalities. For each of the 
selected studies that are used in this report, we determined whether 
the study's findings were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated 
the methodological soundness of the studies using common social science 
and statistical practices. For example, we examined each study's 
methodology, including its limitations, data sources, analyses, and 
conclusions.

In addition, we updated the earlier report by obtaining more current 
information on traffic deaths by using data from NHTSA's Fatality 
Analysis Reporting System (FARS). This database provides information on 
all traffic-related fatalities. Each state provides NHTSA fatality data 
in a standardized format. To be included in the database, a crash must 
result in the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within 30 days of the 
incident. The states obtain this information from such sources as 
police reports, vehicle registration files, state driver licensing 
files, death certificates, coroner or medical examiner reports, and 
hospital records. It should be noted that while fatality data is useful 
in understanding crashes, other factors in addition to those involved 
in causing the crash might have contributed to the fatality. This would 
include whether safety belt or other occupant protection measures were 
used and functioned properly. Before using this data, we assessed the 
reliability of the FARS data by reviewing the data for obvious errors 
in accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the 
data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of this report.

Further, in providing information on factors contributing to rural road 
fatalities, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled. To do 
so, we used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in its 
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). This system is a 
national-level highway information system that includes data on the 
extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of 
the nation's highways. In general, HPMS contains administrative and 
extent of system information on all public roads. The HPMS obtains 
vehicle-miles-traveled data from each state, and states have different 
methods for collecting certain travel information. We assessed the 
reliability of the HPMS data by reviewing it for obvious errors in 
accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing information about the 
data, and interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. 
There are certain limitations associated with using these data. For 
example, the quality of the data in the system relies on state data 
collection techniques. HPMS guidance is flexible so that each state has 
its own approach, and some approaches do not require annual revisions. 
In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may not be comparable from 
state to state. However, we determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report.

To identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we 
interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in the Federal 
Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. In addition, we reviewed state use of safety funds by 
meeting with safety officials in five states. We selected Minnesota, 
which DOT officials recommended as having a good rural road safety 
program, and the four states with the highest rural vehicle miles 
traveled: California, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In each of 
these locations we met with state officials responsible for the FHWA 
and NHTSA programs, as well as some officials at the local level. We 
also reviewed recently issued guides, models, and training programs 
intended to help traffic safety officials improve their rural road 
safety programs, such as the Transportation Research Board's National 
Cooperative Highway Research Program 500 Report series that serves as 
guidance for implementing the American Association of State Highway 
Transportation Officials' Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

To identify challenges that hinder making improvements in rural roads, 
we interviewed federal and state officials identified above and 
contacted experts from academia and advocacy groups. In addition, we 
attended a Rural Road Safety Roundtable in West Virginia at which 
participants discussed challenges facing rural road safety. We relied 
on NHTSA and a report by the Advocates for Highway Safety to identify 
the status of the 50 states' compliance with various federal highway 
safety statues. We also reviewed various legislative proposals that may 
help address the issues. The legislative proposals included bills for 
the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 
(SAFETEA) and (2) the House passed H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). We also reviewed the administration's 
proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act of 2003; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation bill S. 1978, the Surface Transportation Safety 
Reauthorization Act of 2003; and the House Committee on Science bill 
H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 
2004. However, the Senate and House passed S. 1072 and H.R. 3550, 
respectively, so we did not include them in the report.

We performed our review from July 2003 through April 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road 
Safety: 

We obtained information from five states (California, Georgia, 
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Texas) on the number of fatalities on 
their roadways, the federal funding they receive for safety purposes, 
and a description of the types of projects these funds support.

California: 

During 2002, 1,713 people were killed on rural roads in California--the 
second-highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, 
California's fatality rate on rural roads is about 2.67 fatalities per 
100 million vehicle miles traveled--greater than the national average 
of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 42 percent of all 
state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, California was provided over $2.5 billion in 
federal-aid highway funds. About $60.5 million of these funds were 
provided for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing programs. 
These programs provided construction-related safety improvements on 
public roads, transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways 
or trails, and for rail-highway crossing safety programs. California 
also received about $100.4 million in fiscal year 2003 to improve 
roadway safety through a variety of activities designed to influence 
driving behavior. About $47.5 million of the funds California received 
were transferred from the state's federal-aid highway program because 
the state's repeat offender law did not meet federal 
standards.[Footnote 42]

California officials told us that they estimate they spent about $69.5 
million on 58 rural road hazard elimination-related projects in 2003. 
Examples include: 

* The 2-3 Lane Safety Program. The California Department of 
Transportation uses past crash analysis to identify cross-centerline 
crash locations on two-and three-lane roadways for safety 
investigations. The agency then attempts to utilize the most cost-
effective solutions to make these roadways safer. In 2002, the agency 
identified 50 areas, 47 of which were located in rural locations.

* Run-Off-the-Road Task Force. The California Department of 
Transportation currently has a task force examining locations where a 
number of run-off-the-road crashes are occurring. The agency then 
attempts to utilize cost-effective strategies to reduce the number or 
severity of these types of collisions. In 2003, about 73 percent of the 
locations identified were in rural areas. The agency hopes to proceed 
with the run-off-the-road monitoring program by the end of 2004.

California is also using about $48 million of the NHTSA provided funds 
to support 732 behavioral programs in fiscal year 2004. Of these funds, 
California officials identified about $9.9 million being used to 
support 80 rural road-related programs. These projects include 
emergency medical initiatives such as the "First There, First Care" 
program, which will train young drivers in 54 schools in 11 counties on 
providing basic first aid at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. In 
addition, California's Office of Traffic Safety has worked with the 
California Highway Patrol to implement two programs that have rural 
road safety impacts: 

* Corridor Safety Project. The California Highway Patrol is leading a 
task force that is examining the safety of all state corridors, based 
on fatality and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk 
corridors in the state, of which 16 were two-lane roads, mostly in 
rural areas. The task force is responsible for making both behavioral 
and infrastructure improvement recommendations to address the safety 
issue with these high-risk corridors.

* Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For the 2004 
fiscal year, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the Office 
of Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing 
enforcement of traffic violations that often lead to collisions: 
speeding, right-of-way violations, failing to drive on the right half 
of the road, improper turning, and driving under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs.

Georgia: 

During 2002, Georgia had 902 fatalities on its rural roadways. When 
adjusted for miles traveled, Georgia's fatality rate on rural roads was 
1.81 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--below the 
national average of 2.29 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 59 percent of 
all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, Georgia received $975 million in federal-aid 
highway funds. About $25.3 million of these funds were provided for the 
Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. Using these 
funds, the state has undertaken several roadway improvement programs 
that address aspects of rural road safety. For example, Georgia 
identified four problem areas that it focused on in 2003--run-off-the-
road crashes, intersection crashes, car-train crashes, and animal 
crashes. A Georgia official said that the run-off-the-road and animal 
crashes were particularly prevalent in rural settings. He said that 
they are adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline reflectors to 
help reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and to reduce animal crashes 
they are expanding the recovery area along some roads, culling deer 
herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn drivers of deer 
presence. In addition, Georgia is developing a Lane Departure Strategic 
Action Plan with the goal of reducing the lane departure serious injury 
and death rate from 4.93 per 100 million miles traveled in 2003 to 3.29 
in 2008 and preventing 750 serious injuries and deaths annually. A 
draft of this plan recognizes that roadway departures on rural highways 
are a predominate concern. To meet this goal, Georgia is developing an 
approach that will use low-cost construction improvement; corridor 
enforcement, education, and engineering enhancements; local lane 
departure safety initiatives, targeted use of medium-to high-cost 
improvements at high-crash locations, and statewide initiatives to 
improve safe driver behaviors.

According to Georgia officials, the state has also replaced its safety 
data system. It hopes to upgrade the current system of recording crash 
locations by use of more accurate global positioning technology at the 
crash scene, which would help them better identify problem areas 
throughout the state. In addition to these state initiatives, FHWA 
officials said Georgia is participating in AASHTO research projects 
that address run-off-the-road crashes and comprehensive state strategic 
highway safety plans.

The state has also participated in two major NHTSA-sponsored behavioral 
programs: the eight-state evaluation of the "Click It or Ticket" safety 
belt campaign in 2001 and the current impaired driving strategic 
evaluation study, according to NHTSA officials. Georgia identified a 
need to increase use of safety belts, booster seats, and child safety 
seats among rural and minority populations statewide, so it initiated 
efforts to involve rural and minority communities in local initiatives 
to increase safety belt usage rates. Under the impaired driving study, 
enforcement agencies conduct at least one sobriety checkpoint per month 
in every county.

Minnesota: 

In 2002, 479 people were killed on Minnesota's rural roads. When 
adjusted for miles traveled, Minnesota's fatality rate on rural roads 
was about 1.8 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled--less than the 
national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 
73 percent of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In 2003, Minnesota received about $395 million in federal-aid highway 
funds. About $12.1 million of these funds were provided for hazard 
elimination projects, for construction-related safety improvements, 
and for rail-highway crossing improvements. The state also received 
about $14.7 million for NHTSA programs designed to improve behavioral 
activities. State officials could not provide a breakdown of how much 
of these funds was used for rural road safety projects.

While the state does not have a specific rural road safety program, 
state traffic safety officials have implemented several construction 
and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The "Towards 
Zero Deaths" initiative, for example, is an ongoing collaborative 
program among the state department of transportation, public safety, 
state patrol, and local "safe community" organizations to reduce 
highway fatalities. The program provides grants to localities that work 
with safety officials to coordinate a plan to reduce traffic 
fatalities. Other behavioral initiatives include the following: 

* NightCAP is a program involving concentrated alcohol patrols 
scheduled in conjunction with local events that serve alcohol, for 
example, music festivals that attract big crowds and where alcohol is 
sold or allowed to be consumed. Local, county, and state law 
enforcement patrol roads to look particularly for drivers showing signs 
of impairment. Releases are sent out to local press and broadcast media 
informing the local population that enforcement will be present during 
the event. In fiscal year 2003, $615,000 of federal funding was spent 
on the NightCAP program. About 50 percent of the events were in rural 
areas of Minnesota.

* Safe & Sober is a project involving municipal and county law 
enforcement agencies that target impaired driving and occupant 
protection issues through a combination of enhanced law enforcement and 
publicity. According to state officials, in fiscal year 2003, 
$1,335,600 in federal funding was spent on the program. Approximately 
50 percent of this program is carried out in rural areas of the state.

In addition, in 2003 the state Department of Transportation completed a 
statewide audit of high crash cost intersections and corridors. The 
audit ranked the top 200 intersections and 150 corridors with the 
highest crash costs. Of the top 200 intersections identified, 54 were 
located in rural areas; of the top 150 corridors identified, 53 were 
located in rural areas. The Department of Transportation's goal is to 
address 40 of these high crash cost intersections and corridors for 
safety improvements each year in the State Transportation Improvement 
Plan. Further, according to state officials, the Department of 
Transportation has made extensive use of shoulder rumble strips and is 
beginning to use centerline rumble strips on two-lane roadways.

Approximately $9 million in federal funds was transferred from 
construction to safety activities in 2003 because Minnesota's laws in 
regards to repeat drunk drivers did not meet federal 
requirements.[Footnote 43] Officials at the state Department of Public 
Safety said that they plan to use half of those funds for hazard 
elimination projects such as replacing twisted-end guardrails and 
researching the visibility effects of installing wider edge lines and 
reflective wet pavement markings. Officials believe that this will have 
a major impact on preventing or reducing the severity of run-off-the-
road crashes. The Department of Public Safety plans to use the other 
half to address impaired driving. Specifically, Minnesota plans to 
upgrade its driver license information system to improve the tracking 
of problem drivers, focusing on impaired driving. The state also plans 
to implement traffic safety programs promoting safety belt use and 
discouraging drinking and driving among 21 to 34 year olds. To improve 
emergency medical services in rural areas, Minnesota plans to reduce 
the amount of "dead spots"--areas where messages cannot be heard--so 
that law enforcement, emergency medical services, and transportation 
officials can communicate with each other in more remote areas of the 
state.

Pennsylvania: 

In 2002, there were 1,001 fatalities on Pennsylvania's rural roads. 
When adjusted for miles traveled, Pennsylvania's fatality rate on rural 
roads is 2.15 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled--less 
than the national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for 
approximately 62 percent of all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

Pennsylvania received about $1.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds 
in fiscal year 2003. Of these funds, about $21.4 million were provided 
for hazard elimination projects for construction-related safety 
improvements and for improving safety at rail-highway crossings. During 
fiscal year 2003, Pennsylvania received about $11.6 million in NHTSA 
funding designed to improve behavioral activities. State officials 
could not provide a breakdown of how much of these funds were used for 
rural road safety projects.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has a goal of reducing 
road fatalities by 10 percent between 2002 and 2005. The department has 
begun several engineering and behavioral improvement initiatives to 
help reach this goal. For example, to maximize safety in the design and 
construction of highway projects, the department performs Roadway 
Safety Audits. These audits are formal examinations of roadways by an 
independent team of trained specialists that assess their crash 
potential and safety performance. The team identifies safety problems 
so that project officials can evaluate, justify, and select appropriate 
design changes. In 1997, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 
was the first transportation agency in the United States to pilot the 
program. Since its inception, about 40 audits have been completed. 
According to the state department of transportation, the audits have 
prevented undesirable changes during design or construction, maximized 
opportunities to enhance safety, and minimized missed opportunities to 
enhance safety.

Pennsylvania has introduced two other infrastructure safety 
modifications aimed at improving rural road safety. First, the state 
installed 300 miles of centerline rumble strips in an effort to help 
warn drivers that they have strayed from their lane. State 
transportation officials estimated that rumble strips could reduce 
vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by 25 percent. In addition, 
Pennsylvania implemented a "dot" tailgating treatment program in which 
dots are painted on the state's roadways, including rural two-lane 
roads, to help drivers determine a safe following distance. The spacing 
of the dots is based on the roadway's speed limit. Each vehicle is 
expected to maintain a distance equal to at least two dot lengths from 
the vehicle ahead of it.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation also has several 
initiatives to modify unsafe driving behavior to help reach its 2005 
goal. Sobriety checkpoints, roving patrols, and mobile awareness 
patrols have been implemented to combat drunk driving. In 2002, 129 
mobile awareness patrols were conducted. The state also has a program 
to install ignition interlock devices on the vehicles of those 
convicted of second or subsequent driving-under-the-influence 
offenses. The device must remain in the vehicle for 1 year following a 
12-month suspension of driving privileges. Since its inception in 2000, 
the state reports the program has stopped 10,142 attempts to operate a 
vehicle on the state's roadways when the operator had a blood-alcohol 
content equal to or greater than .025 percent. The state also has 
several initiatives to improve safety belt use. Although the state has 
a secondary safety belt law, it received approval to use the "Click It 
or Ticket" initiative encouraged by NHTSA.[Footnote 44] Transportation 
safety officials are also involved in increasing safety belt use among 
middle and high school students and in improving the use and incidence 
of child passenger seats through educational and training programs. 
State traffic safety officials also informed us of programs targeting 
increased safety belt use among light truck and pickup truck drivers 
who state officials believe are more prevalent in rural areas and 
generally decline to wear safety belts.

Texas: 

During 2002, 2,096 people were killed on rural roads in Texas--the 
highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, the 
fatality rate on rural roads in Texas is about 2.68 fatalities per 100 
million vehicle miles traveled--greater than the national average of 
2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 56 percent of all 
state roadway fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided Texas with about $2.2 billion in 
federal-aid highway funds. About $57.6 million of these funds were 
provided for Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. The 
state's safety funding under the Surface Transportation Program 
provided construction-related safety improvements on public roads, 
transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or trails, 
and for the rail-highway crossing safety programs. Texas also received 
about $26.4 million of federal funds administered by NHTSA in fiscal 
year 2003, mainly to improve roadway safety through activities designed 
to influence driving behavior. Texas has appropriated $40 million in 
state funds to supplement FHWA funding for the Hazard Elimination 
Program, according to Texas Department of Transportation officials.

Texas officials identified several intiatives being undertaken to 
reduce fatalities on the state's rural roads: 

* Texas Department of Transportation officials identified 235 hazard 
elimination projects that they plan on undertaking in fiscal year 2004. 
These $43.4 million in projects, most of which are on rural roads, 
include adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, adding 
rumble strips, and removing trees near roads.

* Due to concerns about high fatality rates on narrow rural two-lane 
highways, particularly those with limited or no shoulders, district 
engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003, 
checking the appropriateness of speed limits, the condition of signs 
and pavement markings, and assessing pavement edge drop-offs or curve 
warnings. Based on these assessments, changes will be made to address 
the most important findings.

* The state is installing shoulder rumble strips on all rural four-lane 
divided highways and researching the use of edgeline and centerline 
rumble strips on other roads.

* Because the state's alcohol-related crashes were the leading cause of 
motor vehicle fatalities in Texas during 2001, state officials told us 
they have worked with NHTSA and others to identify the nature of the 
problem and assess programs that could reduce impaired driving. As part 
of this effort, the state funded 13 projects aimed at reducing impaired 
driving in rural areas through increased enforcement and education 
programs.

* The state has initiated programs to aid rural crash victims, 
including new training for emergency medical technicians and first-aid 
training for police officers and bystanders.

* Texas is in the process of upgrading its crash data system to make 
data more timely. Texas is about 2  years behind in entering crash 
data from police accident reports into its data system. State officials 
pointed out that without more timely data, it is difficult to determine 
if the actions taken on a stretch of road had the intended effect. 
Texas plans to have a new system in place by fiscal year 2005, at a 
cost of $14 million. The new Texas system will encourage local law 
enforcement agencies to collect, validate, and report crash data 
electronically. It will also provide centralized analysis, review, and 
data reporting to agencies that plan and conduct state highway safety 
programs.

[End of section]

Appendix III: Low-Cost Safety Improvements: 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified more than 40 
low-cost best practices as alternatives to capital construction at 
high-crash locations. These improvements are presented to state and 
local traffic engineers in FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements 
Workshops. In addition, FHWA has qualified the strategies as proven, 
tried, or experimental. Proven include those strategies that have been 
used in one or more locations and for which properly designed 
evaluations have been conducted that show them to be effective. Tried 
countermeasures are those that have been implemented in a number of 
locations and that may even be accepted as standards or standard 
approaches but for which there have not been found valid evaluations. 
Experimental strategies are those that have been suggested and that at 
least one agency has considered sufficiently promising to try on a 
small scale in at least one location. Table 2 summarizes the low-cost 
alternatives and identifies potential safety impacts that were 
identified in the course materials and whether the countermeasure is 
proven, tried, or experimental.

Table 2: FHWA's Low-Cost Safety Improvements: 

Roadside hazards: Trees; 
Countermeasure: Remove or relocate trees near roadway. Cited accident 
reductions as a function of proximity to roadway ranging from 22 
percent for a 3-foot increase to 71 percent for a 15-foot increase. 
Proven.

Roadside hazards: Utility poles; 
Countermeasure: Relocate utility poles away from the roadway. Cited 32 
percent reduction in fatalities and 45 percent reduction in nonfatal 
injuries by relocating or installing breakaway utility poles. Proven.

Roadside hazards: Sign supports; 
Countermeasure: Clear or relocate sign supports and obstacles away from 
roadway. Cited a range of reduction in obstacle crashes from 14 to 40 
percent by moving the obstacles 3 feet to 10 feet, respectively. 
Proven.

Roadside hazards: Mail boxes; 
Countermeasure: Ensure mailboxes comply with breakaway provisions of 
the postal services. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Single vehicle run-off-the-road; 
Countermeasure: Install rumble strips and rumble stripes to address 
inattentive, drowsy, and drunk drivers. Cited crash reduction by using 
rumble strips of from 15 percent to 70 percent on interstates (proven) 
and 20 percent to 49 percent on two-lane roads (tried).

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Warning signs; 
Countermeasure: Add signs that call attention to unexpected conditions 
and situations that might not be readily apparent to road users. Cited 
reduction of fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 percent. 
Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Special emphasis signs; 
Countermeasure: Enhance signage (color or size) to call attention to 
driver. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Right-of-way signs; 
Countermeasure: Install more visible right-of-way controls to enhance 
effectiveness. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Guide signs; 
Countermeasure: Install street name signs with adequate-sized lettering 
in rural areas to identify important roads. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Lane use signs; 
Countermeasure: Install clear lane use signage, such as "Left Turn 
Only." Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Safety message signs; 
Countermeasure: Include safety messages such as "Targeted Enforcement 
Area" or "Be Alert Heavy Truck Traffic." Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Centerline and edge markings; 
Countermeasure: Add centerlines and edge lines to roadways. Cited a 
reduction of 29 percent in crashes by adding centerlines and an 
additional 8 percent with edgelines. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Innovative roadway markings; 
Countermeasure: Add innovative markings to roadways for such items as 
advisory speed markings, left-turn lane markings, and roadway parking 
space markings. Tried. Also noted adding markings to roadways to help 
inform drivers about adequate following distances. Cited a 60 percent 
reduction in rear-end crashes on main line with use of this roadway 
marking. Experimental.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Roadway delineation; 
Countermeasure: Use pavement markings to reduce incidence of crashes. 
Cited reductions of 15 percent in fatalities and 6 percent in injuries. 
Tried.

Roadside hazards: Signing and marking: Innovative curve treatments; 
Countermeasure: Pave inside shoulder on curves and add pavement 
markings to help guide drivers. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Configuration; 
Countermeasure: Address configuration features related to safety at 
intersection including presence of left turn lanes, number of legs, 
intersection sight distance, angle of intersection, and intersection 
form. Proven.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Access management; 
Countermeasure: Improve access management as a key to improving safety 
at, and adjacent to, unsignaled intersections. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Traffic control; 
Countermeasure: Install all-way stop control to reduce right-angle and 
turning movement crashes. Cited reductions of 53 percent in total 
crashes with conversion from two-way to four-way stop control. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Signing; 
Countermeasure: Use warning signs, such as changing yield to stop, or 
warning signs, for intersections to reduce incidents of crashes. Cited 
traffic signs as reducing fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 
percent. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Flashing beacons; 
Countermeasure: Install flashing beacons to alert drivers to approach
with caution or stop. Cited California study that found, among other 
things, that total crashes were reduced 43 percent and single vehicle 
crashes by 67 percent. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Sight distance; 
Countermeasure: Improve sight distance at intersections. Cited 5 
percent reduction in total intersection-related crashes per 
intersection quadrant in which limited sight distance restrictions are 
eliminated. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Turning lanes; 
Countermeasure: Add left-turn lanes to reduce rear-end crashes. Cited 
an expected 28 and 48 percent reductions, respectively, in total 
crashes from installation of a left- turn lane on one or both major-
road approaches to a four-leg stop- controlled intersection and 14 and 
26 percent reductions from installation of a right-turn lane on one or 
both major-road approaches. Proven.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Shoulder widening; 
Countermeasure: Widen the shoulder at rural intersections. Cited crash 
reductions of 2.8 percent per foot of shoulder widening at rural 
intersections. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Transverse rumble strips; 
Countermeasure: Install rumble strips going across the traffic lane to 
alert drivers in advance of intersection. Cited up to 50 percent 
reduction in rear-end and stop violation crashes. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Lighting; 
Countermeasure: Install lighting at rural intersections. Cited study 
that found 43 percent reduction in fatalities and 17 percent in 
injuries. Proven.

Roadside hazards: Intersections: Innovative techniques; 
Countermeasure: Add innovative items at intersections such as right 
turn lanes (proven), dynamic activated flashers (tried), and the median 
inside an acceleration lane (tried).

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Yellow light clearance timing; 
Countermeasure: Update yellow clearance timing of traffic signals to 
allow more time for traffic to clear intersection. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: All-red light clearance phase; 
Countermeasure: Add an all-red clearance interval. Cited 15 percent to 
30 percent crash reduction by adding an all-red clearance interval. 
Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Visibility; 
Countermeasure: Improve visibility of traffic signals. Cited 33 percent 
to 47 percent reduction in crashes from using 12-inch lens and 
additional signal units (or heads). Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Back plates; 
Countermeasure: Install back plates behind the traffic signal to 
improve its visibility. Cited report of 25 percent reduction in red 
light running and 32 percent reduction in related crashes. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Left turn signals; 
Countermeasure: Change left turn signals to allow only turning with 
specific left turn green light. Cited a report of 97 percent reduction 
in left-turning crashes. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Yield on green sign; 
Countermeasure: Add activated "Yield on Green" signs to better inform 
drivers wishing to turn. One city reported a 22 percent reduction in 
permissive left turn crashes. Experimental.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Advance warning signs with active 
flashers; 
Countermeasure: Add signs with flashers to warn driver, such as "Be 
Prepared to Stop." Cited several reports ranging from 29 to 67 percent 
reduction in crashes from this measure. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Supplemental signal heads; 
Countermeasure: Add additional traffic signals units (or heads) to 
intersections. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Overhead red "T" heads; 
Countermeasure: Use overhead red "T" heads on traffic signals. These 
types of signals have two red lights next to each other to increase 
their visibility. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Late-night traffic signals; 
Countermeasure: Remove late-night use of signals that flash yellow on 
the main road and red on the side street and replace with full-time 
traffic signals. Cited 78 percent reduction in right angle collisions 
and 32 percent reduction in all collisions during time of operations. 
Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Coordination of signals; 
Countermeasure: Coordinate traffic signals. Noted very few reports on 
safety benefits, but cited one report showing 12 percent reduction in 
crashes during peak morning and evening driving periods. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Traffic signals: Signal controller; 
Countermeasure: Upgrade signal controller to allow for traffic actuated 
rather than pretimed operations. Cited 28 percent reduction in all 
collisions. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Stopping sight distance; 
Countermeasure: Provide adequate ability to see a train and/or the 
traffic control device at the crossing in sufficient time for the 
driver to safely stop if necessary. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Signing; 
Countermeasure: Use appropriate signing at crossings including Cross 
Buck signs, signs in advance of the crossing, and yield and stop signs. 
Tried.

Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Sight distance visibility; 
Countermeasure: Provide adequate visibility by such things as removing 
obstructions, reducing posted speed, reconfiguring or relocating the 
crossing or grade separating the crossing. Tried.

Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Lighting; 
Countermeasure: Add lighting at and adjacent to the rail crossing to 
increase visibility. Cited a reduction in nighttime crashes by more 
than 50 percent at rural and urban crossings. Proven.

Roadside hazards: Railroad grade crossings: Innovative measures; 
Countermeasure: Adopt innovative measures to increase safety at rail 
crossings such as providing an emergency escape lane out of the 
crossing area for trapped vehicles. Tried. 

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA information.

[End of table] 

(545038): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] For purposes of this report, rural road data refers to roads in the 
50 states. The District of Columbia has no rural roads and we do not 
include Puerto Rico's 8,000 miles of rural roads in our computations.

[2] Urban areas are those places within boundaries set by the 
responsible state and local officials that have a population of 5,000 
or more. Rural areas are those areas outside the boundaries of urban 
areas.

[3] In presenting information on traffic fatalities, we used data 
contained in NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System database for 
2002, the most recent available. This database contains state-reported 
data on all fatalities in the United States.

[4] While the number of fatalities rose during this period, the 
fatality rate declined. FHWA officials attribute the decline to the 
increased vehicle miles traveled coupled with many other factors, such 
as increased safety belt use, decreased alcohol-impaired driving, 
safety improvement in vehicles and on the highways, and more congested 
highways leading to lower speeds. 

[5] P.L. 105-178, 1998.

[6] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The most 
recent update of this publication was in 2001.

[7] Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads 
(ADT<400), 2001.

[8] The National Cooperative Highway Research Program is a part of the 
Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. It is 
also undertaking a project to develop a highway safety manual, in 
response to AASHTO's safety plan.

[9] Highway Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That 
Contribute to Motor Vehicle Crashes, GAO-03-436, (Washington D.C.: Mar. 
31, 2003). This report categorized the factors contributing to motor 
vehicle crashes as human behavior, roadway environment, and vehicle 
factors. It also notes that in addition to crashes, roadway fatalities 
are affected by use of safety belts and the care provided after the 
crash occurs.

[10] Estimates are based on the National Occupant Protection Use 
Survey, an observational survey of safety belt use, conducted in June 
2002. The data collectors in this survey assessed urbanization 
subjectively and the occupants in rural areas might or might not have 
lived in rural areas. The sampling error for this data was plus or 
minus 4.9 percent for urban and plus or minus 4.3 percent for rural, at 
the 95 percent confidence level.

[11] National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving Attitudes and 
Behaviors: 2002, The Gallup Organization, March 2003. The Gallup 
Organization conducted the survey. The sampling errors for the 
percentages reported in this report are about plus or minus 4.3 points, 
at the 95 percent confidence level. The responses were self-reported 
responses to a 2002 survey asking for recall over the past 5 years. 

[12] Andrea L. Glaze, M.A., and James M. Ellis, M.S., Pilot Study of 
Distracted Drivers, Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory, Center 
for Public Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, January 2003. The 
results are based on Virginia drivers involved in a crash between June 
15 and November 30, 2002, where one or more of the drivers were 
identified as inattentive and/or distracted.

[13] Bhagwant N. Persaud, Richard A. Retting, and Craig Lyon, "Crash 
Reduction Following Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural 
Two-Lane Roads," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, September 
2003.

[14] Keith K. Knapp, Development of a Deer-Vehicle Crash Countermeasure 
Toolbox, Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse. The five states 
included are Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The 
study notes that the numbers cited are reported crashes and that actual 
crashes with deer could be much higher.

[15] Warren E. Hughes, Investigation of Crashes with Animals, Highway 
Safety Information System, March 1995, FHWA-RD-94-156. Results are 
applicable to crashes in Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and 
Utah. 

[16] Howard Preston and Ted Schoenecker, Safety Impact of Street 
Lighting at Isolated Rural Intersections, Minnesota Department of 
Transportation, April 1999.

[17] William Deutermann, Characteristics of Fatal Rollover Crashes, DOT 
HS 809 438, April 2002. 

[18] Charles Farmer and Adrian Lund, "Rollover Risk of Cars and Light 
Trucks after Accounting for Driver and Environmental Factors," Accident 
Analysis and Prevention, vol. 34, 2002.

[19] Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With 
A Growing Focus on Lack of Data, GAO-02-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 
2001).

[20] National Association of State EMS Directors, "Challenges of Rural 
Emergency Services: Opinion Survey of State EMS Directors," June 2000. 
State EMS Directors were asked to use their own definition of "rural," 
and their answers reflect an estimate of coverage based on their 
opinions. Enhanced 911 allows emergency responders to automatically 
locate people who call 911 from cellular telephones.

[21] Thomas Esposito, "Analysis of Preventable Trauma and Inappropriate 
Trauma Care in a Rural State," 1995. A multidisciplinary review panel 
judged the preventability of deaths occurring in Montana between 
October 1, 1990, and September 30, 1991, that were attributed to 
mechanical trauma. Half of the deaths reviewed were attributed to motor 
vehicle crashes.

[22] For fiscal year 2003, NHTSA provided about $671 million to states 
for these behavioral programs.

[23] "Click It or Ticket" is a highway safety program that uses 
increased enforcement along with a media campaign to encourage safety 
belt use. 

[24] Rumble strips are grooves rolled or ground into the centerlines, 
edges, or shoulders of roads. They are designed to alert drivers when 
they drift out of the traffic lane and thereby prevent head-on and run-
off-the-road crashes.

[25] The state painted "dots" on the pavement, along with guide signs, 
to help motorists maintain safe following distances in areas with high 
levels of aggressive-driver crashes.

[26] NHTSA officials told us that states enacting the primary safety 
belt laws have experienced an 8 to10 percent increase in safety belt 
use. 

[27] Motor Vehicle Safety: Comprehensive State Programs Offer Best 
Opportunity for Increasing Use of Safety Belts, GAO/RCED-96-24 
(Washington D.C.: Jan. 3, 1996).

[28] To comply with federal program requirements, a repeat offender 
statute must include the following: (1) a minimum 1-year license 
suspension; (2) impoundment, immobilization or installation of an 
ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned by the offender; (3) 
assessment of alcohol abuse by the offender and an authorization of the 
appropriate treatment; and (4) a mandatory minimum sentence. 

[29] According to a NHTSA official, the Colorado General Assembly has 
recently passed a bill that, if enacted, would appear to meet federal 
program requirements, and this would reduce the number of states that 
have not established 0.08 BAC as the legal limit for drunk driving to 
two.

[30] Costs are default values for minor widening of a rural minor 
collector on flat terrain used in FHWA's Highway Economic Requirements 
System model.

[31] Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, NCHRP 
Report 500, Volume 4: A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions, 2003.

[32] States must set aside at least 10 percent of the State 
Transportation Program funds to support the Hazard Elimination and 
Highway-Rail Crossing Programs and can be used on any roadway for 
safety purposes.

[33] R.G. McGinnis, Strategic Plan for Improving Roadside Safety, 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, February 2001.

[34] Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With 
A Growing Focus on Lack of Data, GAO 02-28 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 12, 
2001).

[35] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Safety 
Strategies for Rural Roads, 1999.

[36] R.F. Maio, R.E. Burney, M.A. Gregor, and M.G. Baranski, "A Study 
of Preventable Trauma Mortality in Rural Michigan," July 1996. Trauma 
fatalities were not necessarily due to traffic crashes.

[37] FHWA's federal-aid highway program provides funds to states for 
highway construction and improvement projects, while NHTSA's Section 
402 State and Community Grants Program provides funds to states for a 
wide variety of highway safety projects, such as projects to reduce 
alcohol-impaired driving and increase safety-belt use. Transfers under 
this provision would come from Interstate Maintenance, National Highway 
System, and Surface Transportation Program funds.

[38] Transfers under this provision would come from National Highway 
System, Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation and 
Air Quality funds.

[39] Under this provision, funds would be withheld from the National 
Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, and Interstate 
Maintenance programs.

[40] Another proposal to advance rural road safety was recently 
introduced--H.R. 3743, which would authorize $1 billion per year to 
improve safety on rural roads. States utilizing this funding would be 
obligated to conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey 
of all two-lane rural roads classified as minor and major collectors 
and minor arterials. The survey would identify dangerous locations, 
assign priorities for the correction of such locations, and establish 
and implement a schedule of projects for improvement of such roads.

[41] Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program, 
NCHRP Report 510, 2003.

[42] Under 23 USC, section 164, states are required to have a repeat 
offender law that includes such things as a 1-year license suspension 
for a second offense; the impoundment, immobilization, or installation 
of an ignition interlock on an offender's vehicle; an assessment of the 
individual's degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and 
specified minimum jail or community service sentences. California's 
impaired driving law does not impose all these sanctions on repeat 
offenders.

[43] Under 23 USC, section 164, states were required to have a repeat 
offender law that included such things as a 1-year license suspension 
for a second offense; the impoundment, immobilization, or installation 
of an ignition interlock on offender's vehicle; an assessment of the 
individual's degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and 
specified minimum jail or community service sentences. States that do 
not meet the repeat offender requirement will have a percentage of 
funds transferred from their federal-aid highway program to their State 
and Community Grants programs. States may use the transferred funds for 
alcohol-related programs or they may allocate funds back to the 
federal-aid highway program where they are to be used for highway 
construction projects that address safety concerns. Minnesota does not 
have an impaired driving law that imposes the sanctions listed above on 
repeat offenders.

[44] Secondary seat belt laws allow police to issue a safety belt 
citation only if the motorist is pulled over for another infraction, 
such as an expired license tag.

GAO's Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

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. General Accounting 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: