March 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Implementing the 

HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS 

PROGRAM
Disclaimer and 

Quality Assurance Statement

Notice

This document contains findings from research and subsequent follow-up to States’ 

implementation of the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) within the context 

of States’ programs and policies. Resources and practices listed are for informational 

purposes and for consideration in implementing the HRRRP. The inclusion of State 

resources and practices in this document does not imply validation or endorsement 

by FHWA Office of Safety. If any information in this document is in conflict with the 

May 19, 2006, FHWA HRRRP guidance memo, the memo is still considered the official 

FHWA guidance.

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks 

or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information 

to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews 

quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.

Photographs

All photographs contained herein were provided by the original photographers for 

the purpose of this document.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

7. Author(s)

17. Key Words

19. Security Clasif. (of this report)

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

20. Security Clasif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 21. Price

4. Title and Subtitle

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

5. Report Date

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

6. Performing Organization Code

11. Contract or Grant No.

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

18. Distribution Statement

FHWA-SA-10-012

Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program

The Contract Manager for this report was Rosemarie Anderson (FHWA Office of Safety). Brian Chandler (SAIC) was the Principal 

Investigator. John Dewar (FHWA) provided invaluable guidance. Julie Zirlin, Ryan Tenges, Noel Mehlo and Alan Ho (FHWA) 

conducted the initial research that forms the basis of this document.

The Technical Oversight Working Group included: LeRoy Bergmann, Iowa DOT; Walter Beyer, Elmore County Public Works; 

Joe Santos, Florida DOT; Khaled Ksaibati, University of Wyoming, Jim Allen, Illinois DOT; Dave Engstrom, Minnesota DOT; Jeff 

Vernick and Josh Schneider, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority; Randy Ronning, CalTrans Division of Local Assistance; Gene Russell, Kansas State University; Sarah Weissman, Rutgers; and Karen Yunk (FHWA).

This report documents common challenges, noteworthy practices and lessons learned experienced through the implementation of the High Risk Rural Roads Program. After 4 years of the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP), the overall obligation 

rate for the program has remained low. Given the HRRRP potential to improve rural road safety, this has been a major concern 

to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proponents, and stakeholders of the program. FHWA embarked on a research 

project to identify the challenges the States faced in implementing their HRRRP as well as any lessons learned and noteworthy 

practices to share with other States.

By documenting and sharing these practices other States will gain insights as to how they can advance their programs. States 

can use these documented practices to launch their HRRRPs, identify next steps for a program already moving forward, or 

implement noteworthy practices to improve an established program. Implementing the HRRRP can make a real difference 

in rural road safety, and the complexity of implementing the program should not inhibit States in their pursuit of improved 

safety on rural roads.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Mail Stop E-12-3

8301 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102-3600

Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Brian Chandler, Rosemarie Anderson

State, safety, rural, HRRRP, obligation. No restrictions. 

Unclassified Unclassified 52 N/A

March 2010

DFTH61-05-D-00025, T-09-002

HSSP

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

Final Report

April 2009 - March 2010
iv

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 High Risk Rural Road Program...........................................................................................................................................................3

1.2 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Obligation of HRRRP Funds................................................................................................................................................................4

2. National Overview of Rural Roadway Crashes ............................................................................................ 6

3. Challenges to HRRRP Implementation ......................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Crash Data Collection, Analysis and Use.....................................................................................................................................9

3.2 Project Selection ....................................................................................................................................................................................10

3.3 Local Agency Issues.............................................................................................................................................................................10

3.4 Administration and Policies.............................................................................................................................................................11

4. State Practices for Implementation ............................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Crash Data Collection, Analysis and Use..................................................................................................................................12

4.2 Project Selection ....................................................................................................................................................................................14

4.3 Local Agency Coordination.............................................................................................................................................................16

4.4 Administration and Policies.............................................................................................................................................................18

5. State Case Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 19

6. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

List of Tables & Figures

Figure 1: HRRRP Funds Available for Obligation ......................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Percent of Available HRRRP Funds Obligated ............................................................................. 5

Figure 3: Percent Rural Miles of Total Roadway Miles ................................................................................. 6

Figure 4: Urban/Rural Traffic Fatality Rates ................................................................................................... 8

Table 1: Total Traffic Fatalities: Urban vs. Rural ............................................................................................. 7

Appendices

A – 23 U.S.C. §148 (a)(3)(B) Sample List of Construction and Operational Improvements ..................A1

B – Stakeholder Feedback Questions .............................................................................................................B1

C – Functional System Mileage by Ownership ..............................................................................................C1

D – HRRRP Resources ........................................................................................................................................ D1

E – HRRRP State Contacts .................................................................................................................................. E1

F – 23 U.S.C. §148 (f) High Risk Rural Roads Program ................................................................................. F1

G – Project Application Example .................................................................................................................... G1

H– HRRRP Project Solicitation Example ........................................................................................................ H1

I – Local Agency Involvement Process ............................................................................................................. I1

J – Public Interest Finding Request Example .................................................................................................J1
v

Abbreviations

AADT .................................................................................................................................................. Average Annual Daily Traffic

ADT ............................................................................................................................................................. Annual Daily Traffic

DOT ............................................................................................................................................... Department of Transportation

FARS ......................................................................................................................................... Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FFY ...............................................................................................................................................................Federal Fiscal Year

FY .........................................................................................................................................................................Fiscal Year

FHWA ............................................................................................................................................ Federal Highway Administration

GIS ............................................................................................................................................. Geographic Information System

GPS .................................................................................................................................................... Global Positioning System

HRRRP .............................................................................................................................................. High Risk Rural Roads Program

HSIP ....................................................................................................................................Highway Safety Improvement Program

LTAP .........................................................................................................................................Local Technical Assistance Program

MPO ....................................................................................................................................... Metropolitan Planning Organization

NACo .............................................................................................................................................National Association of Counties

NHTSA ..........................................................................................................................National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RPO ............................................................................................................................................. Regional Planning Organization

RSA ...............................................................................................................................................Road Safety Audit/Assessment

SAFETEA-LU ............................................................................. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAMS ...................................................................................................................................... Safety Analysis Management System

SHSP ...............................................................................................................................................Strategic Highway Safety Plan

STIP ....................................................................................................................... Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

STP .............................................................................................................................................Surface Transportation Program

TraCS .................................................................................................................................................Traffic and Criminal Software

USDOT ............................................................................................................................. United States Department of Transportation

VMT ..........................................................................................................................................................Vehicle Miles Traveled

TIP .....................................................................................................................................Transportation Improvement Program
This page intentionally left blank
1

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) established 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a 

core Federal aid program administered by the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) beginning in FY 2006. 

The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a significant 

reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. Over $1.2 billion is authorized annually 

through FY 2009 for the HSIP. The High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) was established through a set aside from 

each State’s apportionment of HSIP funds for construction 

and operational improvements on high risk rural roads. 

The set aside is a total of $90 million per year nationally 

and is applied proportionally from the States’ HSIP 

apportionments.

After 4 years of the HRRRP, the overall obligation rate for 

the program has remained low. Given the HRRRP potential 

to improve rural road safety, this has been a major 

concern to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

proponents, and stakeholders of the program. FHWA 

embarked on a research project to identify the challenges 

the States face in implementing the HRRRP as well as any 

lessons learned and noteworthy practices those who had 

implemented HRRRP wished to share. 

The research found the most common difficulties the 

States experience with implementation of the HRRRP 

include:

•	 Collecting crash and exposure data, especially on locally owned roads, to 

analyze locations for potential improvements. 

•	 Determining criteria for selecting the best projects, soliciting proposals, 

and choosing which projects to fund.

•	 Coordinating among Federal, State, and local transportation partners.

•	 Working within the context of existing State policies and legislation as 

well as the limited resources to administer the HRRRP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP) was initiated to address safety 

on the lower functional class of rural roads - a segment of the system often 

overlooked. 

Collecting and analyzing crash data can be a challenge, 

especially at the local level. The HRRRP regulation requires 

a crash rate to be calculated to identify eligible roadways. 

Typically, traffic volumes are used as the exposure data 

to calculate crash rates. Many States do not have traffic 

volume data for local routes, causing a gap in the ability 

to compare roadways. However, States are using diverse 

types of exposure data to determine crash rates as well 

as innovative ways to collect and use the data to support 

HRRRP implementation. For example, 

•	 Crash rates are determined using the lane miles data element to identify 

HRRRP-eligible routes.

•	 Data from similar routes and neighboring counties, population densities, 

and other socioeconomic data are utilized to develop estimated traffic 

volumes for all roads.

When selecting projects, a number of stakeholders are 

typically involved. The number and types of agencies 

invited to the table during the selection process varies by 

State. States have developed methodologies to choose 

the best projects for implementation given their Statespecific policies. For example, 
2

•	 Many States tie HRRRP projects directly to their Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) emphasis areas and strategies.

•	 Joint committees of interested stakeholders are formed to review 

proposed projects and select those to implement. Local agency input is 

solicited during the selection process.

•	 In others, the State DOT provides incentives for project proposals tied 

to other State safety initiatives (e.g., Road Safety Audits, Transparency 

Report).

Research showed that collaboration between agencies 

at all levels in a State is an essential element to the 

implementation of the HRRRP. This was shown in several 

forms, including, but not limited to:

•	 The offering of HRRRP-focused training and technical assistance for 

local agency practitioners by the State DOT or the State’s Local Technical 

Assistance Program.

•	 The assistance of planning organizations to administer the program.

•	 The use of websites dedicated to the HRRRP to get information to local 

agencies. Many include rules, data collection and analysis tools, and a 

project submission portal.

The HRRRP, like many new Federal-aid programs, comes 

with some administrative requirements. Available funds 

for the HRRRP are generally low and many States have 

adopted noteworthy strategies to make efficient use of 

these funds. For example, 

•	 States have combined Federal and State funds, including the use of 

State DOT forces to provide labor, to implement an HRRRP system-wide 

warning sign installation effort cost-effectively.

•	 Others have used existing on-call contracts to implement improvements 

quickly.

Fatality rates on rural roadways continue to outpace 

those of urban roadways. The HRRRP has brought new 

attention to the safety needs on rural roads. States have 

taken advantage of this funding source and implemented 

numerous projects across the country to reduce potential 

fatalities and serious injuries on rural roadways. However, 

the program is significantly under-obligated.

This document identifies common challenges and shares 

noteworthy practices and lessons learned. States can 

use these documented practices to launch their HRRRPs, 

identify next steps for a program already moving forward, 

or implement noteworthy practices to improve an 

established program. Implementing the HRRRP can make 

a real difference in rural road safety, and the complexity 

of implementing the program should not inhibit States in 

their pursuit of improved safety on rural roads.
3

1. INTRODUCTION 

In 2007, 57 percent of traffic fatalities in the United 

States occurred on rural roads.

Many rural roadways lack shoulders and clear zones that 

can provide an area of recovery for roadway departures, 

which is the most prevalent crash type on these roadways. 

Speeds tend to be higher in rural areas, and driver 

behavior issues (e.g., alcohol involvement, safety belt 

usage) are more evident.

The difficulty in addressing rural road safety is 

immediately evidenced by the number of miles of rural 

roads in the United States – nearly 3 million. Additionally, 

jurisdiction of these roadways varies across the nation. 

State DOTs maintain some portion of these roads, but 

the vast majority is owned, maintained, and operated by 

thousands of local governments. 

1.1 High Risk Rural Road Program

SAFETEA-LU established the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP) as a core Federal-aid program beginning 

in FY 2006. The purpose of the HSIP is to achieve a 

significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

on all public roads. Over $1.2 billion is authorized annually 

through FY 2009 for the HSIP. The High Risk Rural Roads 

Program (HRRRP) was established through a set-aside 

from each State’s apportionment of HSIP funds for 

construction and operational improvements on high risk 

rural roads. The set-aside is a total of $90 million per year 

nationally and is applied proportionally from the States’ 

HSIP apportionments. 

High risk rural roads are defined as those roadways that 

are functionally classified as rural major collectors, rural 

minor collectors, or rural local roads with a fatal and 

incapacitating injury crash rate above the statewide 

average for those functional classes of roadway, or likely 

to experience an increase in traffic volume that leads to a 

fatal and incapacitating injury crash rate in excess of the 

average statewide rate. 

Projects may be selected on any public HRRRP-eligible 

road to correct or improve hazardous road locations 

or features. Under this program improvements are 

restricted to construction and operational improvements 

as outlined in 23 U.S.C. Section 148(a)(3)(B), included 

in Appendix A, which shows a sample list of eligible 

construction and operational improvements. In addition, 

as stated in the December 24, 2008, HSIP Final Rule 23 

CFR Part 924.11(c)(2), HRRRP funds can only be used for 

construction and operational improvements on high risk 

rural roads and the planning, preliminary engineering, 

and roadway safety audits related to specific high risk rural 

road improvements.

The HSIP Reporting Guidance, dated May 15, 2009, 

requires the HRRRP portion of the report to show basic 

program implementation information, the methodology 

used to identify locations, and the overall effectiveness 

of implemented projects, including a list of projects. 

This reporting should be consistent with the reporting 

for other projects that use general HSIP funds. The 

States must submit the reports to their FHWA Division 

Administrator no later than August 31st of each year.

Potentially qualifying roadways are 

those functionally classified as: 

•	 Rural Major Collector

•	 Rural Minor Collector

•	 Rural Local Road
4

1.2 Purpose

The HRRRP was developed to help States implement 

solutions on the lower functional classes of rural 

roadways, a segment of the system often overlooked. 

Given the HRRRP potential to improve rural road safety, 

the low obligation rate has been a significant concern to 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proponents, 

and stakeholders of the program. FHWA embarked on a 

research project to identify the difficulties States faced in 

implementing the HRRRP as well as lessons learned and 

noteworthy practices the States wished to share. This 

research formed the basis for this document. Research 

discussion topics are included in Appendix B.

This document is intended to help the States optimize 

the use of their HRRRP funding through lessons 

learned, identifying common challenges, and reviewing 

noteworthy practices. It incorporates the results of 

stakeholder feedback and research to illustrate challenges 

and noteworthy practices for HRRRP implementation.

The document is structured into six major sections. 

Section 2 introduces the traffic safety problem on rural 

roads through crash data analysis and comparisons. 

Section 3 examines common challenges faced by States 

as they implement the HRRRP. Sections 4 and 5 showcase 

noteworthy practices in select States as they implement 

their HRRRP. At the end of the document, Section 6 

provides an overall summary of the findings on HRRRP.

1.3 Obligation of HRRRP Funds

The HRRRP was established under SAFETEA-LU legislation 

with funding beginning in FY 2006. All 4 fiscal years of 

available funds have now been apportioned to the States 

for obligation. The final year funds, for FY2009, were 

made available to the States on October 1, 2008. Only 44 

percent of funds available have been obligated by the 

States as of September 31, 2009. 

Figure 1 is a graphical representation of total apportioned 

funds available to each State for obligation. The amount 

of funds apportioned varies from State to State. About 

half the States were apportioned less than $5 million for 

HRRRP. Another 22 States were apportioned between $5 

million and $10 million, and 4 States received over $10 

million in HRRRP apportionment.

Figure 2 represents the obligation rates of apportioned 

HRRRP funds by State. A few States have made significant 

progress in obligating funds, but the national obligation 

of HRRRP funds is low. Twenty-three States have yet to 

obligate even one quarter of their available funding. 

Another 12 have obligated between 25 percent and 

75 percent of their apportionment, and 15 States have 

obligated over 75 percent as of September 30, 2009. Of 

those, six have fully obligated their HRRRP funding: Alaska, 

Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, and Oklahoma. 
75 - 100% 50 - 74% 25 - 49% 0 - 24%

PERCENT OF AVAILABLE HRRRP FUNDS OBLIGATED

Above $10 M $5M-$10M Under $5M

TOTAL HRRRP FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION

5

Figure 2: Percent of available HRRRP obligated as of September 30, 2009. Source: USDOT FHWA Office of Safety

Figure 1: HRRRP funds available for obligation. Source: USDOT FHWA Office of Safety, 
Above 75% 50 - 74% 25 - 49% 0 - 24%

PERCENT RURAL MILES OF TOTAL ROADWAY MILES

6

2. NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF RURAL ROADWAY CRASHES 

As shown, rural roadways are a significant portion of the 

highway system in the United States. Figure 3 shows the 

percentage of total roadway miles functionally classified 

as rural for each State. Only eight States have less than 

50 percent of their total roadway miles functionally 

classified as rural. In 27 States, more than 75 percent of 

the total roadway mileage is on roadways designated as 

rural. In fact, of the total public rural roadway mileage in 

the United States, 91 percent falls within the rural major 

collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural local roads 

functional classes. Jurisdiction of these roadways is shared 

among Federal, State and local agencies, and varies from 

State to State as shown in Appendix C.

In 2007 only 23 percent of the Nation’s population lived 

in rural areas, but 57 percent of fatalities on our Nation’s 

roadways occurred on rural roads. Table 1 shows national 

rural and urban fatality data for the years 2000 through 

2007. As shown, traffic fatalities on rural roadways have 

historically exceeded those on urban roadways. 

Crashes on rural roads tend to be severe as a result of the 

following:

•	 Rural collectorsandlocal roads tendtolackfeatures such aspaved

shoulders, clear zones, and divided directions of travel.

•	 Rural roads tendto have higheraveragevehiclespeeds,partiallydueto

relatively low volumes.

•	 Thedataindicates that thereis typically morealcohol involvement in

fatal crashes in rural areas.

•	 Dataindicates ruralareas havelower safetybeltusage.

•	 When acrash doesoccur, medical facilities tendtobeatgreater

distances; as a result, crash victims have longer wait times for medical 

treatment.

Figure 3: Percent Rural Miles of Total Roadway Miles. Source: FHWA Highway Statistics 2007: Public Road Length 2007 Miles by Ownership 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hm10.cfm
Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Rural Fatalities Urban Fatalities Total

24,838

25,150

25,896

24,957

25,179

24,587

23,646

22,866

16,113

16,988

17,013

17,783

17,581

18,627

18,791

17,497

40,951

42,138

42,909

42,740

42,760

43,214

42,437

40,363

ANNUAL ROADWAY FATALITIES, 2000-2007

7

Table 1: Annual Roadway Fatalities, 2000-2007

Source: USDOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) – “Traffic Safety Facts” Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 2000-2007

In order to compare fatalities in urban areas to those in 

rural areas more accurately, it is important to factor in 

an exposure component. The most common exposure 

component used is vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on each 

system. On a per-mile basis, urban roads tend to carry a 

significantly higher number of vehicles per day than rural 

roads. Because of this, the levels of exposure on urban 

roadways are much higher than those on rural roads. 

As a result, fatality rate (per 100 million miles traveled) 

is a more appropriate measure to fairly compare these 

roadway types.

Figure 4 is a graphical representation of rural and urban 

fatality rates for the years 2000 through 2007. As indicated 

in the graph, the difference in the rates has remained 

constant over the 8 year period. Nationwide, rural fatality 

rates have been more than twice that of urban areas. 

When rural and urban fatality rates are compared, it is 

evident that rural roadways have an over-representation 

of fatalities.
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Urban Fatality 

Rate

Rural Fatality 

Rate

RURAL & URBAN TRAFFIC FATALITIES PER

100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

8

Figure 4: Rural and Urban Traffic Fatality Rates 2000-2007

Source: NHTSA Traffic Facts 2007 Data, Rural/Urban Comparison - DOT HS 810 996.
9

3. CHALLENGES TO HRRRP IMPLEMENTATION 

In implementing the HRRRP States have experienced a 

number of challenges, most of which fit within four main 

categories:

1. Crash data collection, analysis and use

2. Project selection

3. Local agency issues

4. HRRRP administration and policies

3.1 Crash Data Collection, Analysis, and Use

HRRRP Requirements

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is based 

on data-driven decision making for safety investments. 

The HRRRP statutory requirements are similarly grounded, 

requiring that locations being considered for HRRRP 

funding qualify by having a severe crash rate (fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes) above the statewide 

average for routes of the same functional class. One 

requirement of the HRRRP language is the use of data 

normalized for exposure. This requirement has presented 

a hurdle to many States in identifying suitable locations 

for HRRRP investment.

A provision in the HRRRP language allows safety 

investments on rural roadways where it is expected that 

the severe crash rate will be above the statewide average 

in the future. However, decision makers often focus first 

on locations with a history of severe crashes. Although the 

reasons for addressing these locations first vary, the one 

most often given is limited available funding to address 

identified “hot spots.”

3.1.1 Determining Crash Rate

Three major elements are needed to meet the HRRRP 

requirement for determining severe crash rates on eligible 

routes: crash location, crash severity, and some element 

of exposure (e.g., traffic volume). All three elements have 

presented barriers to HRRRP implementation.

Crash Location

Locating traffic crashes at the site where they occurred, 

especially on the rural locally owned roadway system, can 

be challenging for States. Severe crash data elements (e.g., 

location, contributing circumstances) are usually available 

in most State databases; however, the exact location 

of crashes occurring on locally owned roads presents a 

problem for most States. Municipal and county roadways 

often do not have mile markings. Crashes are usually 

recorded between intersections or at street addresses. In 

rural areas intersections are far apart and property sizes 

are large, so the precision of this data is lacking. This lack 

of information makes safety improvement investment 

decisions more difficult.

Crash Severity

Crash severity, especially for fatal and incapacitating 

injury crashes, is often readily available for both State 

and locally owned roadways. However, the definition 

of incapacitating injury can vary by jurisdiction within 

a State. Often times the level of injury is not precisely 

defined, allowing for variance among law enforcement 

personnel in the field.

Additionally, there may not be follow-up with EMS and 

hospital personnel after leaving the scene of a crash to 

confirm injury severity.

Exposure Data

It is important for the transportation agency to normalize 

its crash data for exposure when selecting eligible 

locations for the HRRRP. Traffic volume, usually in terms of 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) or vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 

are the most commonly used exposure data. According 

to the May 2006 FHWA HRRRP guidance, other types of 

exposure data include lane miles, population, and the 

number of registered drivers in a region.

Collecting traffic counts can require a significant 

investment of resources. This data is generally collected 

routinely at the State level, but local agencies may not 

have the funds for equipment purchase or personnel 

to gather volume data on their roadway system. 

Without this information, crash rates for locally owned 

roadways cannot be calculated by volume, making rate 

comparisons more difficult.

Identifying eligible locations can be difficult for the 

practitioner. Even when the three data elements 

described are available, linking these elements to each 

other often poses additional challenges. Sometimes 
10

datasets are on different databases or use different 

referencing systems, and establishing connections among 

them can be difficult.

Another difficulty arises if the crash data to be used for 

decision making is not published in a timely fashion. A 

2007 HSIP research effort found that of those States 

studied, approximately one-third must wait more than 

9 months after the crash event before data becomes 

available. Lack of access to a comprehensive, timely 

dataset can present a challenge to the practitioner in 

performing data analysis in the location selection process

3.2 Project Selection

Selecting HRRRP projects can be a difficult task, 

particularly for States attempting to effectively distribute 

projects among jurisdictions with eligible roadways. 

Part of the challenge relates directly to crash data issues 

previously discussed. If a State lacks local crash data, 

the DOT may not have the information needed to make 

appropriate decisions on all eligible locations.

Limited or absent safety engineering expertise can 

present an obstacle to some jurisdictions. In order to 

identify eligible locations, analyze the problems, and 

choose appropriate countermeasures, some level of 

safety engineering expertise is required. Without specific 

training and experience, it may be difficult for agencies 

to effectively address rural road safety needs. This may be 

particularly difficult for local jurisdictions where often a 

transportation engineer is not on staff.

There are many issues associated with funding that 

directly affect the HRRRP project selection process. In 

particular: 

1. HRRRP funds are relatively low. However, many States attempt to 

distribute funds equitably and efficiently among jurisdictions, resulting 

in a need to set limits on the level of funding for eligible individual 

projects. The level of funding dictates the types of strategies that can 

be implemented to address the identified safety issues; however, these 

strategies may not be the most effective solutions.

2. The Federal requirement for matching funds from State and local agencies for some types of safety improvements directly impacts the types of 

projects selected. For example, a local public agency may have no funds 

available for a match; in that case the agency is limited to only those 

safety countermeasures that are 100 percent federally funded. Examples 

of 100 percent federally funded items include pavement marking, signing, and roundabouts, among others. A complete list can be found in 

Title 23 U.S. Code Section 120.

3.3 Local Agency Issues

From discussions with the States, the complication of 

funding local projects was noted as one of the most 

significant obstacles to implementing the HRRRP. These 

obstacles can be categorized in two main ways: 

1. The local agency perceives the Federal Aid process is too cumbersome for 

the relatively small amount of HRRRP funding available. 

2. The DOT has not historically invested in outreach to local agencies.

Local agencies (e.g., counties, municipalities, tribal 

entities) are often structured differently than the State 

DOT, usually with limited staff or staff time to focus 

on safety project implementation. Additionally, these 

agencies are often not familiar with working within 

the requirements of the State’s Federal Aid funding 

application process. Completing Federal Aid applications 

is usually not routine for local agencies; therefore a 

learning curve is usually involved, which can render 

the process a nuisance. Additionally, due to the large 

number of local jurisdictions within each State, there are 

numerous local agencies competing for the same pot of 

money. As at the State level, local politics can have some 

influence on transportation funding priorities within local 

agencies, councils of government, and regional planning 

organizations as well.

Only construction and 

operational projects are eligible 

for HRRRP funding. 

Data system improvement, 

enforcement, and education 

efforts are not eligible. The 

sample list of eligible projects is 

available in Appendix A.
11

3.3.1 Local Agency HRRRP Outreach

State DOTs have a mandated responsibility for oversight 

of local transportation entities when using Federal funds 

on specific projects, but in some cases the State struggles 

with this role. If communication and coordination 

between the municipal, county, or tribal agency and the 

DOT is not well established through outreach efforts, local 

agencies may have difficulty understanding the process 

by which HRRRP funds are acquired and used. Lack of 

understanding can lead to lack of interest, which may 

ultimately lead to reduced safety investment on locally 

owned and tribal roadways with significant needs.

3.4 Administration and Policies

Overall, HRRRP funding through the life of SAFETEA-LU 

is approximately 6 percent of the total HSIP. Some States 

struggle to invest resources in a new program with 

relatively limited available funds. 

Improving locally owned road safety must be supported 

by the DOT for significant safety investment to occur at 

the local level. An HRRRP with emphasis on locally owned 

system projects presents logistical and administrative 

challenges to some State DOTs.

Additionally, there are a few States with a relatively small 

number of eligible rural miles on which the HRRRP funds 

can be used. These States may not feel that the program 

warrants the investment of staff time. 

3.4.1 Processes for DOT Investment on Local 

Routes

Some State DOTs do not have the financial and 

administrative procedures in place to properly allocate 

HRRRP funds to municipal, regional, and county 

agencies. State contracting regulations and State-tolocal obligation authority can be hindrances. In some 

States, complications stem from State legislation that is 

difficult to modify. Unfamiliarity with the development of 

interagency agreements may slow the process, becoming 

a deterrent or leading to delays in HRRRP project 

implementation.

HRRRP fund matching requirements can also become a 

challenge to program implementation at the local level. 

In general, Federal safety funding requires a 10 percent 

match from State or local agencies. For projects selected 

on locally owned roads, the agency may be faced with a 

match requirement that exceeds its ability to participate 

financially.

States may struggle with management of projects 

administered by a local agency. Federal funds have stricter 

administrative requirements than State or local funds. 

These may include restrictions on sources of project 

materials, required worker wages, and project materials 

inspections and documentation. States may have to either 

provide the staffing to oversee the local project or train 

local staff on project administration.

3.4.2 Staffing State and Local Safety 

Programs

Staffing levels at the State and local levels have been 

declining in recent years. Fewer employees are available 

to address traffic safety needs and administer State and 

Federal program requirements. The HRRRP was introduced 

at a time when States may not have been able to 

adequately manage another program. States may choose 

not to participate due to staffing issues, and in some 

cases the State HRRRP may be staffed with personnel 

who are not experienced in Federal-aid or local agency 

coordination.

As the number of staff at the State level is reduced, 

services like crash data analysis and training at the local 

level, often provided by the State DOT, may be cut back or 

eliminated. Staffing shortages for project management at 

the local level may also prevent an agency from applying 

for funds. State agencies willing to train locals on HRRRP 

implementation may also find reluctance from the local 

agencies to invest the time to be educated due to staff 

shortages.
12

Despite the challenges faced by the States, some 

have developed noteworthy practices to support the 

implementation of their HRRRP. These noteworthy 

practices, processes, and resources fall into four main 

categories:

•	 Crash data collection, analysis and use

•	 Project selection

•	 Local agency coordination

•	 HRRRP administration and policies 

Each topic area is discussed below with a narrative 

overview followed by a brief description of select State 

practices. Some States’ website information is available in 

Appendix D. Additionally, State HRRRP contacts are listed 

in Appendix E.

4.1 Crash Data Collection, Analysis and Use

The statutory requirements of program implementation 

indicate a comparison must be made between severe 

crash rates (accident rate for fatalities and disabling 

injuries) on the potentially eligible rural roadway and a 

statewide average for roadways of a similar classification.

The FHWA HRRRP guidance recognizes that many 

States are not in a position to provide comparable crash 

rates for all roadways (i.e., State-maintained and locally 

maintained) throughout the State. Interim methods of 

problem identification are allowed. Section IV of the 

guidance states in part, “If a State does not currently have 

the capability of locating crashes on all public roadways, 

the State may adopt interim practices that utilize the best 

available data resources until a comprehensive statewide 

roadway and crash data system is implemented.” (See 

Appendix D for additional information regarding the 

HRRRP guidance).

The guidance suggests a number of other sources the 

States can use for exposure data in the absence of a 

comprehensive statewide crash and roadway data system. 

These include:

•	 Lane miles of roadway.

•	 Per capita data, including registered vehicles and/or licensed drivers.

•	 National data systems such as the Highway Performance Monitoring 

System and the FHWA’s Highway Statistics.

•	 Alternate analyses, including basic comparisons of State vs. local 

fatalities and incapacitating injuries.

•	 Projected growth patterns identified by Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations, city/county planning organizations, and growth 

management organizations. This can help identify roads likely to have an 

increase in fatalities and incapacitating injuries. 

4.1.1 Surrogate Exposure Data

In Missouri, lane miles are used as a surrogate for 

traffic volumes in calculating crash rates.

The Missouri DOT (MoDOT) did not have traffic volumes 

available for its local rural roadways. To handle exposure, 

the State analyzed crashes on eligible high risk rural roads 

by using lane miles as a surrogate for traffic volume. 

MoDOT filtered the entire system of roadways (State and 

local) by these criteria, and then selected final routes to 

develop a high risk rural roads candidate list. A detailed 

description of the Missouri data analysis process is 

included in Section 5.

New Jersey developed rates per mile, then compared 

them to the State average. 

To calculate crash rates for eligible rural roads for the 

HRRRP, New Jersey used centerline road miles. Fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes per centerline mile are 

available for most roadways. The New Jersey DOT decided 

to use this method of rate calculation to make crash rates 

comparable across all classifications of roadway in the 

State.

The process begins with categorizing all rural roads with 

similar characteristics (e.g., number of lanes, shoulder 

widths, functional classification, and posted speed limit). 

Rates are then calculated for each individual segment 

by severe crashes per 

centerline mile. These 

are compared to the 

State average for that 

particular roadway 

type. If the rate is above 

the State average, it is 

flagged as an HRRRP 

candidate segment.

4. STATE PRACTICES FOR HRRRP IMPLEMENTATION

Roadways are 

categorized 

based on 

characteristics 

like shoulder 

width and speed 

limit.
13

Colorado DOT compares segments statewide to 

determine HRRRP candidates.

The location identification process in Colorado evaluates 

highway spots and segments against all other similar 

locations in the State. Colorado DOT (CDOT) analyzes the 

entire State crash database and gives values to segments 

based on crash history, factoring in lane mileage as 

the exposure component. Segments above a certain 

prioritization value (using CDOT’s Weighted Hazard Index) 

and on qualifying roadways are candidates for the HRRRP. 

A secondary analysis filters for spot and intersection 

candidates, and the resulting locations are submitted to 

the CDOT regions for review.

Purdue University assists Indiana with rate 

calculations and GIS research. 

To determine crash rates for local rural roadways, an 

interim measure of crashes per rural lane mile is being 

used. In addition, GIS layers of roadway crash and location 

information are being developed for all HRRRP-qualifying 

locally owned roadways to improve crash data analysis.

Virginia focused its HRRRP on rural intersections.

About half of all Virginia crashes occur at intersections, 

leading Virginia DOT (VDOT) to focus its HRRRP efforts on 

rural intersections with a history of fatal and incapacitating 

injury crashes. VDOT uses a statewide intersection crash 

rate to compare with rural intersection crash rates on 

major and minor collectors and rural local roadways. A 

ranked list of these intersections is developed and the top 

tier of these is targeted for Roadway Safety Assessments 

(RSAs) and HRRRP projects

4.1.2 Traffic Volume Estimating

Florida uses a model to estimate traffic volume 

on locally owned roads.

Florida DOT (FDOT) keeps a database of fatal and 

incapacitating injury crashes on all public roads as well 

as the roadways’ features. Traffic volume information is 

used in determining crash rates on State routes. Roadways 

not maintained by the State use volume information 

developed through the combination of a research effort 

and the use of the Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) sites from the FDOT Transportation 

Statistics Office. Volume estimates are based on known or 

accepted AADT values on neighboring State and locally 

owned roadways, population densities, and other socioeconomic data.

Linear referencing is accomplished with GIS data and is 

used to complete analysis with geo-located crash data. A 

detailed description of this process is available in Section 5.

4.1.3 Traffic Volume Collection

Local agencies in Texas collect traffic volume on 

high-crash roadways.

The Texas DOT includes locally owned roadways for 

consideration in the HRRRP, but struggles with crash rate 

data due to a lack of traffic volume counts on locally 

owned roads. On rural municipal and county roadways 

where fatal and incapacitating injury crashes are occurring 

above a certain threshold, the DOT asks local agencies to 

gather volume data for those roads only. A crash rate can 

then be developed that allows equal comparison with 

State-owned, qualifying HRRRP routes.

4.1.4 University Support

Michigan DOT and a local university provide 

analysis tools to localities.

The Michigan DOT asks local agencies to submit their 

current roadway traffic volumes, classification, and 

appropriate crash data information to support HRRRP 

projects. The DOT provides free software to local agencies 

requesting it. RoadSoft was developed by Michigan 

Technological University’s LTAP Center with DOT 

sponsorship. The RoadSoft organization provides tools 

and training to augment local agency efforts. Ten years 

of crash data and crash report images are also provided 

to the local agency to support problem identification as 

a foundation for HRRRP project submittals. The Michigan 

DOT provides a review of project submittals on request.
14

4.2 Project Selection

The selection of HRRRP projects has similarities to other 

project selection processes, but is also different due to 

the program’s strict selection criteria regarding roadway 

classification and history of crashes. Procedures for HRRRP 

project selection vary from State to State. In some States 

the DOT has control over the selection process. The DOT 

will collect data, complete the analysis, and make project 

selection decisions without local participation. In other 

States, roadway owners from the county and municipal 

level as well as other stakeholders are included on a 

selection committee.

The research shows that project selection is a twopronged process that first considers road ownership and 

then establishes what criteria will be used to select the 

final project.

The following three scenarios were evident where road 

ownership was a focus.

1. Needs on the rural State-owned system far outstrip available HRRRP 

funding, and investments at the State level could result in more lives 

saved, so no funds are spent on the locally owned system; for example, 

Missouri. 

2. Federal transportation funding is rarely used for significant projects on 

the local system, especially for safety improvements. The decision is 

made that all HRRRP funds will be spent only on qualifying locally owned 

roads. Examples include Alabama and Washington.

3. Qualifying locally owned roads will compete with State routes for HRRRP 

funding based on objective data analysis and project benefit-cost calculations; for example, Colorado.

A number of States have found innovative ways to make 

HRRRP project selection decisions. Three are highlighted 

below and discussed in the following pages.

1. Some States have aligned project selection to match existing Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) strategies and traffic safety emphasis areas. 

Tying HRRRP directly to the SHSP provides synergy for both initiatives.

2. In some States, the DOT has provided data to local agencies and given 

locals the authority to select projects based on their own priorities. 

This provides local government partners a significant incentive to get 

involved in the program.

3. States have given priority to local-level HRRRP projects that shows a tie 

to other State safety programs. Examples include incentives for Road 

Safety Audit efforts and for linking HRRRP projects to the State’s existing 

Transparency Report.

4.2.1 Tie to Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP)

Iowa DOT focused on low-cost, system-wide 

solutions.

The Iowa DOT made 

the decision early in the 

HRRRP process to connect 

the HRRRP to the State’s 

SHSP roadway departure 

emphasis area. The State 

invests in system-wide, 

local sign improvements on 

qualifying routes that could be implemented immediately 

to ensure rapid and effective deployment of available 

program funds. Currently, project selection is based 

on a priority system analyzing crash densities per mile, 

crash rates by traffic volume, and a benefit-cost ratio 

with counties being the only local agencies competing 

for funds. Projects have a maximum limit of $500,000 of 

HRRRP funds; each jurisdiction is limited to implementing 

one project per year. Iowa’s application for HRRRP funding 

can be found in Appendix G.

Nevada DOT’s strategies are tied directly to SHSP.

HRRRP roadway safety investment strategies in Nevada 

are based on the State’s lane departure Critical Emphasis 

Area (CEA) from the SHSP. Crash data analysis for 

HRRRP qualifying roadways is analyzed to identify lane 

departure crashes, and the list is further narrowed through 

countermeasure analysis to determine those projects with 

the best benefit-cost ratios.

4.2.2 Local Road Focus

Illinois utilizes HRRRP funds exclusively on locally 

owned roads.

The Illinois DOT (IDOT) directs all HRRRP funding to rural 

local agencies using a two-pronged approach for project 

selection.

1. IDOT solicits safety improvement projects from local agencies based on 

local knowledge of safety needs, and then ranks the proposed projects by 

benefit/cost ratio.

2. IDOT also looks at statewide trends and systematic solutions to address 

those crash types. They approach the local agency with this information 

and offer assistance with Road Safety Assessments, technical assistance, 

and safety funding.

The HRRRP 

connects to the 

SHSP roadway 

departure 

emphasis area.
15

4.2.3 Committee Selection Process

New Jersey developed a joint State/local 

committee to select projects.

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA), 

an MPO, solicits projects from local agencies in its region. 

Submitted projects are reviewed and prioritized by a 

technical review committee consisting of the New Jersey 

Department of Transportation (NJDOT), NJTPA, FHWA and 

local agencies. Each application is reviewed and graded 

on the safety need, construction readiness, and cost. After 

approval is granted, applicants work directly with NJDOT 

officials to fulfill Federal authorization requirements. 

Details are available in the New Jersey case study in 

Section 5.

Oregon steering committee selects HRRRP 

projects.

Most HRRRP safety investments in Oregon target 

qualifying county roadways. After all submitted project 

requests are screened for eligibility, the HRRRP Steering 

Committee considers combining similar projects 

regionally or statewide. Qualifying roadways with ADTs 

less than or equal to 400 are given special consideration.

4.2.4 Benefit-Cost Ratio

Washington solicits projects from locals and 

prioritizes them by benefit-cost ratio.

The Washington State DOT developed a crash analysis 

methodology for all roads within the State and identified 

priority crash “zones” for these roadways. Local agencies 

are eligible for funding if there is at least one qualifying 

zone within their jurisdiction. Qualifying zones must suffer 

four fatal or incapacitating injury crashes in 5 years, each 

within 1 mile. Local agencies propose projects which 

are then prioritized by benefit-cost using crash history 

and accepted crash reduction factors for proposed 

countermeasures.

In Colorado project proposals must meet a 

minimum benefit-cost ratio.

HRRRP projects are solicited from local authorities 

through the MPOs; the Special Highway Committee of 

the Colorado Counties, Inc.; and the Colorado Municipal 

League. These candidate improvement projects are 

selected for locations identified using the locals’ own 

high hazard location identification system. Submitted 

projects are required to meet minimum benefit-cost 

values established by the Colorado DOT (CDOT). Project 

applications received by the CDOT Safety and Traffic 

Engineering Office are given to the CDOT region offices 

for comments, evaluation, and approval, since the regions 

have close connections to the local agencies involved.

4.2.5 Local Agency Selection

Maine solicits local agency input to choose 

locations and countermeasures.

Maine’s project selection begins with data analysis by the 

State DOT staff to identify problem spots and sections 

of eligible roadways. Maine DOT then completes a field 

evaluation to confirm the data at each candidate spot 

or section. Once municipal and county roadway project 

candidates are filtered in this way, local agency input is 

sought to provide a local perspective on countermeasure 

selection. Final project selection is influenced by benefitcost calculations, but other factors (e.g., degree of local 

agency interest) are used as well.

Mississippi gives priority to counties utilizing a 

Safety Circuit Rider.

Mississippi has agreed to fund all projects on qualifying 

roadways identified by counties participating in the 

Safety Circuit Rider program – an effort involving a safetyfocused staff member providing assistance across the 

State. These projects may not be at the top of a statewide 

HRRRP prioritized list if crash data alone is considered, but 

they are the top problem locations within those counties 

participating in that program. This serves as an incentive 

for local agency participation in the Safety Circuit Rider 

program and can be used to encourage local political 

support for the program.

Montana promotes RSA connection to HRRRP 

project through incentives.

Local coordination for the HRRRP is through the 

solicitation process for projects. The statewide public 

involvement and planning process and interaction at 

conferences and meetings also provide opportunities 

for agency coordination on HRRRP issues. Montana DOT 

solicits nominations for safety projects directly from the 

counties for qualifying local system roadways. Locations 

of concern are identified by enforcement, local agencies, 

and traffic studies. Montana provides a funding incentive 

to local agencies that identify HRRRP-eligible projects 

through Roadway Safety Audits.

Michigan provides funding incentives for 

Transparency Report locations.

The Michigan DOT directs local agencies to a web site 

with fatal and incapacitating injury crash maps on the 

local system. Local agencies are given the option to select 

eligible roads and segments up to 8 miles in length. In 

Michigan, funding incentives are given to local agencies 

that choose to address locations listed on the DOT 

Transparency Report. Michigan DOT’s solicitation letter of 

HRRRP projects from locals can be found in Appendix H.
16

4.3 Local Agency Coordination

Given that the majority of HRRRP-eligible roadways in 

most States are found on the locally owned road system, 

it is imperative to have or establish a mechanism for 

outreach between the local agencies and the State DOT 

so that local agencies can engage in the HRRRP process. 

State practice related to coordination with local agencies 

has taken the form of providing support to local 

government agencies’ staffs as they learn about the 

HRRRP and consider participation. HRRRP-specific training 

and technical workshops in low-cost safety improvements 

and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

processes also support HRRRP efforts.

Other strategies include special coordinators at the 

district and local level, websites with helpful HRRRPrelated information for locals, and use of LTAP centers 

to support coordination efforts between State and local 

governments

4.3.1 State DOT Support

Alabama trained county engineers in data 

analysis and low-cost safety improvements.

Alabama dedicates all HRRRP funding to qualifying 

municipal and county roadways. In the first year Alabama 

divided available HRRRP funds equally among the State’s 

67 counties as they developed a specific procedure. In 

coordination with relevant stakeholders, including local 

agency representatives, ALDOT developed a process 

requiring county engineers to participate in data analysis 

and low-cost safety improvement training to qualify for 

funding.

Illinois holds HRRRP-focused workshops.

The Illinois DOT has representatives who attend quarterly 

meetings of the Illinois Association of County Engineers 

Traffic Safety Committee and the Illinois Municipal League 

Public Works Committee. These meetings prove invaluable 

in considering the local perspective on safety projects and 

in helping to guide policy to achieve mutual goals.

Each year Illinois DOT prepares a Circular Letter to solicit 

local agencies for candidate HRRRP projects. The letter 

is followed by multiple workshops around the State 

that include information on funding, the application 

process, and methods for identifying safety improvement 

opportunities and selecting appropriate safety treatments. 

Workshops have included presenters and attendees from 

engineering and enforcement agencies.

In addition, IDOT, FHWA, and local experts have 

cooperated to promote the HRRRP. Efforts have included 

Road Safety Assessments, visits to local agencies, 

and technical support for a benefit-cost spreadsheet 

application to analyze the cost effectiveness of potential 

projects.

Ohio DOT provides training.

Ohio DOT (ODOT) staff deliver safety-related presentations 

around the State, including an HRRRP component. ODOT 

makes discussion of the HRRRP a priority at quarterly 

district safety meetings, opening the floor to local 

agencies and ODOT management. ODOT created a 

website to support the HRRR program and to help staff 

and local governments learn about its requirements. It 

includes links to maps and other tools that identify eligible 

HRRR locations based on functional class and crash rates.

ODOT also uses the Ohio Township Association and 

Ohio Municipal League to engage local agencies in the 

HRRRP process. In addition, training is provided to District 

personnel and consultants through ODOT. These outreach 

activities have resulted in an increase in the number of 

local system applications for HRRRP funds.

Minnesota’s mobile forum shares HRRRP 

information with county engineers.

Minnesota has developed a mobile forum to educate local 

agencies and help them gain knowledge of the HRRRP 

process. The forum travels around the State, speaking 

mainly to county engineers—transportation partners 

who have a strong association with the State. To further 

assist the local agencies with HRRRP implementation, the 

Minnesota State Aid for Local Transportation Office holds 

meetings to discuss the program and provides HRRRPrelated resources on its web site. Local agencies can 

access the Center for Excellence in Rural Safety web site 

for additional information.
17

California developed a web site to support HRRRP 

for the locals.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

developed a web site that provides information on 

eligible roadway definitions, the application process, and 

funding guidelines to local agencies. The web site also 

contains a link to a roadway classification map to assist 

local agencies in determining eligible roadways. All city 

and county public works departments are notified by 

email when a call for projects is announced. The local 

agencies are directed to the HRRRP web site and are given 

3 months to complete an application. Caltrans calculates 

the Safety Index for all eligible projects, prioritizes 

them from high to low, and then funds projects up to 

California’s HRRRP apportionment.

Colorado DOT meets regularly with local agencies 

to discuss HRRRP.

As a commitment to HRRRP implementation, Colorado 

DOT State traffic, regional, and headquarters engineers 

and their staffs have frequent conversations and regularly 

scheduled meetings with local agencies concerning the 

HRRRP and other local concerns. Eligible locations are 

reviewed with local agencies and possible mitigation 

measures are discussed to find candidate projects for 

this program. In addition, each of the six regions within 

the State has a safety coordinator who solicits potential 

projects from locals.

Georgia DOT’s special coordinators navigate 

locals through the HRRRP process.

Georgia DOT has special coordinators for the HRRRP. 

These coordinators assist the local agencies in location 

identification, project selection, and navigating the 

application process. These coordinators have significant 

experience in letting projects, helping projects move to 

implementation quickly.

Iowa focuses on local safety needs by supporting 

a University position.

There is significant State support for the HRRRP in Iowa. 

State safety and NHTSA crash data program funds are 

used to fund a position with local agency emphasis 

at Iowa State University’s Institute for Transportation 

(InTrans). The purpose is to focus specifically on local 

system crash data, the HRRRP, development of crash 

analysis tools for local use, and development and 

maintenance of an internet application site.

4.3.2 LTAP Support

Wisconsin coordinates HRRRP through LTAP 

Circuit Riders.

The Wisconsin DOT involves locals in the HRRRP through 

its LTAP Circuit Rider program. These traveling safety 

experts coordinate the HRRRP at the local level. In 

addition to the LTAP Circuit Riders, the DOT employs 

local agency coordinators in each region to provide local 

transportation discussions of the HRRRP.

Wyoming LTAP assists counties in needs 

identification.

WYDOT is utilizing 

the University of 

Wyoming LTAP 

center to assist with 

coordination and 

communication 

with counties and 

municipalities. 

The LTAP center assisted WYDOT in development of a 

Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program (WRRSP) through 

research and pilot implementation. The WRRSP assists 

the counties in identifying their roadway safety needs. 

Detailed information regarding Wyoming’s local agency 

involvement process can be found in Appendix I.

4.3.3 Locals Helping Locals

Illinois DOT utilizes county engineers to liaise 

with smaller units of government.

The Illinois DOT established regional District offices 

with a Bureau of Local Roads and Streets that oversees 

implementation of federally funded projects. County 

engineers are familiar with the Federal process. These 

local engineers are then used as liaisons to townships or 

smaller municipalities to develop HRRRP projects on the 

local system.

The Wyoming 

Rural Road Safety 

Program was 

developed through 

research and pilot 

implementation.
18

4.4 Administration and Policies

In order to overcome the administrative complexities of 

the HRRRP, States have developed innovative contracting 

strategies to utilize funding quickly and efficiently. The use 

of public forces for labor and bulk materials purchases has 

allowed States to effectively “multiply” the HRRRP funds. 

On-call contracts have decreased the amount of time that 

elapses between project selection and completion.

Some States have augmented DOT staffing with outside 

resources for HRRRP data analysis, problem identification, 

project selection, and administration.

4.4.1 Leveraging Resources with Innovative 

Contracting

Missouri DOT combined Federal and State funds 

to stretch HRRRP dollars.

The Missouri DOT found an innovative way to leverage 

HRRRP funds to maximize the safety benefit on rural 

roadways. Since the main elements of the roadway 

construction project are labor, equipment, and materials, 

the DOT distributed responsibility for those items in three 

distinct directions for a system-wide signing project: 

1. HRRRP funds were used to purchase sign posts.

2. MoDOT’s Headquarters used State funds to produce chevrons in their 

in-house Sign Production Center.

3. MoDOT maintenance staff at the district level installed the signs. 

This cooperation resulted in the completion of significant 

safety treatments at a fraction of the typical cost. 

MoDOT’s letter requesting a finding in the public interest 

to leverage these funds can be found in Appendix J.

Ohio used existing on-call contracts to implement improvements quickly.

Ohio DOT developed a funding agreement allowing the 

agency to implement low-cost safety improvements 

quickly. In 2007, ODOT received FHWA approval (through 

a Public Interest Finding) to use HRRRP funding on existing materials contracts. The materials are installed at eligible locations using ODOT labor. The agreement also 

allows ODOT to use HRRRP funding on existing electrical, 

guardrail, sign, pavement, and shoulder contracts where a 

contractor has been hired for on-call improvements that 

cannot be done by ODOT forces. All contracts are competitively bid and meet FHWA procurement standards.

4.4.2 Consultant Program Management

Utah hires consultants to manage HRRRP.

The Utah DOT outsources management of the HRRRP 

(utilizing HSIP funds) to consultants experienced in local 

agency crash problems, countermeasure identification, 

and project management. Utah uses its HRRRP funds on 

locally owned roads only. 

The Utah DOT developed a strategy for safety investments 

after the introduction of the HRRRP. The DOT provides 

the crash data for counties with a population of 50,000 or 

less and the consultant manages the rest of the process. 

The consultant discusses which sites to improve with 

locals, develops construction plans, oversees project 

management, and assists with final inspection. To date, 

eight counties have completed system-wide signing 

improvements with nearly 2,000 signs installed.
19

Florida DOT

All-Roadway Crash Rate Development

Description

In 2006, in order to meet the High Risk Rural Road 

Program (HRRRP) requirements to determine rural 

project crash rate eligibility, the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) developed the data requirements 

needed to define the crash rates per million vehicle miles 

traveled. The project was funded with Section 408 grant 

funds from 2006 thru 2009.

In 2008 FDOT completed crash rate analyses for both 

State-maintained and locally maintained roads. The 

analyses were completed by developing a linear 

referencing system for locally owned roads, geo-locating 

all crashes, defining rural facility types, establishing AADT, 

and developing a process to conduct crash analyses for 

locally owned road segments and intersections.

The process of developing a linear referencing system 

required the use of third party-developed maps for line 

work on locally owned roads, developing edit processes 

to define roadway segments, and manually validating the 

linear referencing system. Nearly 93,000 miles of locally 

owned roads in Florida required new linear referencing.

The process of geo-locating all crashes involved a batch 

process where crashes were initially determined to be on 

locally owned roads. Crashes were then located using an 

in-house tool to assist technicians in geo-locating crashes. 

Since 2006 nearly 400,000 crashes have been located on 

locally maintained roads.

Establishing AADT data for locally owned roads was 

accomplished through the combined efforts of a 

research project and the use of the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS) sites from the FDOT 

Transportation Statistics Office.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Estimated traffic volume data is available for locally

owned roads in Florida.

•	 Crash rates are established for all roads in the State.

•	 State and locally owned roads can be analyzed

together as a single system.

Results

Currently, FDOT updates the data on an annual schedule. 

As data update processes become more refined, a more 

frequent update will be scheduled and the data may be 

used to conduct on-demand analyses. FDOT anticipates 

using HSIP funds to maintain and update both the data 

and analysis applications to further meet the analysis 

requirements for the HRRRP.

Contact

Joseph Santos

Transportation Safety Engineer

Florida Department of Transportation

(850) 245-1502

joseph.santos@dot.state.fl.us

5. STATE CASE STUDIES: FLORIDA
20

Minnesota DOT

Centralized Management

Description

Minnesota’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), 

which includes HRRRP, has evolved over the last 3 years.

Minnesota’s project selection for safety projects was 

historically a decentralized process. Districts selected 

projects for their Area Transportation Improvement 

Program (ATIP). Except for the Metro District (Minneapolis/

St. Paul), local agencies had limited ability to use Federal 

safety funds for stand-alone safety projects, even though 

almost half of the fatalities in Minnesota occur on locally 

owned roads.

During FY 2008, project selection became centralized. A 

combined solicitation was developed for the selection of 

local and State projects. Only stand-alone safety projects 

were considered. The 2007 Minnesota Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) was the main guidance for project 

selection and evaluation.

HRRRP funding will total approximately $1.5 million per 

year for Minnesota and will be distributed to the State’s 

ATPs proportionally by frequency of fatal and serious 

injury crashes.

Mn/DOT’s Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology (OTST) 

has developed a listing of eligible county and State rural 

major and minor collectors and rural local roads based on 

crash data. Though some State-maintained roadways are 

considered eligible, the Office made a conscious decision 

to allow HRRRP projects only on locally owned roads.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Fifty percent of all HSIP and 100 percent of all HRRRP

funds are set aside for local entities.

• 	 Centralized management of the HRRRP program

allows for effective and consistent projects.

•	 Local entities are better able to identify safety	

projects on eligible roadways.

•	 Road Safety Plans allow local agencies to focus on

projects that will reduce fatalities on their roadway

systems.

Results

Local agencies in Minnesota are now programming 

stand-alone safety projects. Twenty-one such projects 

were identified and selected for funding for a total of $4.5 

million. These are the first projects that will utilize this 

funding category. Additional projects have been through 

a second solicitation for FY 2011-2012. Final approvals are 

in process.

Local entities will be developing Road Safety Plans which 

are designed to prioritize low-cost safety improvements 

for each jurisdiction. These identified projects will receive 

priority for future funding solicitations.

Contact

David Engstrom

State Traffic Safety Engineer

Minnesota Department of Transportation

(651) 634-5100

david.engstrom@dot.state.mn.us

STATE CASE STUDIES: MINNESOTA
21

Missouri DOT

System-wide Safety Improvements

Description

Since Missouri’s locally owned roads had solid crash data 

but lacked traffic volume information, MoDOT decided to 

rank its HRRRP roads based on severe crashes occurring 

per mile of roadway on both the State-maintained and 

locally maintained routes. Since Missouri maintains 

32,000 miles of road, and over 75 percent of fatalities 

occur on the State system, it was not surprising that no 

locally owned roads rose to the top in this initial crash 

data analysis. As a result of the State’s findings, Missouri 

focused on system-wide improvements on its State 

system rather than funding improvements to locally 

owned roads.

The study led to an initial set of 137 routes, deemed 

Missouri’s “High Risk Rural Road System.” 

Due to limited HRRRP funds, Missouri searched for ways 

to stretch the funding to increase its effectiveness. 

One strategy combined Federal and State resources 

to complete the first round of HRRRP projects. FHWA 

provided HRRRP funds to purchase signposts for chevron 

sign installations around curves. MoDOT’s Central Office 

provided chevrons from their Sign Production Center and 

MoDOT districts offered their maintenance personnel to 

install the signs. This cooperation resulted in a significant 

reduction in project cost.

Missouri’s system-wide safety philosophy has proved 

effective at reducing severe crashes, particularly those 

involving roadway departure. The next step for Missouri 

was expanding the HRRRP system from the original 

137 roadways to the entire system of eligible routes. By 

including additional roads, the State is able to address 

more potential severe crashes with low-cost, system-wide 

countermeasures.

Missouri DOT’s previous standard for edgeline striping 

required a roadway to carry 1,000 vehicles per day. 

Based on recent research, MoDOT believed lowering this 

threshold would be beneficial. The agency lowered the 

traffic volume requirement to 400 ADT, adding nearly 

6,000 miles of roadway to the State system of roadways 

with edgeline striping. Since a significant portion of this 

mileage (88 percent) is eligible for HRRRP funds, MoDOT is 

utilizing HRRRP funds for eligible routes. For consistency, 

the State is using its own operational funds to add 

edgeline pavement markings to routes not meeting the 

HRRRP eligibility criteria.

Results

Missouri has leveraged its small amount of HRRRP funding 

to make a big difference. By the end of 2011, more than 

5,000 miles of Missouri’s rural highways will have HRRRPfunded safety improvements. At the same time, Missouri’s 

statewide fatalities continue to decrease, from 1,257 in 

2005 to 960 in 2008.

Key Accomplishments

•	 MoDOT forces were used to leverage funds.

•	 HRRRP funds were used as seed money for edge

markings on 5,300 miles of rural road.

•	 Missouri is on track to spend 100 percent of the

available HRRRP funds.

Contact

John P. Miller

Traffic Safety Engineer

Missouri Department of Transportation

(573) 526-1759

John.P.Miller@modot.mo.gov

Signs installed with mixed funding

STATE CASE STUDIES: MISSOURI
22

Iowa DOT 

Working with Local Agencies

Description

The Iowa DOT administers the HRRRP through its 

Office of Local Systems. The office has staff dedicated 

to administering county and city Federal-aid projects. 

Local projects are administered by the Secondary Roads 

Engineer, who is assisted by technical staff. This single 

point of contact for local agencies has provided a strong 

communication link to assist the local agencies with the 

administration of their Federal-aid highway and bridge 

projects. Local Systems has an extensive web site that 

provides guidance documents for all the aspects of 

Federal-aid project administration.

For the HRRRP, the Office of Local Systems collaborates 

closely with the State DOT’s Office of Traffic Safety and 

Office of Transportation Data in furnishing crash and 

traffic data on all of Iowa’s roads. The DOT also partners 

with Iowa State University’s Institute for Transportation 

(InTrans). InTrans has provided technical expertise to 

develop crash location maps for all counties in Iowa, 

including qualifying HRRRP routes. Counties can annually 

submit applications for up to $500,000 in HRRRP funds for 

site-specific or corridor safety improvements.

To further assist counties with selection of HRRRP 

candidates and to determine appropriate safety 

mitigation, the Iowa DOT Office of Traffic Safety has 

partnered with InTrans at Iowa State to create a part-time 

safety liaison engineer. The position is currently staffed by 

a retired county engineer with extensive experience in 

rural road safety issues. He has been visiting all of Iowa’s 

county engineering offices to assist in their review of 

qualifying HRRRP roads and to keep them informed of 

available safety training provided annually at no cost to 

the counties.

Key Accomplishments

•	 Iowa DOT developed a single point of contact for

local agency assistance.

•	 The agency compiled crash and traffic volume data

into maps to assist counties in selecting project	

locations.

•	 Iowa DOT created a local agency safety liaison	

position at InTrans to assist with project and	

countermeasure selection.

Results

This activity has resulted in funded projects that involve 

shoulder widening on routes with above-average rates 

for Single Vehicle Run-Off Road crashes, intersection 

reconstruction to improve approach angles and site 

distance, and horizontal curve reconstruction to improve 

driver expectancy. A project has been initiated to replace 

four-way intersections with serious intersection-related 

crashes with roundabouts.

Contacts

LeRoy Bergmann

Secondary Roads Engineer

Iowa Department of Transportation

(515) 239-1506

leroy.bergmann@dot.iowa.gov 

Rod Halverson

Design Tech Specialist

Iowa Department of Transportation

(515) 239-1147

rod.halverson@dot.iowa.gov

STATE CASE STUDIES: IOWA
23

Illinois DOT & Williamson County

Road Safety Assessments (RSAs)

Description

With 63 percent of all public highway miles on rural, 

locally owned systems, and with 23 percent of crash 

fatalities on these systems, Illinois realized the value of and 

difficulty in making investments to address these safety 

needs.

In early 2006, Illinois DOT (IDOT) conducted one of its first 

Road Safety Assessments (RSAs) on South Market Street 

in Williamson County. This RSA resulted in identification 

of risks related to roadway departure crashes and 

support of an HRRR safety improvement project. The 

project included 2-ft. paved shoulders, shoulder rumble 

strips, chevrons, strategic tree removal, fixed object 

modifications, and roadside hardware improvements. The 

total cost for the project on this 4.4-mile roadway was 

$867,000.

Cooperation between State and local agencies in the 

State and across disciplines supports this work. With 

the new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 

funding and emphasis on locally owned roads with the 

HRRRP, Williamson County was an early example of a local 

agency that sought out new ideas for implementation.

Williamson County had a history of strong safety law 

enforcement efforts, evidenced by increasingly aggressive 

measures to enforce DUI laws in their region. But fatalities 

in the County were not declining. The County Engineer 

and Sheriff worked jointly with Illinois DOT to implement 

innovative traffic safety countermeasures

Key Accomplishments

•	 A partnership between State DOT and County led to

the implementation of safety countermeasures.

•	 The County’s Engineering and Enforcement

leadership joined together to complete Road Safety

Assessments (RSAs) on HRRRP-eligible roadways.

Results

In the 5 years prior to the improvements, South Market 

Street experienced 31 roadway departure crashes 

(including 16 injury and 3 fatal crashes). In the 2 years 

after the improvements, there have been 12 roadway 

departure crashes, only 1 injury crash, and 1 fatal crash.

Contact

Priscilla Tobias

State Safety Engineer

Illinois Department of Transportation

(217) 782-3568

priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov

South Market Street before improvements

South Market Street after improvements

STATE CASE STUDIES: ILLINOIS
24

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority:

MPO-led HRRRP 

Description

The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

(NJTPA) leads the annual solicitation of HRRRP projects in 

close coordination with the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) for 13 counties in northern New 

Jersey.

HRRRP safety projects are implemented on eligible rural 

roads across a diverse landscape in the northern and 

central areas of the State. Of the slightly more than 3,800 

centerline roadway miles classified as rural, approximately 

636 miles are eligible segments – primarily located on 

locally owned roadways. These segments were identified 

using Plan4Safety, a GIS-based crash data analysis tool, 

developed by the Transportation Safety Resource Center 

at Rutgers University. Lists and maps of eligible segments 

were made available as part of the HRRRP solicitation 

package. In order to qualify for potential funding, projects 

must meet the following criteria:

•	 Safety need. Improvements must address a proven safety need in the 

region supported by clear, timely, data-driven evidence.

•	 Construction ready. Projects must be completed within 2 years of Federal 

authorization date.

•	 Low cost. With only $1 million allocated in the NJTPA TIP each year to 

support this effort, these limited funds must be utilized very carefully. 

Although projects between $75,000 and $500,000 can be considered for 

funding, typical projects average in the $100,000 - $250,000 range.

•	 Existing right-of-way. Due to stringent environmental laws and high 

property costs, most HRRRP projects are limited to work completed 

within the existing limits of the pavement (e.g., striping, signing, skid 

resistance treatments, lighting, and beacons).

A technical review committee consisting of NJDOT and 

NJTPA engineers and planners determines proposal 

eligibility and evaluates those eligible proposals on a 

competitive basis. Each application is reviewed and 

graded on several different criteria, including the 

requirements listed above, as well as potential for safety 

benefit. The committee then recommends projects for 

funding approval by the NJTPA Board of Trustees.

After approval is granted, applicants work directly with 

NJDOT staff to fulfill Federal authorization requirements. 

NJDOT leads the authorization process, and NJTPA 

maintains a monitoring and facilitation role. Additionally, 

the project sponsor is instructed to keep detailed before/

after crash records at the project location.

Key Accomplishments

•	 The MPO effectively leads the HRRRP solicitation.

•	 The MPO works closely with the State Department

of Transportation on HRRRP project selection and

administration.

•	 Projects include skid resistant surface treatments,

guardrail improvements, signing, and striping to

improve safety on curves.

Results

New Jersey has leveraged its HRRRP funding through 

NJTPA and the other two MPOs that cover the State as an 

effective liaison to local governments. To date, over $1.4 

million in HRRRP funding has been allocated to improve 

safety on northern New Jersey’s rural roads in the NJTPA 

region.

Contact

Jeffrey Vernick

Manager, Corridor Studies and Project Planning

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

(973) 639.8429

jvernick@njtpa.org

New Jersey rural road

STATE CASE STUDIES: NEW JERSEY
25

Although some States still struggle with the HRRRP, 

tremendous progress has been made. The obligation 

rate has steadily increased over the life of the program. 

However, obligation rate alone should not be used as a 

ruler to measure the success of this program. The research 

has shown that many States with low obligation rates have 

developed practices in data collection and analysis, project 

selection, program coordination, and training that will 

ensure successful implementation of the program. 

The HRRRP was developed to help States implement 

solutions on locally owned roadways, a segment of the 

system often overlooked. States have been faced with 

a number of barriers to implementation. These include 

the collection, analysis, and identification of crash and 

exposure data; the intricacies involved in determining 

suitable projects for the program; and the complexities 

associated with the coordination of different levels of 

government and other stakeholders.

However, some States have worked through these 

road blocks and others continue to work towards full 

implementation of the HRRRP. States have discovered 

innovative ways to collect, analyze, and use the data to 

support HRRRP implementation. For example, Missouri 

and New Jersey are among the States that identify 

HRRRP-eligible routes using lane miles as an exposure data 

element to calculate crash rates, and Florida uses data from 

similar routes, neighboring counties, population densities, 

and other socio-economic data to develop estimated 

traffic volumes for all roads.

When selecting projects for the HRRRP, the number of 

stakeholders involved varies from State to State. In New 

Jersey, the MPOs play an integral role in the initial project 

selection process and local agency coordination. Iowa, 

Nevada, and Minnesota are among the States that tie 

HRRRP projects directly to their Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan (SHSP) emphasis areas and strategies. 

In Montana and Michigan the State DOT provides 

incentives for project proposals tied to other State safety 

programs, like Road Safety Audits or Transparency Reports.

6. SUMMARY 

Rural traffic fatalities are a significant issue that must be addressed at the 

Federal, State, and local level. Thousands of lives are lost each year, and many 

potential deaths can be prevented with traffic safety solutions.

Direct and/or indirect support to local government 

by the DOT and others is invaluable to the successful 

implementation of the HRRRP. Many States have provided 

HRRRP hands-on training and technical assistance to local 

agencies through the DOT or LTAP centers. California and 

Ohio, among others, have developed web sites dedicated 

to the HRRRP – including its rules, data collection, and 

analysis tools – and a project submission portal.

Some States are developing noteworthy strategies to 

optimize the use of available HRRRP funds. For example, 

Missouri combined Federal and State funds, and used 

State DOT personnel to provide labor, to cost-effectively 

implement a HRRRP system-wide warning sign installation 

effort. Ohio used existing on-call contracts to quickly 

implement improvements.

The HRRRP has brought attention to the safety needs 

on rural roads. States that have taken advantage of this 

funding source have implemented numerous safety 

projects across the country with the potential to reduce 

fatalities and injuries on rural roadways. Whereas the 

noteworthy practices identified in this document do 

not compose an exhaustive list, by documenting and 

sharing these practices other States will gain insights as 

to how they can advance their programs. There is no one 

methodology or procedure that will fit all State programs. 

Examples shown may have to be massaged to fit within 

the State policy structure. 

The HRRRP, although faced with challenges, has enormous 

potential to improve rural road safety if implemented. It 

has already brought added attention to the safety needs of 

these roadways as evidenced by the insurgency of other 

types of funding to rural roads in some States. Oftentimes 

the concern is that funding to address these roadways 

is lacking because they are less traveled; here there is a 

dedicated source of funds to be utilized on roadways with 

higher than normal severe crash rates or the potential for 

this occurring in the future.
01

APPENDIX A:

23 U.S.C. §148 (a)(3)(B) Sample List of Construction and Operational 

Improvements

(B) Inclusions.--The term ‘highway safety improvement project’ includes a project for one or more of the following

(i) An intersection safety improvement.

(ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition).

(iii) Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.

(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of accidents.

(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled.

(vi) Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is eligible for funding 

under section 130, including the separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings.

(vii) Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices.

(viii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing. (NOT eligible under HRRRP)

(ix) Construction of a traffic calming feature.

(x) Elimination of a roadside obstacle.

(xi) Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings.

(xii) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections.

(xiii) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high accident potential.

(xiv) Safety-conscious planning. (NOT eligible under HRRRP)

(xv) Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data. (NOT eligible under HRRRP)

(xvi) Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic 

enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to workzone safety. (Only “operational activities relating to 

workzone safety” are eligible under HRRRP; “Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment and traffic enforcement activities relating to workzone safety” are NOT eligible under HRRRP) 

(xvii) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the 

safety of motorists and workers), and crash attenuators.

(xviii) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving vehicles 

and wildlife.

(xix) Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle crossings 

and in school zones.

(xx) Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.

(xxi) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
B:1

APPENDIX B:

Stakeholder Feedback Questions

Status of HRRRP

1. Thus far, your State has obligated $X in HRRR funds. Does your State currently have an active HRRR program? 

a. If no, why not?

b. If yes, how much money do you expect to obligate? What noteworthy practices has your State implemented that may be useful to other States? Are 

any of the above documented, and if so, where?

Crash Data

2. Does your State have a comprehensive roadway and crash data system that is used to identify the eligible roadway segments for HRRRP?

a. If no, what data is used to identify eligible locations?

Methodology for determining HRRR locations

3. What is your process for determining HRRR locations and projects? Are local roads (non-State) a part of your HRRRP?

4. How do you engage local stakeholders in determining eligible HRRR locations and projects for your State?

5. Do they use a different methodology to determine eligible locations and projects on locally owned and operated rural roads?

Types of Projects

6. What process do you use to select HRRR projects from among the eligible locations and segments?

7. What types of “construction and operational improvements” are included in your HRRR projects?

8. How are you mixing projects to maximize the availability of the funds in your State? For example, proceeding with a group of low cost projects, or projects with similar countermeasures.

Obligating Funds

9. How are HRRRP funds obligated for identified eligible projects?

a. Is the process for obligating funds a deterrent to prospective project owners, local or State? How is this overcome?

10. What other funding sources are available from which HRRR eligible projects are implemented?

Future Needs

11. We are conducting a review of best practices across the country. What information from other States would you be most interested in to help advance your 

program?

12. What are the lessons you learned in implementing the program that might be useful for other States?
State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of

Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Major Collector Minor Collector

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency

Total

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

2,235

1,307

1,766

8,934

823

1,367

806

455

-

403

5,514

224

1,143

2,245

4,697

104

1,778

6,121

4,668

3,220

1,139

204

436

1,018

8,979

28

1,530

3,489

11,356

3,506

-

-

-

3,558

7,009

87

2,582

10,510

5,853

13,536

20,705

2

5

-

386

-

15,763

15,026

506

29

230

90

208

118

145

-

-

155

32

-

27

1,017

214

699

353

-

-

-

9

922

440

136

-

56

9

-

13

23

-

-

-

-

3

-

1,866

6

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

8

15

766

-

267

480

-

2

-

-

134

-

57

7

-

-

47

46

-

-

-

7

-

36

11,728

1,435

4,301

12,513

12,667

5,494

951

457

-

4,116

12,692

311

5,675

13,785

10,764

14,340

22,883

6,169

4,673

3,220

1,534

1,139

16,639

16,216

32

877

412

262

47

117

22

228

-

-

2

-

-

44

18

-

9

8,931

2,968

2,196

338

7

-

16

6,262

33

996

6,471

8,033

7,512

-

-

-

3,292

7,277

123

1,977

1,883

9,510

15,878

9,189

18

209

-

1,408

-

4,324

11,548

306

45

128

158

97

268

377

1

-

61

27

-

-

1,513

177

285

40

1

2

-

27

763

46

434

Mississippi

Missouri

3,621

16,168

7,849

258

202

27

-

-

4

-

11,667

16,453

73

5,969

2,247

246

42

5

C:1

APPENDIX C:

Functional System Mileage by Ownership on Rural Roads
Minor Collector Local

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency Total Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency

Total

-

-

16

-

19

28

-

-

-

-

5

-

1,602

3

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

37

-

94

634

-

98

1,034

-

-

-

-

99

-

496

-

-

-

19

6

-

-

2

1

-

155

6,600

1,049

2,186

6,891

8,294

8,959

399

229

-

3,353

7,410

123

4,075

3,443

9,705

16,165

9,257

8,956

3,179

2,196

1,775

775

4,370

12,190

1

614

357

199

1

20

10

2,112

-

-

13

1

7

347

24

5

5

5,450

2,468

11

199

24

11

5

44,956

2,288

12,703

55,666

31,447

40,054

-

-

-

22,202

47,908

1,043

10,752

1,768

45,039

58,954

81,793

37,732

28,204

-

8,556

-

52,553

14,782

4,516

1,532

2,748

4,506

3,558

1,959

4,108

100

-

2,691

3,438

-

-

69,913

3,125

4,964

4,795

2,197

2,471

11,975

362

4,988

2,471

61,205

169

1,754

215

-

2,985

573

247

31

-

-

76

47

11,309

328

-

372

-

255

2

136

101

359

38

978

819

1,145

11,662

2,173

13,083

5,114

17

81

-

1,893

1,010

101

7,373

216

-

103

873

731

618

167

31

20

1,604

2,668

50,461

7,333

27,685

62,544

51,074

47,720

4,382

2,324

-

26,786

52,445

1,192

29,441

72,572

48,188

64,398

87,466

46,365

33,763

12,289

9,249

5,391

56,677

79,638

- 9 2,371 142 40,731 2,317 29 518 43,737

- - 6,220 893 68,727 4,993 - 1,324 75,937

C:2
Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New

Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

NewYork

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

Vermont

Utah

West Virginia

Wyoming

Washington

Wisconsin

State

Major Collector Minor Collector

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency

Total

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

3,032

2,259

1,610

1,072

3

3,700

3,663

7,993

1,162

7,966

5,902

1,392

7,027

135

10,326

1,142

5,108

34,675

1,593

1,145

9,176

1,595

5,637

1,400

3,136

8,970

413

-

917

154

1,895

-

10,042

3,126

14,623

5,799

15

-

131

10,364

-

1,028

1,492

-

-

6,385

-

10,333

16

221

2

23

42

16

113

1

256

239

692

82

181

10

-

265

-

53

81

863

117

192

-

845

11

-

-

-

5

-

1

-

-

-

-

16

-

-

-

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

867

29

49

-

-

6

20

-

62

-

13

1,003

-

-

27

661

-

84

28

-

1

-

-

-

7,062

11,479

2,074

1,095

967

3,876

5,692

7,994

11,552

11,331

21,230

8,292

7,223

145

10,484

12,444

5,108

35,840

3,194

2,008

9,294

8,172

5,637

12,579

113

3

264

842

8

2,518

495

6,719

-

1,125

-

63

7,111

32

1,977

-

-

14,232

31

10

2,363

-

2,226

13

7,259

8,335

1,957

-

310

405

7,891

-

-

5,040

2,971

4,890

-

-

175

5,728

10,105

3,800

3,336

-

-

6,088

-

4,535

21

401

9

298

104

3

1,137

9

-

463

39

70

144

92

1

431

422

51

91

871

78

116

1

2,269

Total

2,161

191,261

661

211,501

3

9,872

1

2,030

52

4,778

2,878 266 6,637

419,442 62,979 177,898 11,930

6

C:3

APPENDIX C Continued:
Minor Collector Local

State 

Highway 

Agency

County

Town, 

Township, 

Municipal

Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency Total Other 

Jurisdictions

Federal 

Agency

Total

17

-

-

5

-

-

50

-

-

-

-

19

-

-

-

2

22

-

-

9

-

-

-

3

1,401

65

44

9

3

215

2

-

-

-

-

2,366

-

-

-

226

2

47

338

-

-

-

-

-

8,811

8,804

2,274

1,154

425

3,141

9,575

6,728

-

6,628

3,010

7,408

7,255

124

2,153

6,387

10,551

18,130

3,796

890

2,441

6,204

2,227

6,820

670

4

309

338

2

258

36

43,161

41

2

-

11

7,454

14

12,810

3

-

278

12

-

31,170

-

20,590

8

33,895

42,891

17,381

-

633

35,319

6,083

-

22

17,578

60,410

19,183

-

-

16,580

20,266

42,452

134,332

16,503

-

28

21,057

-

4,162

1,171

16,386

221

7,278

3,699

1,345

38,086

4,825

65,889

36,086

6,317

1,504

43,075

842

321

33,545

3,884

13,177

2,174

8,391

605

1,858

1,153

59,647

258

263

542

37

522

215

150

748

23

3,000

604

510

3,123

-

191

526

314

2

-

201

-

10,728

-

7

11,623

67

1,396

138

419

11,575

135

2,739

1,481

505

33

4,368

746

10

2,134

1,224

1,275

700

3,794

163

1,326

8,549

621

839

47,617

59,611

19,849

7,791

5,275

48,712

44,490

51,473

67,456

57,171

67,364

25,576

54,398

866

32,036

55,564

47,925

148,489

22,483

8,755

33,129

42,192

22,364

64,663

96 802 7,807 226 6,861 676 796 2,141 10,700

1,939 8,167 262,913 130,316 1,203,494 557,087 42,764 111,345 2,045,006

C:4
D:1

APPENDIX D:

HRRRP Resources

HRRRP guidance resources

May 19, 2006 HRRRP Guidance Memo

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/memos/memo051906.cfm

Apportionment and lapsing language for HSIP/HRRRP funds

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510598.htm

FHWA Functional classification guidelines

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec2_1.htm

Local and Rural Road Safety Program – FHWA Office of Safety

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/

HSIP reporting guidance (May 15, 2009)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/guides/guide051509.cfm

HSIP Final Rule (December 24, 2008)

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-30168.htm

 “Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU”

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d081015t.html

SAFETEA-LU guidance on SHSP implementation

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/guides/guideshsp040506/

Data resources

NHTSA “Traffic Safety Fact Sheets”

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/listpublications.aspx?Id=A&ShowBy=DocType

Bureau of Transportation statistics

http://www.bts.gov/

Additional rural crash facts:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/

National Association of Counties (NACo) Research Abstract Series – County Road Miles by State (2006 

Data) April 2008

http://www.wyo-wcca.org/vertical/Sites/%7bD4F54A77-0532-458E-A3AB-D04D95A25F6D%7d/uploads/%7b8A49B1C7-

6DE0-4092-AE5E-E4A4DD7FC3FC%7d.PDF

Rural Fatalities link

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/rural_fatal.cfm

Fatality Analysis Reporting System

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Center for Excellence in Rural Safety (CERS)

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
D:2

State resources 

Caltrans HRRRP web site

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HR3

Illinois DOT solicitation to local agencies

http://www.dot.il.gov/blr/manuals/infocirculars/CL2008-17.pdf

Illinois DOT HSIP/HRRRP workshop presentation

http://www.dot.il.gov/safetyEng/01092008_HSIP-HRRRP.pdf

Iowa DOT HRRRP web page

http://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/programs/hrrr.htm

Iowa DOT crash analysis resources

http://www.iowadot.gov/crashanalysis/index.htm

Local Systems HRRRP Web Page: 

http://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/programs/hrrr.htm

Michigan DOT HRRRP local agency assistance web site

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9625_25885_40552---,00.html

Ohio DOT HRRRP information

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/ProgramMgt/CapitalPrograms/Pages/HighRiskRuralRoads.aspx

Traffic and Safety Crash Analysis Resources Page:

http://www.iowadot.gov/crashanalysis/index.htm

Wyoming Rural Road Safety Program

http://wwweng.uwyo.edu/wyt2/techbriefs/roadsafetyaudits.pdf

APPENDIX D Continued:

HRRRP Resources
State Agency

Alabama DOT

Name Email

Waymon Benifield benifieldw@dot.state.al.us

Phone

Alabama (334) 353-6404

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of

Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Alaska DOT Kurt Smith (907) 465-6963 Kurt.smith@alaska.gov

Arizona DOT

Arkansas Highways and

Transportation Department

jon.waldrip@arkansashighways.

com

JonWaldrip (501) 569-2648

CalTrans Randy Ronning (916) 653-4727 randy_ronning@dot.ca.gov

Colorado DOT Bryan Allery (303) 757-9967 Bryan.Allery@dot.state.co.us

Connecticut DOT John Carey (860) 594-2710 john.f.carey@po.state.ct.us

Delaware DOT Randy Grunden (800) 652-5600 randall.grunden@state.de.us

Florida DOT Joseph Santos (850) 245-1502 joseph.santos@dot.state.fl.us

Georgia DOT Norm Cressman (404) 635-8131 Norm.Cressman@dot.state.ga.us

Hawaii DOT Sean Hiraoka (808) 692-7684 sean.hiraoka@hawaii.gov

Idaho DOT Brent Jennings (208) 334-8557 Brent.Jennings@itd.idaho.gov

Illinois DOT Priscilla Tobias (217) 782-3568 Priscilla.tobias@illinois.gov

Indiana DOT Michael Holowaty (317) 232-5337 mholowaty@indot.in.gov

Iowa DOT LeRoy Bergmann (515) 239-1506 leroy.bergmann@dot.iowa.gov

Kansas DOT Lynn Berges (785) 296-0410 LBerges@ksdot.org

Kentucky DOT Tracy Lovell (502) 564-3020 Tracy.Lovell@ky.gov

Louisiana DOTD Dan Magri (225) 379-1871 dan.magri@la.gov

Maine DOT Duane Brunell (207) 624-3278 Duane.Brunell@maine.gov

Reed Henry (602) 712-7374 rhenry@azdot.gov

Maryland DOT Bill Macleod (410) 787-5844 WMacleod@sha.state.md.us

Massachusetts Highway Department Bonnie Polin (617) 973-7991 Bonnie.Polin@mhd.state.ma.us

Michigan DOT James D’Lamater (517) 335-2224 dlamaterj@michigan.gov

Minnesota DOT Dave Engstrom david.engstrom@dot.state.

mn.us

(651) 634-5100

District of Columbia DOT William McGuirk (202) 671-1493 william.mcguirk@dc.gov

E:1

APPENDIX E:

State HRRRP Contacts
Mississippi

Missouri

Mississippi DOT Lanny Glover (601) 359-7150 LGlover@osarc.state.ms.us

Missouri DOT John Miller (573) 526-1759 John.P.Miller@modot.mo.gov

New Jersey

New Mexico

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New

Hampshire

State Agency

Montana DOT

Name Email

Pierre Jomini pjomini@mt.gov

Phone

(406) 444-6113

Nebraska Department of Roads Randy Peters (402) 479-4594 rpeters@dor.state.ne.us

New Jersey

New Mexico

NewYork

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

Vermont

Utah

West Virginia

Wyoming

Washington

Wisconsin

New Jersey DOT William Beans (609) 530-2471 William.Beans@dot.state.nj.us

Nevada DOT Lori Campbell (775) 888-7333 lcampbell@dot.state.nv.us

New Hampshire DOT G. Stuart Thompson (603) 271-1407 gthompson@dot.state.nh.us

New Mexico DOT Steve Eagan (505) 490-3063 Steve.Eagan@state.nm.us

NewYork State DOT Barbara O’Rourke (518) 457-1910 borourke@dot.state.ny.us

North Carolina DOT Brian Mayhew (919) 715-7818 Bmayhew@dot.state.nc.us

North Dakota DOT Chris Holzer (701) 328-2534 cholzer@nd.gov

Ohio DOT Michelle May (614) 644.8309 Michelle.May@dot.state.oh.us

Oklahoma DOT David Glabas (405) 521-2861 dglabas@odot.org

Oregon DOT Martin E. Andersen martin.e.andersen@odot.state.

or.us (503)986-3640

Pennsylvania DOT Christopher Speese (717) 705-1437 chspeese@state.pa.us

Tennessee DOT Gary Ogletree (615) 350-3308 Gary.Ogletree@state.tn.us

South Carolina DOT Joey Riddle (803) 737-3582 riddlejd@scdot.org

South Dakota DOT Sonia Trautmann (605) 773-5361 sonia.trautmann@state.sd.us

Texas DOT Debra Vermillion (512) 416-3137 dvermil@dot.state.tx.us

Vermont Agency of Transportation Mario Dupigny-Giroux mario.dupigny-giroux@state.

vt.us

(802) 828-0169

Virginia DOT In-Kyu“Q”Lim (804) 786-3887 In-Kyu.Lim@VDOT.virginia.gov

Washington State DOT Roger Horton (360) 570-2427 hortonr@wsdot.wa.gov

West Virginia DOH Donna Hardy (304) 558-9576 Donna.j.hardy@wv.gov

Wisconsin DOT Chuck Thiede (608) 266-3341 Charles.Thiede@dot.wi.gov

Wyoming DOT Matt Carlson (307) 777-4450 matt.carlson@dot.state.wy.us

Utah DOT W. Scott Jones (801)965-4285 wsjones@utah.gov

Rhode Island DOT Thomas Bushell (401) 222-2694 tbushell@dot.ri.gov

E:2

APPENDIX E:

State HRRRP Contacts
F:3

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

 CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Sec. 148. Highway safety improvement program

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) High risk rural road.--The term ``high risk rural road’’ means any roadway functionally classified as a rural 

major or minor collector or a rural local road--

 (A) on which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average 

for those functional classes of roadway; or

 (B) that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities 

and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway.

. . . . . .

(f) High Risk Rural Roads.--

(1) In general.--After making an apportionment under section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2005, the Secretary shall ensure, from amounts made available to carry out this section for such fiscal year, 

that a total of $90,000,000 of such apportionment is set aside by the States, proportionally according to the share of 

each State of the total amount so apportioned, for use only for construction and operational improvements on high 

risk rural roads.

(2) Special rule.--A State may use funds apportioned to the State pursuant to this subsection for any project 

under this section if the State certifies to the Secretary that the State has met all of State needs for construction and 

operational improvements on high risk rural roads.

APPENDIX F:

23 U.S.C. §148 (f) High Risk Rural Roads Program
G:1

APPENDIX G:

Project Application Example – Iowa DOT

Application for High Risk Rural Road Funding 

November 2008

Date:

County Name:

Contact person

PROJECT LOCATION:

(attach a county map showing location of the project)

PROJECT NARRATIVE

(Use additional pages if necessary)

Estimated Project Cost: $

HRRR Funds Applied for: $

Benefit Cost (B/C) Ratio:

POINTS FOR PROJECT RANKING

B/C Ratio Points: 

Crash Density Points: 

Crash Rate Points: 

Total Points:
G:2

November 2008 

General Instructions

Before completing the application you should familiarize yourself with all the information on the Local Systems High Risk 

Rural Roads web page (http://www.dot.state.ia.us/local_systems/programs/hrrr.htm) and the instructions that follow. 

Projects may be located on any of the eligible roads, outside of urbanized areas, as indicated on the map of eligible roads 

provided on the High Risk Rural Roads web page. However, as you work through the application form, you will note that 

only roads in the top 15% of eligible corridors using the crash rate or crash density are provided additional points for 

ranking the applications. 

The funding guidelines developed in consultation with county engineers on the planning committee limit the amount of 

HRRR funds for a single project to $500,000. Those same guidelines also limit a county to only one project per year. 

To be considered for funding, all the information on the application form must be completed and the requested 

supplemental forms must be included. 

All questions regarding the HRRR Program should be directed to Rod Halverson in the Office of Local Systems (phone 

515-239-1147, fax 515-239-1966, or e-mail Rod.Halverson@dot.iowa.gov). The completed application may be mailed, 

faxed, or e-mailed. 

Project Location

The location description should include the Farm-to-Market route number. If the project does not have a designated 

Farm-to-Market route number, then provide the 911 street name and the beginning and end points for the project. If 

the project is a spot location, indicate the county route number and/or street name and the direction and distance from 

the nearest intersecting route. This information will be used in location description for the project funding agreement if 

your project is selected. A location map is also required to assist in verifying the project is on an eligible route and how 

many points can be assigned for crash rate and crash density.

Project narrative

The intent of this narrative is to identify the problem, its relationship to the collision experience, and how the proposal 

will improve safety. A sketch plan of the current conditions and the proposed improvements may assist with the 

description of the proposed improvements. 

Estimated Project Cost

The project cost estimate does not need to be a detailed engineer’s estimate. However, the estimate should include 

enough detail, considering some “average” conditions for excavation, drainage structures and ROW so that a reasonably 

close estimate is calculated. A copy of the cost estimate, showing how the costs were determined, shall be included 

with the application.

APPENDIX G Continued:

Project Application Example – Iowa

High-Risk Rural Road Application Instructions
G:3

HRRR Funds Requested

Indicate the amount of HRRR funds requested for the project. Keep in mind that maximum for a project is $500,000.

Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio

The B/C ratio is the ratio of the expected benefits (accrued from a crash/severity reduction based on the proposed 

improvement), to the amount of HRRR funds requested for the project. A copy of your B/C Ratio calculations must 

be included with your application along with copies of the crash data used to determine the total crash benefit. To 

calculate the B/C Ratio, use the Office of Traffic and Safety’s Benefit / Cost Worksheet (http://www.iowadot.gov/traffic/

tsip/tsipB-C.xls), with the following exceptions: 

For the Estimated Improvement Cost, insert the amount of HRRR funds that are requested for the project. The ratio of the 

proposed accident benefit to the amount of HRRR funds requested will be the B/C Ratio inserted in the application. 

The B/C Ratio calculations shall be based on crash data from 2001 through 2007, as provided in the Iowa DOT’s Crash 

Mapping and Analysis Tool (CMAT) software. 

Points for Project Ranking

Use the information contained in the HRRR web page to compute the points ranking for B/C Ratio, Crash Density, and 

Crash Rate of your project. The web page contains links to a Crash Density map and a Crash Rate map that will provide 

information on how many points can be assigned to Crash Density and Crash Rate. Only projects involving those 

segments of eligible corridors identified on the two maps will receive points for Crash Density and Crash Rate. The sum 

of the points in the three categories will determine your project ranking. In the event of projects with equal points, the 

project B/C ratios will be used to rank the projects.

APPENDIX G Continued:

Project Application Example – Iowa

High-Risk Rural Road Application Instructions
H:1

APPENDIX H:

HRRRP Project Solicitation Letter Example – Michigan

Michigan DOT

High Risk Rural Roads

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is pleased to announce that we are soliciting 

new candidate project applications for the fiscal year 2006 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) program. 

Federal funds for the HRRR Program derive from SAFETEA-LU. The 2006 budget for this program 

is estimated to be $2,465,000. We are asking the County Road Association of Michigan and the 

Michigan Municipal League to distribute this notice to their member agencies. 

SAFETEA-LU defines a HRRR as; 1) any roadway functionally classified as rural major or minor 

collector or a rural local road that the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the 

statewide average for those functional classes of roadway, or 2) any roadway functionally classified as 

rural major or minor collector or a rural local road that will likely have increases in traffic volumes that 

are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide 

average for those functional classes of roadway. 

This data leads to the following calculation of a crash frequency that exceeds the statewide, average 

accident rate, at a minimum: Within a 5 year time period, at least one crash, resulting in fatalities or 

incapacitating injuries, has occurred within a segment of eligible roadway no longer than 6.67 miles.

However, in order to increase the impact of the HRRR program in 2006, its initial year, MDOT has 

raised the threshold accident rate for eligibility. 

The 2006 eligibility requirements for roadways in the HRRR program are: 

1. The roadway is functionally classified as rural major or minor collector or rural local road. 

2. Within a 5 year time period, at least 2 intersection crashes, resulting in fatalities or incapacitating 

injuries have occurred; or 2 such serious crashes have occurred within a 5-mile long segment of such roadway.

Other requirements: 

1. The proposed projects will need to be developed and obligated on or before September 4, 2006. 

2. The proposed projects will need to demonstrate a direct correlation to correct an area related to 

the fatal or incapacitating crash. The proposed project limits must be relevant to the roadway features 

attributable to the crash, and are subject to approval by MDOT 
H:2

This program will be managed as follows for fiscal year 2006: 

1. Due to the time constraints for fiscal year 2006, each individual project is anticipated to be relatively 

small in nature. The construction phase only is eligible for federal aid. Right of way, design and construction 

engineering are not eligible for these funds. Projects are federally funded at 90 percent, with a 10 percent 

local match, or funded with 100 percent federal funds for projects consisting entirely of traffic control 

signalization, safety, pavement marking, rail-highway crossing closure, or installation of traffic signs, traffic 

lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority 

control systems. 

2. Projects may be let through MDOT, or via local force account. 

3. Eligible projects must meet current standards and warrants. All improvements must address the 

probable cause of the crash(es) in the project area. The proposed project limits must also address concerns in 

the area of the crash. Proposed work outside the vicinity of the crashes will be reviewed to ensure the HRRR 

funds are spent according to the intent of SAFETEA-LU. Possible low cost projects can be found at www.

atssa.com/galleries/default-file/LowCostLocalRoads.pdf, and on the enclosed document. 

4. All project candidates should be postmarked no later than Friday, June 30, 2006. Projects postmarked 

after June 30, 2006 may be considered for funding based on the strength of the submitted project and the 

availability of funds. Projects are reviewed and approved by committee and selected based on criteria which 

includes: 

5. At a minimum, the suggested format for project consideration is an engineering report that clearly 

identifies the route, project termini, existing and proposed cross sections, estimated project cost and each of 

the criteria listed above. A map must be included with the report which clearly identifies the location of the 

proposed project. Pictures, graphics, preliminary plans, etc., included in your engineering report can also be 

used as supporting evidence and are encouraged. 

6. MDOT may be able to assist in identifying eligible roadways under your jurisdiction. For additional 

a. Crash history or potential for crashes 

b. Accident analysis to determine the proposed projects scope 

c. Crash concentration in the proposed projects limits 

d. Existing condition and character of proposed work 

e. Factors to determine the future increased traffic volume anticipated to cause crashes (if applicable) 

f. Ability to deliver a construction package for obligation within this fiscal year

APPENDIX H Continued:

HRRRP Project Solicitation Letter Example – Michigan
H:3

assistance regarding this service, you may contact Dale R. Lighthizer, P.E. of MDOT’s Traffic and Safety 

Division at (517) 373-2334. 

7. If there are any social, economic and environmental impacts within the project limits, all impacts 

must be mitigated before federal funds can be appropriated and obligated. Project applications which have 

significant negative responses from the public or controversial and may require an environmental assessment 

will not be considered until all outstanding issues have been resolved. 

8. Projects submitted for MDOT’s 2007 Local Agency Safety Program may be eligible for the HRRR 

program. It is encouraged that eligible projects be submitted for this program if they can be developed and 

obligated in fiscal year 2006. 

Once projects are selected, local agencies within MPO areas must coordinate with their MPO to 

ensure inclusion of their project in the area’s TIP. Those agencies that are part of a rural task force 

should notify their members that they are applying for these funds. Rural task force approval is not 

necessary. Local Agency Programs will coordinate with MDOT Planning to ensure these projects are 

included in the STIP. Each application is evaluated based on the criteria listed above on a project by 

project basis and funding availability. If an agency submits multiple projects, a prioritized list must be 

submitted for consideration.

Local Agencies are to submit eligible projects and supporting information to the following: 

Mr. Jim D’Lamater, P.E.,Safety Engineer

Design Division, Local Agency Programs Unit

425 W. Ottawa Street, P.O. Box 30050\

Lansing, Michigan 48909-7550

Depending upon funding availability and project selection, announcements will be made as soon as 

possible with notifications and project programming instructions sent to each of the local agencies. 

Our goal is to maintain a fiscally constrained program while maximizing the use of available federal 

funds. In addition to the HRRR program, MDOT is developing an additional safety program for local 

agencies titled the Local Safety Initiative (LSI). The LSI is intended to assist local agencies identify 

high incident areas on their roadway system, and may have funds available for construction work on 

these areas. If you are interested in this program please contact Mr. Dale Lighthizer, P.E. at (517) 

373-2334 for details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jim D’Lamater, P.E. at (517) 

335-2224.
HRRRP Announcement and deadlines

Proposal are submitted to WYDOT by the annual deadline

Agreements are signed between WYDOT and Counties

Safety projects are implemented with help from WYLTAP

WYLTAP will do the final inspection for the completed safety projects

WYLTAP will evaluate the effectiveness of safety improvements after 3 years of implementation

The Wyoming Transportation Commission will approve the final list of projects

The Wyoming FHWA Division will approve the projects recommended for funding

The WYDOT Safety Management System Committee will review proposals

Counties will develop safety improvement requests with help from WYLTAP

WYLTAP interacts with Counties to implement the 5-Step WRRSP

I:1

APPENDIX I:

Local Agency Involvement Process – Wyoming
J:1

APPENDIX J:

Public Interest Finding Request Example - Missouri

Missouri DOT

Letter to FHWA Missouri Division

Re: Public Interest Finding for High Risk Rural Roads Program

The High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) program will be administered by MoDOT to reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries on Missouri’s minor road system. The 136 routes identified as the HRRR System 

in Missouri have experienced 205 fatal and 1,033 disabling injury crashes from 2003 to 2005. 

In order to stretch the small amount of HRRR funds, MoDOT is requesting a finding in the public 

interest to utilize a portion of these funds for the purchase of materials (rather than necessitating only 

contract work with the funds). If approved, MoDOT maintenance forces will use these materials to 

construct improvements on this portion of HRRR projects. The cost savings of utilizing MoDOT 

forces for a portion of this effort is significant, allowing us to more efficiently use the $2.6 million 

funding source to improve safety in Missouri. Specific projects utilizing this flexibility include 

shoulders (both aggregate and asphalt), rumble strips, and additional warning signs. 

Note that some of these projects will be for purchase of materials only, while others will include 

contract work. Each of these projects will be discussed with FHWA before funds are obligated for 

expenditure (either as “materials only” or as a contract job).

It is important to note that some HRRR projects will go through the typical contract installation 

procedure and be placed on MoDOT’s STIP.

Our request is for conceptual approval of materials purchases for a portion of HRRR projects. 

Approval of this request at your earliest convenience would be appreciated.
This page intentionally left blank
For More Information

Rosemarie Anderson

FHWA Office of Safety

2 0 2 . 3 6 6 - 5 0 0 7 P

rosemarie.anderson@dot.gov

FHWA-SA-10-012 March 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration