a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2004 HIGHWAY SAFETY

Federal and State 

Efforts to Address 

Rural Road Safety 

Challenges

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

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. For 

more information, contact Katherine Siggerud, 

(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-663, a report to

congressional committees 

May 2004

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Federal and State Efforts to Address 

Rural Road Safety Challenges 

Four primary factors contribute to rural road fatalities—human behavior, 

roadway environment, vehicles, and the care victims receive after a crash. 

Human behavior involves the actions taken by or the condition of the driver 

and passengers. Human behaviors are important because almost 70 percent 

of the unrestrained (unbelted) fatalities between 2000 and 2002 occurred in 

rural crashes. Additionally, the majority of alcohol- and speeding-related 

fatalities occurred on rural roads. Roadway characteristics that contribute to 

rural crashes include narrow lanes, sharp curves, trees, and animals. Vehicle 

factors include problems that arise due to the design of vehicles and are 

important for both urban and rural roads. Care of crash victims also 

contributes to rural fatalities because of the additional time needed to 

provide medical attention and the quality of rural trauma care. 

Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002 

Minor Local

collector

Major

collector

Minor

arterial

Other

prinicipal

arterial

Interstate 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.

1.18

1.90

2.54 2.80

3.26

Fatalities/100 mil. miles traveled 3.63

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided about $27.4 billion in federal-aid highway 

funds to states. While many projects using these funds have safety features, 

the amount used for safety is not tracked. However, about $648 million of 

these funds went to the Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings 

Programs and were specifically provided for safety purposes—about $330 

million of which went to improve rural road safety. NHTSA provided about 

$671 million to states for activities that influence both rural and urban 

drivers’ behavior in such areas as safety belt use, drunk driving, or speeding. 

States are ultimately responsible for selecting the projects to support with 

federal funding. The five states we visited used a portion of the funding 

received for rural road safety. 

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety—for example, 

not all states have adopted safety belt and drunk driving laws that might 

curb behavior contributing to rural road fatalities. In addition, states are 

limited in using federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads, and most 

rural roads are the responsibility of local governments that may lack the 

resources to undertake costly projects to improve road safety. Further, 

some states lack adequate crash data to support planning and evaluation of 

safety projects. Lastly, the nature of rural areas makes it difficult to provide 

adequate emergency medical care.

Traffic crashes are a major cause of

death and injury in the United 

States. In 2002, there were 42,815 

fatalities and over 2.9 million 

injuries on the nation’s highways. 

Crashes on rural roads (roads in 

areas with populations of less than 

5,000) account for over 60 percent 

of the deaths nationwide, or about 

70 deaths each day. Further, the 

rate of fatalities per vehicle mile 

traveled on rural roads was over 

twice the urban fatality rate. 

GAO identified (1) the factors 

contributing to rural road fatalities, 

(2) federal and state efforts to 

improve safety on the nation’s rural 

roads, and (3) the challenges that 

may hinder making improvements 

in rural road safety. GAO obtained 

information from the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), 

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), and other 

organizations with knowledge of 

these issues. In addition, GAO 

analyzed fatal crash data on rural 

roads from Department of 

Transportation databases and 

visited five states that account for 

about 20 percent of the nation’s 

rural road mileage. GAO also 

contacted academic experts and 

examined legislative proposals for 

improving rural road safety. We 

provided copies of a draft of this 

report to the Department of 

Transportation for its review and 

comment. In discussing this 

report, agency officials noted that 

safety should be part of every 

project designed and built with 

federal-aid highway funds. 
Page i GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Four Factors Contribute to Rural Road Fatalities 11

Federal and State Efforts to Improve Highway Safety Include Rural 

Roads 15

Many Challenges Hinder Efforts to Improve Rural Road Safety 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II: Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural Road Safety 40

Appendix III: Low-Cost Safety Improvements 49

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

Year 2002 29

Table 2: FHWA’s Low-Cost Safety Improvements 49

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

2002 5

Figure 2: Rural Miles by Type of Rural Road Functional 

Classification, 2002 6

Figure 3: Fatality Rates by Type of Rural Road, 2002 8

Figure 4: Fatalities and Fatality Rates per 100 Million Miles 

Traveled for Rural Roadways, 1982 through 2002 9

Figure 5: FHWA and NHTSA Funding for State Safety Programs 

under TEA-21 17

Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program 

Funding to States under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 

through 2003 19

Figure 7: Portion of Rural Local Roads Not under State 

Jurisdiction, 2002 30
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials

BAC blood alcohol concentration

DOT Department of Transportation

EMS emergency medical services

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SAFETEA Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2004

SUV sport utility vehicle

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TEA-LU Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 28, 2004 Letr

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury,

and Independent Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Patty Murray

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury

and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

Traffic crashes are a major cause of death and injury in the United States. 

In 2002 alone, there were 42,815 fatalities and more than 2.9 million injuries 

on the nation’s highways. Crashes on rural roads (roadways in areas with 

populations of less than 5,000) account for over 60 percent of these 

fatalities—25,849 deaths, or about 70 each day. Further, the rate of fatalities 

per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was more than twice the urban 

fatality rate. The magnitude of rural road mileage and the widespread 

dispersal of crashes makes preventing and responding to rural road crashes 

difficult. The federal government provides funds for states to use in 

addressing highway safety problems. These include construction and 

safety project funds administered by the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to eliminate roadway hazards and improve rail-highway crossings 

and grants administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) to encourage safe driving.

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated 

Appropriation Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety 

and report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet 

this requirement, we identified (1) the factors contributing to rural road 

fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation’s 

rural roads, and (3) the challenges that may hinder making improvements 

in rural road safety. To identify the factors contributing to rural road 
Page 2 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

fatalities, we used an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research 

Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle 

Crashes (GAO 03-436, March 2003) and supplemented it by obtaining 

information from FHWA, NHTSA, and other organizations familiar with this 

issue. In addition, we analyzed fatal crash data on rural roads from 

Department of Transportation (DOT) databases. We assessed the reliability 

of these databases and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of this report. To identify federal and state efforts to 

improve rural road safety, we interviewed and obtained documentation 

from officials in FHWA and NHTSA and visited five states that, in total, 

accounted for about 20 percent of the nation’s rural road mileage. To 

identify challenges that may hinder making improvements in rural road 

safety, in addition to interviewing the above officials, we contacted experts 

from academia and from advocacy groups and reviewed various legislative 

proposals that may help address the issues. For each of the selected studies 

that are used in this report, we determined whether the study’s findings 

were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated the methodological 

soundness of the studies using common social science and statistical 

practices. We performed our review in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Appendix I provides more details on our 

scope and methodology.

Results in Brief One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities: human 

behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the medical care victims 

receive after a crash. Human behaviors are the actions taken by or the 

condition of drivers and passengers, including the use or nonuse of safety 

belts, alcohol impairment, and speeding. Human behaviors are important to 

rural safety because, according to NHTSA data for 2000 through 2002, rural 

crashes accounted for about 68 percent of unrestrained (unbelted) 

fatalities, about 63 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities, and 62 percent of 

speeding-related fatalities. In addition, over 80 percent of fatalities at 

speeds of 55 miles per hour or higher occurred in rural areas in 2001. 

Roadway environment characteristics that contribute to crashes and 

fatalities include the design of the roadway and roadway conditions: 

narrow lanes, sharp curves, lack of medians, small or non-existent 

shoulders, trees, utility poles, and animals. Such factors are important in 

rural crashes—more than 70 percent of the nation’s fatalities from singlevehicle run-off-the-road crashes occur on rural roads. Vehicle factors 

include any vehicle-related failures that may exist in the vehicle or the 

design of the vehicle and are important in both rural and urban crashes. For 

example, when heavy sport utility vehicles or pickup trucks collide with 
Page 3 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

small compact cars, the occupants in the lighter and lower vehicle are more 

likely to die as a result of the crash, particularly if struck in the side. Finally, 

the lack of prompt and effective emergency medical services contributes to 

rural road fatalities. For example, NHTSA data for 2002 show that for 30 

percent of the fatal crashes on rural highways, victims did not reach a 

hospital within 1 hour of the crash,while only 8 percent of victims in fatal 

urban crashes did not reach a hospital within 1 hour.

Federal and state agencies’ efforts to improve rural road safety are 

generally included within programs that address broader aspects of 

highway construction or highway safety. For example, in fiscal year 2003, 

FHWA provided the states and the District of Columbia approximately 

$27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds, most of which can be used to 

construct new highways or to maintain or improve existing highways. 

While many of these highway improvement projects may include safety 

features that affect rural roads, the safety features are not specifically 

segregated for reporting purposes. Within the overall federal-aid highway 

funding for states, about $648 million was specifically identified for safety 

purposes—about $330 million of which went to rural road safety for 

highway Hazard Elimination or Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. These 

programs enable states to address safety concerns on all rural roads 

through construction improvements. In addition, in fiscal year 2003, FHWA 

budgeted about $10.9 million for research into safety advancements and 

provided oversight and assistance to states that benefits both urban and 

rural roads. In fiscal year 2003, NHTSA provided states with about $671 

million for use in programs designed to reduce both rural and urban 

crashes caused by human behaviors. The five states we visited used a 

portion of the federal funding they received to support rural road safety 

improvements. However, the states did not track all funds used by rural and 

urban categories so the total amount spent on rural road safety is 

unknown. Most state officials we spoke with supported the current 

flexibility they have to use the funds provided in areas they determine are 

the most important and did not favor having a separate rural road program 

or initiative.

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For instance, 

not all states have adopted safety belt and alcohol laws that meet federal 

standards. For example, 30 states have not enacted primary safety belt 

laws, which allow police officers to pull over and cite motorists exclusively 

for the infraction of not using their safety belts, and 23 have not enacted 

alcohol laws that meet federal requirements relating to penalties for repeat 

drunk driving offenders and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in 
Page 4 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

vehicles. In addition, the sheer volume of rural roads and the low volume of 

traffic on some of them, combined with the high cost of major construction 

improvements, make it difficult to rebuild rural roads with safer designs. 

Furthermore, while states can use federal safety funds for any public road, 

they are limited in using their federal construction funds on certain rural 

roads—particularly two-lane rural roadways that provide access to farms, 

rural residences, and other rural areas. Efforts to improve rural road safety 

are further complicated because most rural roads are not owned by states 

but rather are the responsibilities of municipal, county, or township 

governments. These local governments may not have resources available to 

undertake significant projects to increase rural road safety. Further, some 

states lack information upon which to make informed decisions on 

potential road safety solutions, regardless of whether the road is rural or 

urban. In addition, the ability to reduce rural road fatalities is hampered by 

difficulties in providing prompt medical services in rural settings. For 

example, rural areas are less likely to have 911 emergency dialing and it 

may take longer to reach a hospital. Legislation has been introduced in the 

Congress as it considers the reauthorization of Transportation Equity Act 

of the 21st Century, which would address some of the factors that 

contribute to rural fatalities or that make it difficult to improve rural road 

safety. Some of the proposals include provisions for providing incentives 

for enacting stronger state traffic safety laws; funding for high-risk rural 

roads, state safety data systems, new safety research, and emergency 

medical services; and additional flexibility in states’ use of some federal 

funds.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 

Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally 

agreed with the report’s content. In discussing this report, agency officials 

noted that safety should be part of every project designed and built with 

federal-aid funds. In addition, the department provided technical 

clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
Page 5 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Background There are more than 3.9 million miles of roadway in the United States, of 

which about 3.1 million miles, or about 77 percent, are considered rural 

roads.1

 Rural roads are defined as those roads that are located in or near 

areas where the population is less than 5,000.2 As figure 1 shows, rural 

roadways make up more than half of the road miles in 44 states.

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

Rural roads can be further divided into six functional classifications—

interstates, other principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, 

minor collectors, and local roads. Interstates and arterials allow the highest 

1

For purposes of this report, rural road data refers to roads in the 50 states. The District of 

Columbia has no rural roads and we do not include Puerto Rico’s 8,000 miles of rural roads 

in our computations.

2

Urban areas are those places within boundaries set by the responsible state and local 

officials that have a population of 5,000 or more. Rural areas are those areas outside the 

boundaries of urban areas.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Number of states

1

5

11

33

Percentage of rural road miles

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.
Page 6 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

traffic speeds and often have multiple lanes and a degree of access control. 

Collector roads are designed for lower speeds and shorter trips and 

generally link areas to arterial roads and interstates. They are typically twolane roads that extend into residential neighborhoods. Local roads are any 

roads below the collector system and may be paved or unpaved roadways 

that provide access to farms, residences, and other rural property. As 

shown in figure 2, local roads make up the majority of the nation’s rural 

roads.

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

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Minor Local

collector

Major

collector

Minor

arterial

Other

principal

arterial

Interstate

Functional classification

4.5% 3.2% 1.1%

14.0%

8.8%

68.4%

Rural road miles (thousands)

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.
Page 7 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Rural roads have more fatalities and a greater rate of fatalities than urban 

roads, when considering vehicle miles traveled.3

 In 2002, of the 42,815 

fatalities on the nation’s roadways, 25,849 (60 percent) were on rural roads. 

Based on miles traveled, the overall fatality rate from traffic crashes on 

rural roads was about 2.29 fatalities for every 100 million miles traveled, 

while urban fatality rates were about .97 fatalities for every 100 million 

miles traveled. 

Fatalities occurred at higher rates on rural roads that have lower roadway 

functional classifications. As shown in figure 3, during 2002, rural local 

roads had the highest fatality rates at 3.63 per 100 million miles traveled, 

while rural interstates had fatality rates of 1.18. In an urban setting, the 

lowest rates are for urban interstates—.60 fatalities per 100 million miles 

traveled—about one-sixth the level of rural local roads. 

3

In presenting information on traffic fatalities, we used data contained in NHTSA’s Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System database for 2002, the most recent available. This database 

contains state-reported data on all fatalities in the United States.
Page 8 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

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

In the past two decades, the total number of fatalities on the nation’s 

roadways fell from 43,945 in 1982 to 42,815 in 2002. However, during this 

period, fatalities on rural roadways rose slightly from 25,005 in 1982 to 

25,849 in 2002. As shown in figure 4, during the period from 1982 to 2002, 

the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on rural roads 

declined about 37 percent. During the same period, the fatality rate on 

urban roads declined about 54 percent.4

 

4

While the number of fatalities rose during this period, the fatality rate declined. FHWA 

officials attribute the decline to the increased vehicle miles traveled coupled with many 

other factors, such as increased safety belt use, decreased alcohol-impaired driving, safety 

improvement in vehicles and on the highways, and more congested highways leading to 

lower speeds. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Minor Local

collector

Major

collector

Minor

arterial

Other

prinicipal

arterial

Interstate

1.18

1.90

2.54

2.80

3.26

3.63

Fatalities/100 mil. miles traveled

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.
Page 9 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

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

FHWA and NHTSA are two agencies within the U.S. Department of 

Transportation responsible for road safety. FHWA’s mission is to provide 

financial and technical support to state, local, and tribal governments for 

constructing, improving, and preserving the highway system. As part of this 

mission, FHWA seeks to reduce highway fatalities and injuries through 

research and by implementing technology innovations. In addition, its 

Office of Safety develops and implements strategies and programs to 

reduce the number and severity of highway crashes involving both 

motorized and nonmotorized travelers on the nation’s highways, streets, 

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and at intermodal connections. NHTSA’s 

mission is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from 

motor vehicle crashes. The agency sets and enforces safety performance 

standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and provides 

grants to state and local governments. NHTSA, among other things, also 

investigates safety defects in motor vehicles, helps states and local 

communities reduce the threat of drunk drivers, promotes the use of safety 

belts and child safety seats, and provides consumer information on motor 

vehicle safety topics. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2002

Rural fatality rate

Total rural fatalities

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.

Fatality rate Fatalities

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001
Page 10 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Century (TEA-21),5 NHTSA provided the states with about $2.7 billion for 

efforts to improve driver behaviors and safety data from fiscal year 1998 

through fiscal year 2003.

Other organizations such as the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Governors Highway Safety 

Association also play important roles in highway safety. As an organization 

representing state transportation departments, AASHTO provides 

engineers with guidance on how to design safe and efficient roads through 

a publication referred to as the Green Book.6

 In addition, AASHTO recently 

published a special guide on alternative designs for very low-volume 

roads.7 Furthermore, in 1997 AASHTO also focused attention on improving 

roadway safety by developing a Strategic Highway Safety Plan that 

identified 22 key or emerging highway safety emphasis areas. Topics 

included (1) aggressive and speeding drivers, (2) keeping vehicles on the 

roadway and minimizing the consequences of leaving the roadway, and (3) 

supporting better state coordination and planning for behavioral and 

construction programs. For each of these areas, publications are being 

developed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that 

address the issues and potential countermeasures.8

 Another organization 

that plays a major role in highway safety is the Governors Highway Safety 

Association, which represents the highway safety programs of states and 

territories on the human behavioral aspects of highway safety. Areas of 

focus include occupant protection, impaired driving, and speed 

enforcement, as well as motorcycle, school bus, pedestrian and bicycle 

safety, and traffic records. 

5

P.L. 105-178, 1998.

6

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The most recent update of this 

publication was in 2001.

7

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

8

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program is a part of the Transportation 

Research Board of the National Research Council. It is also undertaking a project to develop 

a highway safety manual, in response to AASHTO’s safety plan.
Page 11 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Four Factors 

Contribute to Rural 

Road Fatalities

One or more of four factors contribute to rural road fatalities—human 

behavior, roadway environment, vehicles, and the degree of care for 

victims after a crash.9

 Human behavioral factors involve actions taken by or 

the condition of the driver and passenger of the automobile, including the 

use or nonuse of safety belts, the effects of alcohol or drugs, speeding and 

other traffic violations, and being distracted or drowsy when driving. 

Roadway environment factors that contribute to rural road fatalities 

include the design of the roadway (e.g., medians, lane width, shoulders, 

curves, access points, lighting, or intersections); roadside hazards (e.g., 

utility poles, trees, and animals adjacent to the road); and roadway 

conditions (e.g., rain, ice, snow, or fog). Vehicle factors include vehiclerelated failures and vehicle design issues that contribute to a crash and are 

important in both rural and urban crashes. Lastly, victim care includes the 

quality of the emergency response and the hospitals that provide medical 

treatment for those involved in a crash. 

Several Human Behaviors 

Contribute to Rural Road 

Fatalities

Several human behaviors contribute to rural road fatalities, including 

nonuse of safety belts, alcohol-impaired driving, speeding, and being 

distracted or drowsy when driving. In general, human factors are 

considered the most prevalent in contributing to crashes. 

• Not using safety belts contributes to fatalities in rural crashes. For 

example, of the approximately 53,000 unrestrained (unbelted) vehicle 

occupant fatalities that occurred from 2000 through 2002, about 36,000 

or 68 percent occurred in rural areas. NHTSA research on safety belt use 

in rural areas shows that rural areas are essentially similar to urban 

areas in safety belt use rates. In 2002, NHTSA data showed about 73 

percent belt use in rural areas and 72 percent in urban areas.10

9

Highway Safety: Research Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor 

Vehicle Crashes, GAO-03-436, (Washington D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003). This report categorized the 

factors contributing to motor vehicle crashes as human behavior, roadway environment, 

and vehicle factors. It also notes that in addition to crashes, roadway fatalities are affected 

by use of safety belts and the care provided after the crash occurs.

10Estimates are based on the National Occupant Protection Use Survey, an observational 

survey of safety belt use, conducted in June 2002. The data collectors in this survey assessed 

urbanization subjectively and the occupants in rural areas might or might not have lived in 

rural areas. The sampling error for this data was plus or minus 4.9 percent for urban and 

plus or minus 4.3 percent for rural, at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 12 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

• Alcohol-impaired driving contributed to 27,775 rural road fatalities from 

2000 through 2002—about 63 percent of the 44,403 alcohol-related 

fatalities nationwide. While, according to NHTSA data, there is little 

difference between blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of rural and 

urban drivers involved in fatal crashes, state officials told us that risks 

from drinking and driving in rural areas are increased because of longer 

driving distances and the lack of public transportation options available 

to intoxicated drivers.

• From 2000 through 2002, about 62 percent of the nation’s speeding 

related fatalities were on rural roads, amounting to about 24,000 of the 

39,000 fatalities where speed was a contributing factor, according to 

NHTSA data. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

officials, speed influences crashes by increasing the distance traveled 

from when a driver detects an emergency until the driver reacts; 

increasing the distance needed to stop; increasing the severity of an 

accident (i.e., when speed increases from 40 to 60 miles per hour, the 

energy released in a crash more than doubles); and reducing the ability 

of the vehicles, restraint systems, and roadside hardware, such as 

guardrails and barriers, to protect occupants.

• Drivers who are distracted or drowsy also contribute to rural crashes. 

For example, a 2002 NHTSA national survey found that drivers involved 

in a distracted-related crash attribute their distraction to such items as 

looking for something outside the car (23 percent of drivers in a 

distracted-related crash), dealing with children or other passengers (19 

percent), looking for something inside the car (14 percent), or another 

driver (11 percent).11 A Virginia Commonwealth University pilot study of 

distracted drivers found that for rural drivers in the study, crashes often 

involved driver fatigue, insects striking the windshield or entering the 

vehicle, and animals and unrestrained pet distractions.12 The study 

11National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2002, The 

Gallup Organization, March 2003. The Gallup Organization conducted the survey. The 

sampling errors for the percentages reported in this report are about plus or minus 4.3 

points, at the 95 percent confidence level. The responses were self-reported responses to a 

2002 survey asking for recall over the past 5 years. 

12Andrea L. Glaze, M.A., and James M. Ellis, M.S., Pilot Study of Distracted Drivers, Survey 

and Evaluation Research Laboratory, Center for Public Policy, Virginia Commonwealth 

University, January 2003. The results are based on Virginia drivers involved in a crash 

between June 15 and November 30, 2002, where one or more of the drivers were identified 

as inattentive and/or distracted.
Page 13 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

found that in urban areas distracted driving crashes often involved 

drivers looking at other crashes, traffic, or vehicles, or using cell 

phones.

Roadway Environment 

Factors Contribute to Rural 

Road Fatalities

Roadway factors also contribute to rural road fatalities. Rural roads can be 

narrow; have limited sight distance due to hills and curves; have small or 

nonexistent shoulders; have no medians; and may have hazards or objects 

near the roadway such as trees, utility poles, or animals. As a result of these 

features, fatal crashes on two-lane rural roads are significant. For example, 

FHWA reports that over 70 percent of single-vehicle run-off-the-road 

fatalities occur on rural roadways and that about 90 percent of these were 

on two-lane rural roads. Similarly, crashes involving vehicles crossing the 

centerline and either sideswiping or striking the front end of oncoming 

vehicles are a major problem in rural areas, accounting for about 20 

percent of all fatal crashes on rural two-lane roads.13 In addition, crashes 

with animals—specifically larger animals such as deer and elk-—are also 

prevalent in rural areas. For example, according to the Deer-Vehicle Crash 

Information Clearinghouse, there were more than 130,000 deer-vehicle 

crashes reported in five states in 2000.14 In addition, a Highway Safety 

Information System report examined five states’ experiences with motor 

vehicle collisions involving animals and found that from 1985 through 1990, 

74 percent to 94 percent of reported crashes involving animals occurred on

rural roads.15 The report also found that collisions involving animals ranged 

from about 12 percent to 35 percent of all reported crashes on two-lane 

rural roads. Rural roadway conditions can also contribute to rural crashes 

and resulting fatalities. Surface conditions that can impair a driver’s ability 

to control the vehicle include snow, ice, standing water, and oil, in addition 

to such road surface features as potholes, ruts, and pavement edge dropoffs. Lack of lighting also contributes to rural road fatalities. For example, a 

13Bhagwant N. Persaud, Richard A. Retting, and Craig Lyon, “Crash Reduction Following 

Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural Two-Lane Roads,” Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety, September 2003.

14Keith K. Knapp, Development of a Deer-Vehicle Crash Countermeasure Toolbox, DeerVehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse. The five states included are Illinois, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The study notes that the numbers cited are reported 

crashes and that actual crashes with deer could be much higher.

15Warren E. Hughes, Investigation of Crashes with Animals, Highway Safety Information 

System, March 1995, FHWA-RD-94-156. Results are applicable to crashes in Illinois, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Utah. 
Page 14 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

study performed for the Minnesota Department of Transportation found 

that the installation of street lighting at isolated rural intersections reduced 

both nighttime crash frequency (25 percent to 40 percent) and crash 

severity (8 percent to 26 percent).16 

Vehicle Design Contributes 

to Rural Road Fatalities

The design of the vehicle can contribute to rural road fatalities. The wide 

variances in vehicle sizes and weights, as well as vehicle configurations, 

sometimes result in greater damage and injury to smaller vehicles and their 

occupants if a collision occurs. For example, when heavy sport utility 

vehicles (SUV) or pickup trucks collide with smaller cars, the occupants in 

the lighter and lower vehicles are more likely to die as a result of the crash, 

particularly if struck in the side. Vehicle design has been shown to affect 

vehicle handling in particular types of maneuvers. In rural settings this is 

important because the roads may be narrow and have sharp curves. The 

design of the vehicle in these types of crashes can make a difference in 

whether a run-off-the-road vehicle rolls over, one of the most serious types 

of crashes. Almost three-fourths of fatal rollover crashes occur in rural 

areas, according to a 2002 NHTSA study.17 In 2002, rollover crashes killed 

10,666 occupants in passenger cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans. A study 

by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that examined single-vehicle 

rollover crashes concluded that the combined rollover crash rate for 

pickup trucks and SUVs was more than twice the rate for passenger cars.18

In addition, a NHTSA study found that in 2002, nearly two-thirds of the 

3,995 SUV occupant fatalities occurred in rollover crashes. 

16Howard Preston and Ted Schoenecker, Safety Impact of Street Lighting at Isolated Rural 

Intersections, Minnesota Department of Transportation, April 1999.

17William Deutermann, Characteristics of Fatal Rollover Crashes, DOT HS 809 438, April 

2002. 

18Charles Farmer and Adrian Lund, “Rollover Risk of Cars and Light Trucks after Accounting 

for Driver and Environmental Factors,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 34, 2002.
Page 15 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Lack of Effective and 

Available Emergency 

Medical Services Contribute 

to Rural Road Fatalities

Lack of effective and available emergency medical services (EMS) also 

contribute to rural road fatalities. For example, victims did not reach a 

hospital within an hour of the crash in about 30 percent of the fatal crashes 

on rural roads, according to NHTSA data for 2002. This compares with 8 

percent of the fatal crashes on urban highways where victims did not reach 

a hospital within an hour. In addition, the Emergency Medical Services 

Division Chief at NHTSA told us that providing adequate medical care in 

rural areas is more challenging due, in part, to the lack of trauma services. 

A 2001 GAO report found that rural areas are more likely to rely on 

volunteers rather than paid staff, and these volunteers may have fewer 

opportunities to maintain skills or upgrade their skills with training.19 

According to an opinion survey of state EMS directors in 2000, rural areas 

received significantly less coverage by emergency medical technicians, 

paramedics, enhanced 911 services, and emergency dispatchers.20 Finally, a 

1995 Montana study concluded that the absence of an organized trauma 

care system contributed to preventable deaths from mechanical trauma, 

including motor vehicle crashes.21

Federal and State 

Efforts to Improve 

Highway Safety 

Include Rural Roads

Each year FHWA and NHTSA provide billions of dollars to states to 

improve roadways and eliminate roadway hazards, as well as to improve 

driver behavior. In addition to funding, FHWA and NHTSA provide 

technical guidance and support for state safety programs and conduct 

research on roadway safety. Neither agency has specific rural road safety 

programs, but efforts to improve rural road safety are generally included 

within programs that address broader aspects of highway construction or 

highway safety. The states are ultimately responsible for deciding on the 

use of the funding provided. The five states we contacted funded projects 

19Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With A Growing Focus 

on Lack of Data, GAO-02-28 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001).

20National Association of State EMS Directors, “Challenges of Rural Emergency Services: 

Opinion Survey of State EMS Directors,” June 2000. State EMS Directors were asked to use 

their own definition of “rural,” and their answers reflect an estimate of coverage based on 

their opinions. Enhanced 911 allows emergency responders to automatically locate people 

who call 911 from cellular telephones.

21Thomas Esposito, “Analysis of Preventable Trauma and Inappropriate Trauma Care in a 

Rural State,” 1995. A multidisciplinary review panel judged the preventability of deaths 

occurring in Montana between October 1, 1990, and September 30, 1991, that were 

attributed to mechanical trauma. Half of the deaths reviewed were attributed to motor 

vehicle crashes.
Page 16 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

that improved rural road safety. However, not all the states could identify 

all funds used for rural road safety because the data were not collected nor 

maintained in that manner. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the 

relative emphasis that states place on rural road safety and whether the 

emphasis has changed over time. 

Funding Is Provided to 

States to Eliminate 

Roadway Hazards and 

Improve Driving Behavior 

but Portion Used for Rural 

Safety Is Unknown

FHWA and NHTSA provide the states funding to support a variety of 

programs, part of which was used to improve rural road safety. In fiscal 

year 2003, FHWA provided states and the District of Columbia with about 

$27.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds. Under TEA-21, from fiscal year 

1998 though fiscal year 2003, federal-aid highway funding totaled about 

$167 billion. States use these funds to, among other things, construct new 

roadways; maintain the interstate highway system through resurfacing, 

restoring, rehabilitating, or reconstructing activities; and replace or 

rehabilitate highway bridges. While many of these highway improvement 

projects may include safety features that affect rural roads, the safety 

features are not specifically segregated for reporting purposes. For 

example, expanding a stretch of roadway to ease congestion could have an 

added impact of improving safety but could be reported as reconstruction 

or rehabilitation, depending on the actual project. In addition, construction 

projects may include items that can improve or upgrade safety features 

such as installing new guardrails or impact barriers but may not be 

identified or accounted for as a safety improvement. However, the federalaid highway funds include two specific safety programs—Hazard 

Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossings—that can be used for rural road 

safety improvements. In addition, NHTSA also provided states with funds 

under TEA-21 to address driver behaviors. 

As shown in figure 5, under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal 

year 2003, FHWA and NHTSA provided states about $6.7 billion specifically 

to improve roadway safety and improve driver behavior. 
Page 17 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

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

From fiscal year 1998 through 2003, under TEA-21, FHWA provided about 

$4 billion to states specifically for highway safety construction under two 

programs—Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. 

Highway safety projects built with these funds include construction 

projects to eliminate highway design hazards, such as narrow lanes or 

sharp curves; improve intersections; or improve rail-highway grade 

crossings. Under these programs, states can spend funds to address safety 

construction issues on any public state or local roadway. Nationwide, 

about $1.4 billion, or 49 percent, of the funds spent by states were used for 

rural purposes. For fiscal year 2003, about $648 million went to the states 

for hazard elimination and highway-rail crossings programs—about $330 

million of which went to improve rural road safety.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

FHWA programs

NHTSA programs

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA and FHWA data.
Page 18 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, NHTSA 

provided about $2.7 billion to states and the District of Columbia for 

programs addressing driving behavior through formula grants, incentive 

grants, and penalty transfer funds.22 (See fig. 6.) Under the formula grants 

program, about $859 million was provided to the states to carry out traffic 

safety programs designed to influence drivers’ behavior in such areas as 

safety belt use, alcohol-impaired driving, regional traffic safety initiatives, 

traffic records and safety data collection systems, and pedestrian safety. 

Incentive grants of about $1.2 billion under TEA-21 were provided to states 

for achieving improvements in safety belt use, reducing drunk driving, and 

improving highway safety data. Penalty transfer of funds was required 

under TEA-21 for states that did not adopt specific laws prohibiting open 

alcohol containers in passenger compartments or setting minimum 

penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders. Under these requirements, 

states that are currently subject to either penalty must transfer 3 percent of 

their federal-aid highway construction funds to the NHTSA programs. The 

transferred funds can be used to support behavioral programs to limit 

drunk driving or can be spent on highway hazard elimination projects. In 

fiscal year 2004, 23 states were subject to one or both penalty transfer 

programs. From fiscal year 2001, when the penalties began, through fiscal 

year 2003, about $637 million has been transferred under this program. 

NHTSA does not collect information on the funds used for rural roads 

because it is difficult to distinguish between urban and rural benefits of 

many efforts, such as drunk driving television or radio spots or billboard 

ads. 

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

programs.
Page 19 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Figure 6: How NHTSA Provided $2.7 Billion of Safety Program Funding to States 

under TEA-21, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2003 

FHWA and NHTSA Provide 

Technical Guidance and 

Support for State Safety 

Programs that Include Rural 

Road Projects

FHWA provides safety training and technical assistance to state and local 

governments, some of which pertains to rural road safety. For example, 

FHWA’s National Highway Institute offers training for state transportation 

department staffs. Some training focuses on rural road safety issues, such 

as the 3-day course entitled “Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric 

Design Features on Two-Lane Rural Highways,” which addresses the safety 

impacts of highway features like lane and shoulder width, curves, and 

intersection designs. FHWA also offers training and technical assistance to 

states and others through its Resource Center offices in Baltimore, Chicago 

(Olympia Fields), Atlanta, and San Francisco. For example, in 2003, the 

Safety and Design National Technical Service Team from the Chicago 

center conducted 23 different workshops, some of them multiple times, for 

state and local officials. An example of a Resource Center activity that 

pertained to rural roads was a 1-day workshop on low-cost safety 

improvements. The workshop addressed more than 40 improvement 

measures and how they might reduce crashes. 

FHWA also offers training to local communities through its Local Technical 

Assistance Program. Under this program, FHWA established a center in 

every state to provide technical assistance to local highway program 

managers. In addition, seven centers have been established to provide 

technical assistance for tribal governments. The centers provide training 

Alcohol penalty transfers

Incentive grants

Formula grants

Source: GAO presentation of NHTSA data.

44%

24%

32%
Page 20 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

courses, outreach visits, newsletters, and technical resources to local 

highway managers. Program officials said they have a constant demand for 

a number of safety-related courses. Examples of course topics include road 

safety fundamentals, road safety audits, data collection, safety 

management systems, and construction zone flagger training. In addition, 

FHWA, along with the Federal Transit Administration, has funded a Safety 

Conscious Planning training course offered to state DOT officials and 

others that helps them integrate safety as a key planning factor. Lastly, 

FHWA provides guidance to states by issuing standards for traffic signs and 

signals in a publication called the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. The manual sets minimum standards for topics like traffic sign 

size, placement, support, and nighttime visibility. In 2000, FHWA revised 

the manual and included a new section called “Traffic Control Devices for 

Low-Volume Roads.”

NHTSA provides technical assistance to state traffic safety programs 

through its 10 regional offices. This assistance does not have a focus on 

rural road safety but rather is intended to help states identify their most 

important traffic safety problems, establish goals and performance 

measures, and review annual safety plans and reports. NHTSA regional 

offices provide training programs for state safety officials and encourage 

them to participate in national programs like the “Click It or Ticket” safety 

belt campaign.23 NHTSA staff from the regional offices and headquarters 

also provide technical assistance to rural and other areas of the states by 

participating in or supporting state assessments and forums on safety 

topics like safety belt use, impaired driving, or data improvements. For 

example, NHTSA’s Region III provided local governments in their five 

states and the District of Columbia with a communication kit for 

conducting a sobriety checkpoint campaign. It included background 

information on drinking and driving, suggestions for core messages that the 

localities could share with news organizations, sample news releases for 

increasing public awareness of drunk driving and the checkpoint 

campaign, and suggestions for preparing op-ed articles in local 

newspapers. In addition, NHTSA published “Partners for Rural Traffic 

Safety Action Kit” in 2001, in conjunction with the National Rural Health 

Association. This action kit is based on the experience of 15 rural 

community demonstration sites that conducted 30-day campaigns to 

increase safety belt use. The association developed, tested, and revised a 

23“Click It or Ticket” is a highway safety program that uses increased enforcement along 

with a media campaign to encourage safety belt use. 
Page 21 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

step-by-step guide based on a community development process model and 

created the Action Kit, which is available online and through NHTSA’s 

resource center.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Congress also provided NHTSA $3 million 

to support state efforts to increase safety belt use in minority, teen, and 

rural populations. Two initiatives to address rural populations are under 

way. One involves a 3-year demonstration program that tests communitybased infrastructure development and delivery systems to increase rural 

safety belt use. Demonstration projects are being conducted in Michigan, 

Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The second is a 2-year program 

designed to demonstrate the impact of various strategies to increase safety 

belt use in pickup truck occupants, with concentrated activities in rural 

areas. This demonstration program includes Arkansas, Louisiana, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Indian Nations. 

NHTSA has also been involved with the “First There, First Care” program 

to increase bystander care for the injured. NHTSA, the Department of 

Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services 

Administration, and the American Trauma Society developed this program 

to give motorists information, training, and confidence to provide basic 

lifesaving care at the scene of a crash, increasing the chances of survival 

for crash victims. Distribution of the program and its material to states and 

others has focused on rural implementation. 

FHWA and NHTSA Conduct 

Research That Includes 

Rural Road Safety Issues

In 2003, FHWA budgeted $10.9 million, or about 12 percent of its research 

budget, for highway safety research and technology. This research 

addressed four key safety topics: run-off-the-road crashes, intersection 

crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and speed management. From a 

rural roadway perspective, research on run-off-the-road and speed- related 

crashes is particularly relevant. Over 70 percent of single-vehicle run-offthe-road fatalities occurred on rural roadways, and, according to a NHTSA 

official, in 2001 over 80 percent of fatalities at speeds of 55 miles per hour 

or higher occurred in rural areas. Many safety research efforts apply to 

both rural and urban roads, but FHWA’s work on the Interactive Highway 

Safety Design Model specifically addressed two-lane rural roads. This 

computer model provides a means of measuring the safety and operational 

impacts of various design decisions that might be used in stretches of twolane roadway. It is anticipated that state and local highway planners and 

designers will use the model to help them evaluate various construction 

and improvement options.
Page 22 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

FHWA also provides funding for highway research by others. For example, 

under TEA-21, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, FHWA 

provided states $3.1 billion for Statewide Planning and Research. Under 

this program, TEA-21 required that the states use at least 25 percent of 

these funds, or $769 million, for transportation research, which includes 

conducting research on improving highway safety. Two of the states we 

visited provided examples of such research. For example, Texas sponsored 

research into crashes on low-volume rural two-lane highways and potential 

alternatives to avoid them, and Minnesota sponsored research on driver 

response to rumble strips and innovative research to address lane 

departures and intersection collisions, both safety issues on the state’s 

rural roads.24 FHWA has also provided funding through the states for the 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the 

National Research Council, which has been working on a safety design 

model for multilane rural roads and a Highway Safety Manual that would 

provide commonly accepted safety guidance on rural and urban highway 

design. 

NHTSA conducts research that addresses both driver behavioral and 

vehicle safety issues. NHTSA’s behavioral highway safety research program 

had a 2003 budget of $7.4 million. It focused on areas such as impaired 

driving, occupant protection, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcycle 

riders. According to NHTSA officials, their research generally addresses 

safety problem areas rather than rural or urban localities, but the results 

may be applicable to both rural and urban areas. Furthermore, in 2003, 

NHTSA’s vehicle safety research program received $69 million to, among 

other things, collect and analyze crash data. The Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS) tracks fatality data at a cost of about $5.7 million 

per year, and the General Estimates System provides descriptive statistics 

about traffic crashes of all severities at a cost of up to $3 million per year, 

according to NHTSA officials. 

24Rumble strips are grooves rolled or ground into the centerlines, edges, or shoulders of 

roads. They are designed to alert drivers when they drift out of the traffic lane and thereby 

prevent head-on and run-off-the-road crashes.
Page 23 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

States Are Responsible for 

Identifying and 

Implementing 

Improvements to Rural 

Road Safety

While DOT provides states with funding, research, oversight, and guidance, 

ultimately states are responsible for identifying and addressing their 

roadway safety problems. The five states we visited had plans and 

initiatives that addressed what they determined to be their most important 

safety problems on all roadways, including rural roads. State efforts to 

improve rural road safety include eliminating rural roadway hazards 

through construction projects to widen lanes and shoulders and through 

lower-cost approaches, such as adding shoulder and centerline rumble 

strips, expanding clear zones along the roadways, installing intersection 

beacon lights, and improving signage and road markings. In addition, each 

state had programs that attempted to alter driver behavior through such 

efforts as increasing enforcement of traffic laws and conducting 

community awareness campaigns that include the use of paid advertising 

on television and radio. Two states also increased enforcement by 

conducting sobriety checkpoints. All but one of the states could not 

provide details on all the funds used to address rural road safety because 

data were not collected and maintained in that way. Most state officials we 

spoke with supported the current flexibility they have to use the funds 

provided in areas they determine are the most important and did not favor 

having a separate rural road program or initiative. One official in 

Pennsylvania told us that having a separate rural road program would help 

bring needed attention to rural road safety. 

The following are examples of rural-related projects supported in the five 

states we visited. Appendix II has additional information on the funding 

received by these states and the activities they support.

• California—The California Highway Patrol is leading a task force that is 

examining the safety of all state corridors based on fatality and accident 

data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk corridors in the state, of 

which 16 were two-lane roads with a majority of the corridors in rural 

areas. The task force is responsible for making both infrastructure and 

behavioral improvement recommendations to address the safety issue 

with these high-risk corridors. In addition, California is supporting a 

Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For this effort, the 

Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the California Office of 

Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing 

enforcement of traffic violations that often lead to collisions: speeding, 

right-of-way violations, failing to drive on the right half of the road, 

improper turning, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 

California also uses sobriety checkpoints to discourage drinking and 

driving.
Page 24 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

• Georgia—Using FHWA hazard elimination funding, the state has 

undertaken several roadway improvement programs that address 

aspects of rural road safety. For example, Georgia identified four 

problem areas that it focused on in 2003—run-off-the-road crashes, 

intersection crashes, car-train crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia 

official said that the run-off-the-road and animal crashes were 

particularly prevalent in rural settings. A Georgia official said that the 

state is adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline reflectors to help 

reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and, to reduce animal crashes, the 

state is expanding the recovery zone beyond the clear zone along some 

roads, culling deer herds, and researching light and sound devices to 

warn drivers of deer presence. 

• Minnesota—State traffic safety officials have implemented several 

construction and behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The 

“Towards Zero Deaths” initiative, for example, is an ongoing 

collaborative program among the Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, Public Safety, State Patrol, and local safe community 

organizations to provide grants to localities that work with safety 

officials to develop a plan to reduce traffic fatalities. In addition, the 

state Department of Transportation completed a statewide audit of 

intersections and corridors in 2003. The audit identified and ranked the 

top 200 intersections and 150 corridors with the highest crash costs. 

Rural areas accounted for 54 of the intersections and 53 of the corridors. 

The Department of Transportation’s goal is to address 40 of these high 

crash cost intersections and corridors for safety improvements each 

year in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Further, the 

Department of Transportation has made extensive use of shoulder 

rumble strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips on twolane roadways.

• Pennsylvania—Pennsylvania has installed 300 miles of centerline 

rumble strips on rural roadways in an effort to help warn drivers that 

they have strayed from their lane. State transportation officials 

estimated that rumble strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road 

crashes by 25 percent. In addition, Pennsylvania implemented a 

Tailgating Treatment program in which dots are painted on the state’s 

rural roadways to help drivers determine a safe following distance.25 

25The state painted “dots” on the pavement, along with guide signs, to help motorists 

maintain safe following distances in areas with high levels of aggressive-driver crashes.
Page 25 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Pennsylvania officials told us they also funded over 100 rural projects 

that focused on improving occupant protection, reducing impaired 

driving, and supporting community traffic safety efforts, and they 

conducted 722 sobriety checkpoints and DUI roving patrols during fiscal 

year 2002.

• Texas—For fiscal year 2004, the state identified 235 hazard elimination 

projects that it plans on undertaking, most of which were on rural roads. 

These $43.4 million in projects include such things as adding 

intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, and adding rumble strips to 

roadways. In addition, district engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural 

two-lane highways in 2003, checking the appropriateness of speed limits 

and the condition of signs and pavement markings and assessing 

pavement edge drop-offs and curve warnings. Based on these 

assessments, changes will be made to address the most important 

findings.

Many Challenges 

Hinder Efforts to 

Improve Rural Road 

Safety 

Many challenges hinder efforts to improve rural road safety. For example, 

some states have not adopted the most effective safety belt use and 

impaired driving laws. In addition, the sheer volume of rural roads and the 

low volume of traffic on some of them, combined with the high cost of 

major construction improvements makes it difficult to rebuild rural roads 

with safer designs. Also, while states can use federal highway funds 

provided for hazard elimination and rail-highway crossing safety 

improvements on any public roads or public crossings, most of the federalaid highway funds cannot be used on certain rural roads—the rural minor 

collector and rural local roads. In addition, most rural roads are not state 

owned but rather are the responsibility of municipalities, counties, or 

townships, which may have limited resources. Further, some states lack 

information upon which to make informed decisions on potential road 

safety solutions, regardless of whether the road is rural or urban. Lastly, 

reducing fatalities on rural roads is also made more difficult because of 

limitations in emergency medical services in rural areas. Several proposals 

that the Congress is considering could potentially improve rural road 

safety. 
Page 26 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Some States Have Not 

Enacted Laws on Safety Belt 

Use and Drinking and 

Driving

While the Congress has provided incentives and penalties to encourage 

states to pass various laws to increase safety belt use and reduce drinking 

and driving, many states have not done so. These two factors are 

particularly important given that, in more than 36,000 rural fatalities due to 

passenger car, light truck, or van crashes, victims were not using safety 

belts, and more than 27,000 rural fatalities were identified as alcohol 

related, from 2000 through 2002. While these laws are not directed 

specifically to rural road safety, the issues they address are applicable to all 

types of roadways. According to a report by the Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety, as of January 1, 2004:

• Thirty states have not enacted primary safety belt laws, which allow 

police officers to pull over and cite motorists exclusively for the 

infraction of not using their safety belts.26 Twenty-nine of these states 

have enacted secondary safety belt laws. Secondary belt laws allow 

police to issue a safety belt citation only if the motorist is pulled over for 

another infraction, such as speeding or an expired license tag. One state 

allows occupants over 18 to not use safety belts. As noted in our prior 

report, states with secondary enforcement laws can increase safety belt 

use, but their success is limited by the difficulty in effectively enforcing 

the law.27

• Fourteen states have not enacted laws consistent with federal 

requirements for prohibiting open alcohol container in motor vehicles. 

Open container laws prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic 

beverage container or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in the 

passenger area of a motor vehicle. In addition, 14 states have not 

enacted laws consistent with the federal requirement for penalizing 

repeat drunk driving offenders.28 Taken together, 23 different states have 

26NHTSA officials told us that states enacting the primary safety belt laws have experienced 

an 8 to10 percent increase in safety belt use. 

27Motor Vehicle Safety: Comprehensive State Programs Offer Best Opportunity for 

Increasing Use of Safety Belts, GAO/RCED-96-24 (Washington D.C.: Jan. 3, 1996).

28To comply with federal program requirements, a repeat offender statute must include the 

following: (1) a minimum 1-year license suspension; (2) impoundment, immobilization or 

installation of an ignition interlock device on all vehicles owned by the offender; (3) 

assessment of alcohol abuse by the offender and an authorization of the appropriate 

treatment; and (4) a mandatory minimum sentence. 
Page 27 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

not enacted laws that are consistent with at least one of these two 

program requirements.

• Three states have not established .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 

as the legal limit for drunk driving.29 In 2000, the Congress provided that 

states that did not do so would have 2 percent of their federal-aid 

highway funds withheld in 2004. The penalty grows to a high of 8 

percent in 2007. States adopting the standard by 2007 would be 

reimbursed for any funds withheld.

Safety Improvements to 

Rural Roads Limited by the 

Combination of the Millions 

of Miles of Rural Roads, 

Low Volume of Traffic, and 

High Cost of Construction

Due to the extensive size of the rural highway system, the low volume of 

traffic on many rural roads and the high costs that would be incurred to 

make major safety changes, state and local governments find it difficult to 

undertake major safety construction programs on some rural roads. As a 

result, lower-cost alternatives are pursued to improve rural road safety in 

many situations.

Of the 3.9 million miles of the nation’s road system, rural roads account for 

about 3 million miles (about 77 percent). In addition, most of the rural 

mileage is on the lowest functional class of rural roads—local rural roads—

that account for about 68 percent of the rural roads (about 2.1 million 

miles). While making up three-fourths of the nation’s road system, rural 

roads overall carry only about 40 percent of the traffic, with the rural local 

roads carrying about 5 percent of the traffic. 

29According to a NHTSA official, the Colorado General Assembly has recently passed a bill 

that, if enacted, would appear to meet federal program requirements, and this would reduce 

the number of states that have not established 0.08 BAC as the legal limit for drunk driving 

to two.
Page 28 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Although use of rural roads is low, the costs associated with major 

construction projects on rural roads are high. For example, FHWA’s 

Highway Economic Requirements System model estimates the cost of 

widening 11-foot lanes to 12-foot lanes at about $186,000 per mile—over 

five times the cost of resurfacing the 11-foot lanes.30 In addition, an official 

from FHWA’s Kentucky Division Office told us it would cost about $200,000 

to $250,000 per mile to widen low-volume rural roads by 1 foot. Further, a 

Transportation Research Board report noted that providing wider crosssections (wider lanes, wider full-strength shoulders, and enabling 100 

percent passing sight-distance) on a two-lane roadway could cost from 

about $1 million to $3 million per mile.31 As a result, low-cost 

improvements are an option to be considered for many rural roads. For 

example, FHWA has identified more than 40 low-cost improvements that 

states can use on rural roads at high-crash locations. Examples include 

installing rumble strips to roadways, moving trees or utility poles away 

from the roadway, adding or improving roadside signs, and adding lighting 

or flashing beacons to intersections and rail-highway grade crossings. See 

appendix III for more information on the low-cost alternatives. 

States Are Limited in Using 

Federal Aid Highway Funds 

for Certain Rural Roadways

Because of program requirements, states cannot use all categories of 

federal-aid highway funds for certain rural roads. These limitations specify 

that funds used for constructing new roadways or conducting major 

renovations of roadways cannot be used for rural local roads, rural minor 

collectors, or for urban local roads. These program restrictions were made 

to ensure that the interstate highway system and other roads with higher 

expected traffic have adequate funds to meet the transportation needs of 

the public, according to a FHWA official. While some other federal-aid 

highway funds are available for all rural roads, such as the Hazard 

Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs within the Surface 

Transportation Program, these roadways receive significantly less funding 

per mile than urban counterparts.32 As shown in table 1, of the $30 billion 

30Costs are default values for minor widening of a rural minor collector on flat terrain used 

in FHWA’s Highway Economic Requirements System model.

31Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, NCHRP Report 500, 

Volume 4: A Guide for Addressing Head-On Collisions, 2003.

32States must set aside at least 10 percent of the State Transportation Program funds to 

support the Hazard Elimination and Highway-Rail Crossing Programs and can be used on 

any roadway for safety purposes.
Page 29 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

provided to states in fiscal year 2002, about $12.1 billion went to all rural 

roads, with $541 million going to rural local roads. 

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

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.

Note: This analysis includes only funding administered by FHWA and does not include funding from 

other federal agencies, state and local governments, or other sources. Fiscal year 2002 is the most 

current data regarding this information available from FHWA. Figures may not total precisely due to 

rounding.

States are also challenged in making improvements in rural road safety 

because, in most states, large portions of rural roads are not directly under 

the responsibility of the state but rather fall under the jurisdiction of 

counties, municipalities, or townships. Nationwide, about 78 percent of all 

rural roads (2.4 million of the nation’s 3.1 million rural miles) are not owned 

by the states. About 93 percent (about 2.0 million miles) of the rural local 

Functional roadway class

Federal-aid highway 

funding 

(in thousands) Road miles

Urban roads

Urban interstate $5,186,072 13,491 

Urban freeway/expressway 990,277 9,323

 Urban other principal arterial 4,904,704 53,439

 Urban minor arterial 2,474,298 90,411

 Urban collector 836,543 89,247

 Urban local road 580,367 638,813

 Urban other 2,127,437

Total urban $17,099,698 894,724 

Rural roads

 Rural interstate 2,726,350 32,992

 Rural other principal arterial 4,220,132 98,853

 Rural minor arterial 1,697,189 137,568

 Rural major collector 1,582,700 430,946

 Rural minor collector 243,670 270,700

Rural local road 541,219 2,100,702

 Rural other 1,135,292

Total rural $12,146,552 3,071,761

 Unclassified other 1,555,771

Total $30,802,021 3,966,485
Page 30 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

roads are not under state jurisdiction. In 45 states, jurisdictions other than 

the state own 75 percent or more of their rural local roads. (See fig. 7.) 

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

Some local officials in states we visited said they were challenged to make 

costly rural road construction improvements without finding other sources 

of funds to supplement those provided by states, such as issuing bonds or 

increasing local taxes. In addition, a study for the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program noted that many of the roads most in need of 

roadside safety improvements are under the control of local governments 

that have the least amount of resources to address the needs.33

33R.G. McGinnis, Strategic Plan for Improving Roadside Safety, National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program, February 2001.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Number of states

4

0 1

45

Percentage of rural local roads not owned by a state

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA data.
Page 31 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Information Lacking on 

Crashes and the 

Effectiveness of 

Countermeasures Used

Accurate, timely crash data are important for planning future urban and 

rural highway safety programs and assessing the impacts of recent projects 

or programs to improve safety. States rely on crash data from fatality 

crashes, injury crashes, and property-damage-only crashes to identify 

safety problems and plan safety improvements. Some states we visited 

identified problems with their crash data system and were trying to 

improve their crash data to make them more accurate, complete, and 

timely. For example, Texas is about 2 1⁄2 years behind in entering crash data 

from police accident reports into its data system. State officials pointed out 

that without timely data, it is difficult to determine if the actions taken on a 

stretch of road had the intended effect. To make the data timelier, Texas 

plans to have a new system in place by fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $14 

million. The new Texas system would encourage local law enforcement 

agencies to collect, validate, and report crash data electronically. It would 

also provide centralized analysis, review, and data reporting to agencies 

that plan and conduct state highway safety programs. Georgia modified its 

crash data processing in 1998, but the changes were not successful, 

according to a Georgia State Auditor’s report. In 2001, a new agency took 

over the crash data system and, after a data recovery effort, eliminated a 

multi-year backlog of crash data reporting by 2003. In addition, California is 

testing a system that would allow data recorded by police to be directly 

reported into a database through handheld electronic systems, thereby 

speeding the availability of the information. The information would be 

recorded in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System database 

that is used to help traffic safety officials select safety initiatives. 
Page 32 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Difficulties in Providing 

Adequate Emergency 

Medical Services

Reducing rural road fatalities is also hampered by the difficulty of 

providing prompt emergency medical services in rural settings. For 

example, we reported in 2001 that state and local officials told us that rural 

areas are less likely than urban areas to have 911 emergency dialing, and 

their communication between dispatchers or medical facilities and 

emergency vehicles are more likely to suffer from “dead spots”—areas 

where messages cannot be heard.34 The report also found that rural areas 

are more likely to rely on EMS volunteers rather than paid staff, and these 

volunteers may have fewer opportunities to maintain or upgrade their skills 

with training. In addition, the report noted that officials from national 

associations representing EMS physicians have indicated that long 

distances and potentially harsh weather conditions in rural areas can 

accelerate EMS vehicle wear and put these vehicles out of service more 

often. Survivability after a crash decreases as the time required for an 

injured person to receive medical treatment increases. Further, according 

to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report, a 

lack of rapid trauma treatment is critical during the seconds and minutes 

that immediately follow a crash.35 The report noted that the risk of dying 

before medical attention can be provided increases as the crash location is 

further removed from trained rescue staff and trauma medical facilities. A 

study of fatalities in Michigan also highlights the impact of providing 

emergency care in rural areas. The study found that of 155 fatalities in 24 

Michigan rural counties in 1995, 12.9 percent of the fatalities were 

definitely preventable or possibly preventable if rapid and appropriate 

emergency treatment had been available.36

Proposals Being Considered 

to Improve Roadway Safety

Congress is considering legislation that includes proposals to improve 

highway safety, including safety on rural roads. The proposals include two 

bills for the reauthorization of TEA-21: (1) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA), S. 1072, 

passed by the Senate in February 2004, and (2) the Transportation Equity 

34Emergency Medical Services: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With A Growing Focus 

on Lack of Data, GAO 02-28 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001).

35Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Safety Strategies for Rural 

Roads, 1999.

36R.F. Maio, R.E. Burney, M.A. Gregor, and M.G. Baranski, “A Study of Preventable Trauma 

Mortality in Rural Michigan,” July 1996. Trauma fatalities were not necessarily due to traffic 

crashes.
Page 33 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), H.R. 3550, passed by the House in April 

2004. Each of these proposals has features that could impact highway 

safety and, in some cases, directly address rural roads.

• Incentives for Enacting Stronger State Traffic Safety Laws. Safety belt 

use and impaired driving are important factors in rural road fatalities. S. 

1072 would provide grants to states for enactment of primary safety belt 

laws and would reward those states that already have this law. The 

proposal offers a maximum of $600 million in potential grants to states 

that enact and retain primary laws. H.R. 3550 requires states that do not 

meet federal open-container laws or federal requirements for penalizing 

repeat drunk driving offenders to transfer 3 percent of certain federalaid highway program funds to their Section 402 State and Community 

Grants Program.37 H.R. 3550 requires the transfer of 3 percent of certain 

federal-aid highway funds to Section 402 programs in states that have 

not enacted a primary seat belt law or achieved 90 percent belt usage.38

H.R. 3550 also includes a penalty provision that requires the withholding 

of 2 percent to 8 percent of certain federal-aid highway funds if a state 

has not enacted a law establishing .08 blood alcohol content as the legal 

limit for drunk driving.39 Finally, H.R. 3550 provides 1 year of additional 

funding for seat belt and drunk driving incentive grants. In addition, 

S.1072 proposes to withhold 2 percent of certain highway construction 

funds to those states that have not enacted open-container laws for 

fiscal years 2008 to 2011. 

• Direct Funding for High-Risk Rural Roads. Poor roadway design can 

contribute to rural road fatalities. H.R. 3550 would authorize $675 

million over 6 fiscal years for safety projects on high-risk rural roads. 

States could use federal funding to improve the safety of rural major 

collectors, rural minor collectors, or rural local roads that have, or that 

37FHWA’s federal-aid highway program provides funds to states for highway construction 

and improvement projects, while NHTSA’s Section 402 State and Community Grants 

Program provides funds to states for a wide variety of highway safety projects, such as 

projects to reduce alcohol-impaired driving and increase safety-belt use. Transfers under 

this provision would come from Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and 

Surface Transportation Program funds.

38Transfers under this provision would come from National Highway System, Surface 

Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds.

39Under this provision, funds would be withheld from the National Highway System, Surface 

Transportation Program, and Interstate Maintenance programs.
Page 34 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

are expected to have, higher than average statewide fatality and 

incapacitating injury rates.40

• New Highway Safety Improvement Program. Both S. 1072 and H.R. 

3550 contain provisions for a new highway safety improvement program 

to replace the current statutory requirement that states set aside 10 

percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds for carrying out 

Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. S. 1072 would 

authorize $8.2 billion over 6 years for the program and H.R. 3550 

proposes a level of $3.3 billion over 5 years. S. 1072 requires states to 

have crash data systems and the ability to perform safety problem 

identification and countermeasure analysis to use safety improvement 

funds. Both bills maintain state flexibility to use safety improvement 

funds for safety projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or 

pedestrian pathway or trail or public surface transportation facility. In 

both bills, states must identify roadway locations, sections, and 

elements that constitute a hazard to motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, 

and other highway users and develop and implement projects to address 

the hazards identified. 

• Enhanced Federal Funding for State Safety Data. Some of the states 

we visited had identified weaknesses in their highway data systems. S. 

1072 and H.R. 3550 would each create a new State Traffic Safety 

Information System Improvement grant. Funding would be authorized 

at $45 million per year under S. 1072 and $24 million to $39 million per 

year (for 5 fiscal years—2005 through 2009) under H.R. 3550. Larger 

states could qualify for larger grants, but the minimum grant amount 

would be $300,000 per year. By comparison, federal funding for data 

improvement grants under TEA-21 was never more than $11 million per 

year and was only available in fiscal years 1999 through 2002. H.R. 3550 

also allocates $4 million from NHTSA research authorizations to further 

develop a transportation safety information management system to 

provide for the collection, integration, management, and dissemination 

of safety data for state and local safety agencies.

40Another proposal to advance rural road safety was recently introduced—H.R. 3743, which 

would authorize $1 billion per year to improve safety on rural roads. States utilizing this 

funding would be obligated to conduct and systematically maintain an engineering survey of 

all two-lane rural roads classified as minor and major collectors and minor arterials. The 

survey would identify dangerous locations, assign priorities for the correction of such 

locations, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for improvement of such 

roads.
Page 35 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

• Proposals for New Safety Research. S. 1072 and H.R. 3550 would fund 

strategic highway research programs. S. 1072 would provide $450 

million for this purpose and H.R. 3550 would provide $329 million. 

According to the related NCHRP planning study, 40 percent of the 

funds—$180 million—would support safety research.41 The goal of this 

safety research is to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes 

through more accurate knowledge of crash factors and of the costeffectiveness of selected countermeasures in addressing these factors. 

The research plan focuses on road departure and intersection collisions, 

which represent 58 percent of traffic fatalities.

• Comprehensive Highway Safety Planning. S. 1072 requires states to 

develop and implement strategic highway safety plans that are 

comprehensive, data driven, and based on a collaborative process 

involving state and local safety stakeholders. The plans must be 

comprehensive, including all aspects of highway safety—infrastructure, 

driver behavior, motor carrier, and emergency medical services. They 

must be based on improved crash data collection and analysis. While not 

directed specifically at rural road safety, the collaborative process 

required by this provision provides an opportunity for local rural 

officials and leaders to participate in developing the goals and 

investments included in the plan. H.R. 3550 would encourage 

comprehensive safety planning for both behavioral and construction 

safety programs.

• Flexibility in Moving Funds between FHWA and NHTSA Programs.

S. 1072 allows states to use up to a quarter of their Highway Safety 

Improvement Program funds for behavioral projects, if the projects are 

included in a state comprehensive highway safety improvement plan. 

• Improving Emergency Medical Systems. The presence of timely 

competent medical attention has been shown to reduce rural and other 

traffic fatalities. S. 1072 would create an Emergency Medical Services 

grant program to provide state EMS offices funds for conducting 

coordinated EMS and 911 programs. S. 1072 would provide $5 million 

annually and would create a Federal Interagency Committee on 

Emergency Medical Services that would coordinate federal agencies’ 

41Interim Planning for a Future Strategic Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 

510, 2003.
Page 36 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

involvement with state, local, tribal, or regional emergency medical 

services and 911 services and to identify the needs of those entities. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of 

Transportation for its review and comment. The department generally 

agreed with the report’s contents and provided some technical comments, 

which we incorporated where appropriate. In discussing this report, 

agency officials noted that safety should be part of every project designed 

and built with federal-aid funds. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, the 

Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and to interested 

congressional committees. We will also provide copies to others on 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Samer Abbas, Rick 

Calhoon, Colin Fallon, Sara Moessbauer, Stacey Thompson, and Glen 

Trochelman.

Katherine Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 37 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

The Conference Report accompanying the 2003 Consolidated 

Appropriation Resolution directed us to review aspects of rural road safety 

and report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. To meet 

this requirement, we identified (1) factors contributing to rural road 

fatalities, (2) federal and state efforts to improve safety on the nation’s 

rural roads, and (3) challenges that may hinder making improvements in 

rural road safety. 

To identify the factors contributing to rural road fatalities, we 

supplemented an earlier GAO report, Highway Safety: Research 

Continues on a Variety of Factors That Contribute to Motor Vehicle 

Crashes (GAO-03-436, March 2003), with information from the Federal 

Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, and other organizations with knowledge of this issue, such 

as the National Association of Counties and the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials. We also reviewed studies 

identifying factors that contribute to rural road fatalities. For each of the 

selected studies that are used in this report, we determined whether the 

study’s findings were generally reliable. To do so, we evaluated the 

methodological soundness of the studies using common social science and 

statistical practices. For example, we examined each study’s methodology, 

including its limitations, data sources, analyses, and conclusions. 

In addition, we updated the earlier report by obtaining more current 

information on traffic deaths by using data from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). This database provides information on all 

traffic-related fatalities. Each state provides NHTSA fatality data in a 

standardized format. To be included in the database, a crash must result in 

the death of an occupant or nonmotorist within 30 days of the incident. The 

states obtain this information from such sources as police reports, vehicle 

registration files, state driver licensing files, death certificates, coroner or 

medical examiner reports, and hospital records. It should be noted that 

while fatality data is useful in understanding crashes, other factors in 

addition to those involved in causing the crash might have contributed to 

the fatality. This would include whether safety belt or other occupant 

protection measures were used and functioned properly. Before using this 

data, we assessed the reliability of the FARS data by reviewing the data for 

obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing 

information about the data, and interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Further, in providing information on factors contributing to rural road 

fatalities, we identified fatalities per million miles traveled. To do so, we 

used vehicle miles traveled data maintained by FHWA in its Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). This system is a national-level 

highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition, 

performance, use, and operating characteristics of the nation’s highways. 

In general, HPMS contains administrative and extent of system information 

on all public roads. The HPMS obtains vehicle-miles-traveled data from 

each state, and states have different methods for collecting certain travel 

information. We assessed the reliability of the HPMS data by reviewing it 

for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, reviewing existing 

information about the data, and interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data. There are certain limitations associated 

with using these data. For example, the quality of the data in the system 

relies on state data collection techniques. HPMS guidance is flexible so that 

each state has its own approach, and some approaches do not require 

annual revisions. In addition, vehicle-miles-traveled data may not be 

comparable from state to state. However, we determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To identify federal and state efforts to improve rural road safety, we 

interviewed and obtained documentation from officials in the Federal 

Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. In addition, we reviewed state use of safety funds by 

meeting with safety officials in five states. We selected Minnesota, which 

DOT officials recommended as having a good rural road safety program, 

and the four states with the highest rural vehicle miles traveled: California, 

Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In each of these locations we met with 

state officials responsible for the FHWA and NHTSA programs, as well as 

some officials at the local level. We also reviewed recently issued guides, 

models, and training programs intended to help traffic safety officials 

improve their rural road safety programs, such as the Transportation 

Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program 500 

Report series that serves as guidance for implementing the American 

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan. 

To identify challenges that hinder making improvements in rural roads, we 

interviewed federal and state officials identified above and contacted 

experts from academia and advocacy groups. In addition, we attended a 

Rural Road Safety Roundtable in West Virginia at which participants 

discussed challenges facing rural road safety. We relied on NHTSA and a 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

report by the Advocates for Highway Safety to identify the status of the 50 

states’ compliance with various federal highway safety statues. We also 

reviewed various legislative proposals that may help address the issues. 

The legislative proposals included bills for the reauthorization of TEA-21: 

(1) the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFETEA) and (2) the House passed 

H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). We 

also reviewed the administration’s proposal, the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003; the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation bill S. 1978, the 

Surface Transportation Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003; and the House 

Committee on Science bill H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research 

and Development Act of 2004. However, the Senate and House passed S. 

1072 and H.R. 3550, respectively, so we did not include them in the report.

We performed our review from July 2003 through April 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 40 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve Rural 

Road Safety ApendxiI

We obtained information from five states (California, Georgia, Minnesota, 

Pennsylvania, and Texas) on the number of fatalities on their roadways, the 

federal funding they receive for safety purposes, and a description of the 

types of projects these funds support.

California During 2002, 1,713 people were killed on rural roads in California—the 

second-highest total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, 

California’s fatality rate on rural roads is about 2.67 fatalities per 100 

million vehicle miles traveled—greater than the national average of 2.29. 

Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 42 percent of all state roadway 

fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, California was provided over $2.5 billion in federal-aid 

highway funds. About $60.5 million of these funds were provided for 

Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing programs. These programs 

provided construction-related safety improvements on public roads, 

transportation facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or trails, and for 

rail-highway crossing safety programs. California also received about 

$100.4 million in fiscal year 2003 to improve roadway safety through a 

variety of activities designed to influence driving behavior. About $47.5 

million of the funds California received were transferred from the state’s 

federal-aid highway program because the state’s repeat offender law did 

not meet federal standards.1

 

California officials told us that they estimate they spent about $69.5 million 

on 58 rural road hazard elimination-related projects in 2003. Examples 

include: 

• The 2-3 Lane Safety Program. The California Department of 

Transportation uses past crash analysis to identify cross-centerline 

crash locations on two- and three-lane roadways for safety 

investigations. The agency then attempts to utilize the most costeffective solutions to make these roadways safer. In 2002, the agency 

identified 50 areas, 47 of which were located in rural locations.

1

Under 23 USC, section 164, states are required to have a repeat offender law that includes 

such things as a 1-year license suspension for a second offense; the impoundment, 

immobilization, or installation of an ignition interlock on an offender’s vehicle; an 

assessment of the individual’s degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and 

specified minimum jail or community service sentences. California’s impaired driving law 

does not impose all these sanctions on repeat offenders.
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 41 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

• Run-Off-the-Road Task Force. The California Department of 

Transportation currently has a task force examining locations where a 

number of run-off-the-road crashes are occurring. The agency then 

attempts to utilize cost-effective strategies to reduce the number or 

severity of these types of collisions. In 2003, about 73 percent of the 

locations identified were in rural areas. The agency hopes to proceed 

with the run-off-the-road monitoring program by the end of 2004.

California is also using about $48 million of the NHTSA provided funds to 

support 732 behavioral programs in fiscal year 2004. Of these funds, 

California officials identified about $9.9 million being used to support 80 

rural road-related programs. These projects include emergency medical 

initiatives such as the “First There, First Care” program, which will train 

young drivers in 54 schools in 11 counties on providing basic first aid at the 

scene of a motor vehicle crash. In addition, California’s Office of Traffic 

Safety has worked with the California Highway Patrol to implement two 

programs that have rural road safety impacts:

• Corridor Safety Project. The California Highway Patrol is leading a task 

force that is examining the safety of all state corridors, based on fatality 

and accident data. This effort has identified 20 high-risk corridors in the 

state, of which 16 were two-lane roads, mostly in rural areas. The task 

force is responsible for making both behavioral and infrastructure 

improvement recommendations to address the safety issue with these 

high-risk corridors.

• Traffic Collision Reduction on County Roads Project. For the 2004 

fiscal year, the Highway Patrol received $1.9 million from the Office of 

Traffic Safety to reduce crashes on county roads by increasing 

enforcement of traffic violations that often lead to collisions: speeding, 

right-of-way violations, failing to drive on the right half of the road, 

improper turning, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 

Georgia During 2002, Georgia had 902 fatalities on its rural roadways. When 

adjusted for miles traveled, Georgia’s fatality rate on rural roads was 1.81 

fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled—below the national 

average of 2.29 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Rural 

fatalities accounted for approximately 59 percent of all state roadway 

fatalities in 2002.

In fiscal year 2003, Georgia received $975 million in federal-aid highway 

funds. About $25.3 million of these funds were provided for the Hazard 
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 42 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. Using these funds, the 

state has undertaken several roadway improvement programs that address 

aspects of rural road safety. For example, Georgia identified four problem 

areas that it focused on in 2003—run-off-the-road crashes, intersection 

crashes, car-train crashes, and animal crashes. A Georgia official said that 

the run-off-the-road and animal crashes were particularly prevalent in rural 

settings. He said that they are adding shoulder rumble strips and centerline 

reflectors to help reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and to reduce animal 

crashes they are expanding the recovery area along some roads, culling 

deer herds, and researching light and sound devices to warn drivers of deer 

presence. In addition, Georgia is developing a Lane Departure Strategic 

Action Plan with the goal of reducing the lane departure serious injury and 

death rate from 4.93 per 100 million miles traveled in 2003 to 3.29 in 2008 

and preventing 750 serious injuries and deaths annually. A draft of this plan 

recognizes that roadway departures on rural highways are a predominate 

concern. To meet this goal, Georgia is developing an approach that will use 

low-cost construction improvement; corridor enforcement, education, and 

engineering enhancements; local lane departure safety initiatives, targeted 

use of medium- to high-cost improvements at high-crash locations, and 

statewide initiatives to improve safe driver behaviors.

According to Georgia officials, the state has also replaced its safety data 

system. It hopes to upgrade the current system of recording crash locations 

by use of more accurate global positioning technology at the crash scene, 

which would help them better identify problem areas throughout the state. 

In addition to these state initiatives, FHWA officials said Georgia is 

participating in AASHTO research projects that address run-off-the-road 

crashes and comprehensive state strategic highway safety plans.

The state has also participated in two major NHTSA-sponsored behavioral 

programs: the eight-state evaluation of the “Click It or Ticket” safety belt 

campaign in 2001 and the current impaired driving strategic evaluation 

study, according to NHTSA officials. Georgia identified a need to increase 

use of safety belts, booster seats, and child safety seats among rural and 

minority populations statewide, so it initiated efforts to involve rural and 

minority communities in local initiatives to increase safety belt usage rates. 

Under the impaired driving study, enforcement agencies conduct at least 

one sobriety checkpoint per month in every county. 

Minnesota In 2002, 479 people were killed on Minnesota’s rural roads. When adjusted 

for miles traveled, Minnesota’s fatality rate on rural roads was about 1.8 

fatalities per 100 million miles traveled—less than the national average of 
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 43 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 73 percent of all state 

roadway fatalities in 2002. 

In 2003, Minnesota received about $395 million in federal-aid highway 

funds. About $12.1 million of these funds were provided for hazard 

elimination projects, for construction-related safety improvements, and for 

rail-highway crossing improvements. The state also received about $14.7 

million for NHTSA programs designed to improve behavioral activities. 

State officials could not provide a breakdown of how much of these funds 

was used for rural road safety projects.

While the state does not have a specific rural road safety program, state 

traffic safety officials have implemented several construction and 

behavioral initiatives to improve rural road safety. The “Towards Zero 

Deaths” initiative, for example, is an ongoing collaborative program among 

the state department of transportation, public safety, state patrol, and local 

“safe community” organizations to reduce highway fatalities. The program 

provides grants to localities that work with safety officials to coordinate a 

plan to reduce traffic fatalities. Other behavioral initiatives include the 

following:

• NightCAP is a program involving concentrated alcohol patrols 

scheduled in conjunction with local events that serve alcohol, for 

example, music festivals that attract big crowds and where alcohol is 

sold or allowed to be consumed. Local, county, and state law 

enforcement patrol roads to look particularly for drivers showing signs 

of impairment. Releases are sent out to local press and broadcast media 

informing the local population that enforcement will be present during 

the event. In fiscal year 2003, $615,000 of federal funding was spent on 

the NightCAP program. About 50 percent of the events were in rural 

areas of Minnesota.

• Safe & Sober is a project involving municipal and county law 

enforcement agencies that target impaired driving and occupant 

protection issues through a combination of enhanced law enforcement 

and publicity. According to state officials, in fiscal year 2003, $1,335,600 

in federal funding was spent on the program. Approximately 50 percent 

of this program is carried out in rural areas of the state. 

In addition, in 2003 the state Department of Transportation completed a 

statewide audit of high crash cost intersections and corridors. The audit 

ranked the top 200 intersections and 150 corridors with the highest crash 
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 44 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

costs. Of the top 200 intersections identified, 54 were located in rural areas; 

of the top 150 corridors identified, 53 were located in rural areas. The 

Department of Transportation’s goal is to address 40 of these high crash 

cost intersections and corridors for safety improvements each year in the 

State Transportation Improvement Plan. Further, according to state 

officials, the Department of Transportation has made extensive use of 

shoulder rumble strips and is beginning to use centerline rumble strips on 

two-lane roadways.

Approximately $9 million in federal funds was transferred from 

construction to safety activities in 2003 because Minnesota’s laws in 

regards to repeat drunk drivers did not meet federal requirements.2

 

Officials at the state Department of Public Safety said that they plan to use 

half of those funds for hazard elimination projects such as replacing 

twisted-end guardrails and researching the visibility effects of installing 

wider edge lines and reflective wet pavement markings. Officials believe 

that this will have a major impact on preventing or reducing the severity of 

run-off-the-road crashes. The Department of Public Safety plans to use the 

other half to address impaired driving. Specifically, Minnesota plans to 

upgrade its driver license information system to improve the tracking of 

problem drivers, focusing on impaired driving. The state also plans to 

implement traffic safety programs promoting safety belt use and 

discouraging drinking and driving among 21 to 34 year olds. To improve 

emergency medical services in rural areas, Minnesota plans to reduce the 

amount of “dead spots”—areas where messages cannot be heard—so that 

law enforcement, emergency medical services, and transportation officials 

can communicate with each other in more remote areas of the state.

Pennsylvania In 2002, there were 1,001 fatalities on Pennsylvania’s rural roads. When 

adjusted for miles traveled, Pennsylvania’s fatality rate on rural roads is 

2.15 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled—less than the national 

2

Under 23 USC, section 164, states were required to have a repeat offender law that included 

such things as a 1-year license suspension for a second offense; the impoundment, 

immobilization, or installation of an ignition interlock on offender’s vehicle; an assessment 

of the individual’s degree of alcohol abuse and appropriate treatment; and specified 

minimum jail or community service sentences. States that do not meet the repeat offender 

requirement will have a percentage of funds transferred from their federal-aid highway 

program to their State and Community Grants programs. States may use the transferred 

funds for alcohol-related programs or they may allocate funds back to the federal-aid 

highway program where they are to be used for highway construction projects that address 

safety concerns. Minnesota does not have an impaired driving law that imposes the 

sanctions listed above on repeat offenders.
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 45 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

average of 2.29. Rural fatalities accounted for approximately 62 percent of 

all state roadway fatalities in 2002.

Pennsylvania received about $1.4 billion in federal-aid highway funds in 

fiscal year 2003. Of these funds, about $21.4 million were provided for 

hazard elimination projects for construction-related safety improvements 

and for improving safety at rail-highway crossings. During fiscal year 2003, 

Pennsylvania received about $11.6 million in NHTSA funding designed to 

improve behavioral activities. State officials could not provide a 

breakdown of how much of these funds were used for rural road safety 

projects.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has a goal of reducing 

road fatalities by 10 percent between 2002 and 2005. The department has 

begun several engineering and behavioral improvement initiatives to help 

reach this goal. For example, to maximize safety in the design and 

construction of highway projects, the department performs Roadway 

Safety Audits. These audits are formal examinations of roadways by an 

independent team of trained specialists that assess their crash potential 

and safety performance. The team identifies safety problems so that 

project officials can evaluate, justify, and select appropriate design 

changes. In 1997, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was the 

first transportation agency in the United States to pilot the program. Since 

its inception, about 40 audits have been completed. According to the state 

department of transportation, the audits have prevented undesirable 

changes during design or construction, maximized opportunities to 

enhance safety, and minimized missed opportunities to enhance safety. 

Pennsylvania has introduced two other infrastructure safety modifications 

aimed at improving rural road safety. First, the state installed 300 miles of 

centerline rumble strips in an effort to help warn drivers that they have 

strayed from their lane. State transportation officials estimated that rumble 

strips could reduce vehicle run-off-the-road crashes by 25 percent. In 

addition, Pennsylvania implemented a “dot” tailgating treatment program 

in which dots are painted on the state’s roadways, including rural two-lane 

roads, to help drivers determine a safe following distance. The spacing of 

the dots is based on the roadway’s speed limit. Each vehicle is expected to 

maintain a distance equal to at least two dot lengths from the vehicle ahead 

of it.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation also has several initiatives 

to modify unsafe driving behavior to help reach its 2005 goal. Sobriety 
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 46 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

checkpoints, roving patrols, and mobile awareness patrols have been 

implemented to combat drunk driving. In 2002, 129 mobile awareness 

patrols were conducted. The state also has a program to install ignition 

interlock devices on the vehicles of those convicted of second or 

subsequent driving-under-the-influence offenses. The device must remain 

in the vehicle for 1 year following a 12-month suspension of driving 

privileges. Since its inception in 2000, the state reports the program has 

stopped 10,142 attempts to operate a vehicle on the state’s roadways when 

the operator had a blood-alcohol content equal to or greater than .025 

percent. The state also has several initiatives to improve safety belt use. 

Although the state has a secondary safety belt law, it received approval to 

use the “Click It or Ticket” initiative encouraged by NHTSA.3

Transportation safety officials are also involved in increasing safety belt 

use among middle and high school students and in improving the use and 

incidence of child passenger seats through educational and training 

programs. State traffic safety officials also informed us of programs 

targeting increased safety belt use among light truck and pickup truck 

drivers who state officials believe are more prevalent in rural areas and 

generally decline to wear safety belts.

Texas During 2002, 2,096 people were killed on rural roads in Texas—the highest 

total in the nation. When adjusted for miles traveled, the fatality rate on 

rural roads in Texas is about 2.68 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled—greater than the national average of 2.29. Rural fatalities 

accounted for approximately 56 percent of all state roadway fatalities in 

2002.

In fiscal year 2003, FHWA provided Texas with about $2.2 billion in federalaid highway funds. About $57.6 million of these funds were provided for 

Hazard Elimination and Rail-Highway Crossing Programs. The state’s 

safety funding under the Surface Transportation Program provided 

construction-related safety improvements on public roads, transportation 

facilities, bicycle or pedestrian pathways or trails, and for the rail-highway 

crossing safety programs. Texas also received about $26.4 million of federal 

funds administered by NHTSA in fiscal year 2003, mainly to improve 

roadway safety through activities designed to influence driving behavior. 

Texas has appropriated $40 million in state funds to supplement FHWA 

3

Secondary seat belt laws allow police to issue a safety belt citation only if the motorist is 

pulled over for another infraction, such as an expired license tag.
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 47 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

funding for the Hazard Elimination Program, according to Texas 

Department of Transportation officials.

Texas officials identified several intiatives being undertaken to reduce 

fatalities on the state’s rural roads:

• Texas Department of Transportation officials identified 235 hazard 

elimination projects that they plan on undertaking in fiscal year 2004. 

These $43.4 million in projects, most of which are on rural roads, 

include adding intersection beacon lights, widening lanes, adding 

rumble strips, and removing trees near roads.

• Due to concerns about high fatality rates on narrow rural two-lane 

highways, particularly those with limited or no shoulders, district 

engineers assessed 30,000 miles of rural two-lane highways in 2003, 

checking the appropriateness of speed limits, the condition of signs and 

pavement markings, and assessing pavement edge drop-offs or curve 

warnings. Based on these assessments, changes will be made to address 

the most important findings.

• The state is installing shoulder rumble strips on all rural four-lane 

divided highways and researching the use of edgeline and centerline 

rumble strips on other roads.

• Because the state’s alcohol-related crashes were the leading cause of 

motor vehicle fatalities in Texas during 2001, state officials told us they 

have worked with NHTSA and others to identify the nature of the 

problem and assess programs that could reduce impaired driving. As 

part of this effort, the state funded 13 projects aimed at reducing 

impaired driving in rural areas through increased enforcement and 

education programs.

• The state has initiated programs to aid rural crash victims, including 

new training for emergency medical technicians and first-aid training for 

police officers and bystanders.

• Texas is in the process of upgrading its crash data system to make data 

more timely. Texas is about 2 1⁄2 years behind in entering crash data from 

police accident reports into its data system. State officials pointed out 

that without more timely data, it is difficult to determine if the actions 

taken on a stretch of road had the intended effect. Texas plans to have a 

new system in place by fiscal year 2005, at a cost of $14 million. The new 
Appendix II

Examples of State Activities to Improve 

Rural Road Safety

Page 48 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Texas system will encourage local law enforcement agencies to collect, 

validate, and report crash data electronically. It will also provide 

centralized analysis, review, and data reporting to agencies that plan and 

conduct state highway safety programs.
Page 49 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Appendix III

Low-Cost Safety Improvements ApendxiI

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified more than 40 

low-cost best practices as alternatives to capital construction at high-crash 

locations. These improvements are presented to state and local traffic 

engineers in FHWA’s Low-Cost Safety Improvements Workshops. In 

addition, FHWA has qualified the strategies as proven, tried, or 

experimental. Proven include those strategies that have been used in one 

or more locations and for which properly designed evaluations have been 

conducted that show them to be effective. Tried countermeasures are those 

that have been implemented in a number of locations and that may even be 

accepted as standards or standard approaches but for which there have not 

been found valid evaluations. Experimental strategies are those that have 

been suggested and that at least one agency has considered sufficiently 

promising to try on a small scale in at least one location. Table 2 

summarizes the low-cost alternatives and identifies potential safety 

impacts that were identified in the course materials and whether the 

countermeasure is proven, tried, or experimental. 

Table 2: FHWA’s Low-Cost Safety Improvements

Roadside hazards Countermeasure

Trees Remove or relocate trees near roadway. Cited accident reductions as a function of 

proximity to roadway ranging from 22 percent for a 3-foot increase to 71 percent for a 15-

foot increase. Proven.

Utility poles Relocate utility poles away from the roadway. Cited 32 percent reduction in fatalities and 45 

percent reduction in nonfatal injuries by relocating or installing breakaway utility poles. 

Proven.

Sign supports Clear or relocate sign supports and obstacles away from roadway. Cited a range of 

reduction in obstacle crashes from 14 to 40 percent by moving the obstacles 3 feet to 10 

feet, respectively. Proven.

Mail boxes Ensure mailboxes comply with breakaway provisions of the postal services. Tried.

Single vehicle run-off-the-road Install rumble strips and rumble stripes to address inattentive, drowsy, and drunk drivers. 

Cited crash reduction by using rumble strips of from 15 percent to 70 percent on interstates 

(proven) and 20 percent to 49 percent on two-lane roads (tried).

Signing and marking

Warning signs Add signs that call attention to unexpected conditions and situations that might not be 

readily apparent to road users. Cited reduction of fatalities by 39 percent and injuries by 15 

percent. Tried.

Special emphasis signs Enhance signage (color or size) to call attention to driver. Tried. 

Right-of-way signs Install more visible right-of-way controls to enhance effectiveness. Tried.

Guide signs Install street name signs with adequate-sized lettering in rural areas to identify important 

roads. Tried.

Lane use signs Install clear lane use signage, such as “Left Turn Only.” Tried.
Appendix III

Low-Cost Safety Improvements

Page 50 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Safety message signs Include safety messages such as “Targeted Enforcement Area” or “Be Alert Heavy Truck 

Traffic.” Tried.

Centerline and edge markings Add centerlines and edge lines to roadways. Cited a reduction of 29 percent in crashes by 

adding centerlines and an additional 8 percent with edgelines. Tried.

Innovative roadway markings Add innovative markings to roadways for such items as advisory speed markings, left-turn 

lane markings, and roadway parking space markings. Tried. Also noted adding markings to 

roadways to help inform drivers about adequate following distances. Cited a 60 percent 

reduction in rear-end crashes on main line with use of this roadway marking. Experimental.

Roadway delineation Use pavement markings to reduce incidence of crashes. Cited reductions of 15 percent in 

fatalities and 6 percent in injuries. Tried.

Innovative curve treatments Pave inside shoulder on curves and add pavement markings to help guide drivers. Tried.

Intersections

Configuration Address configuration features related to safety at intersection including presence of left 

turn lanes, number of legs, intersection sight distance, angle of intersection, and 

intersection form. Proven.

Access management Improve access management as a key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, unsignaled 

intersections. Tried.

Traffic control Install all-way stop control to reduce right-angle and turning movement crashes. Cited 

reductions of 53 percent in total crashes with conversion from two-way to four-way stop 

control. Tried.

Signing Use warning signs, such as changing yield to stop, or warning signs, for intersections to 

reduce incidents of crashes. Cited traffic signs as reducing fatalities by 39 percent and 

injuries by 15 percent. Tried.

Flashing beacons Install flashing beacons to alert drivers to approach with caution or stop. Cited California 

study that found, among other things, that total crashes were reduced 43 percent and 

single vehicle crashes by 67 percent. Tried.

Sight distance Improve sight distance at intersections. Cited 5 percent reduction in total intersectionrelated crashes per intersection quadrant in which limited sight distance restrictions are 

eliminated. Tried.

Turning lanes Add left-turn lanes to reduce rear-end crashes. Cited an expected 28 and 48 percent 

reductions, respectively, in total crashes from installation of a left-turn lane on one or both 

major-road approaches to a four-leg stop-controlled intersection and 14 and 26 percent 

reductions from installation of a right-turn lane on one or both major-road approaches. 

Proven.

Shoulder widening Widen the shoulder at rural intersections. Cited crash reductions of 2.8 percent per foot of 

shoulder widening at rural intersections. Tried.

Transverse rumble strips Install rumble strips going across the traffic lane to alert drivers in advance of intersection. 

Cited up to 50 percent reduction in rear-end and stop violation crashes. Tried.

Lighting Install lighting at rural intersections. Cited study that found 43 percent reduction in fatalities 

and 17 percent in injuries. Proven.

Innovative techniques Add innovative items at intersections such as right turn lanes (proven), dynamic activated 

flashers (tried), and the median inside an acceleration lane (tried). 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Roadside hazards Countermeasure
Appendix III

Low-Cost Safety Improvements

Page 51 GAO-04-663 Highway Safety

Source: GAO presentation of FHWA information.

Traffic signals

Yellow light clearance timing Update yellow clearance timing of traffic signals to allow more time for traffic to clear 

intersection. Tried.

All-red light clearance phase Add an all-red clearance interval. Cited 15 percent to 30 percent crash reduction by adding 

an all-red clearance interval. Tried.

Visibility Improve visibility of traffic signals. Cited 33 percent to 47 percent reduction in crashes from 

using 12-inch lens and additional signal units (or heads). Tried.

Back plates Install back plates behind the traffic signal to improve its visibility. Cited report of 25 percent 

reduction in red light running and 32 percent reduction in related crashes. Tried.

Left turn signals Change left turn signals to allow only turning with specific left turn green light. Cited a 

report of 97 percent reduction in left-turning crashes. Tried.

Yield on green sign Add activated “Yield on Green” signs to better inform drivers wishing to turn. One city 

reported a 22 percent reduction in permissive left turn crashes. Experimental.

Advance warning signs with active flashers Add signs with flashers to warn driver, such as “Be Prepared to Stop.” Cited several 

reports ranging from 29 to 67 percent reduction in crashes from this measure. Tried.

Supplemental signal heads Add additional traffic signals units (or heads) to intersections. Tried.

Overhead red “T” heads Use overhead red “T” heads on traffic signals. These types of signals have two red lights 

next to each other to increase their visibility. Tried.

Late-night traffic signals Remove late-night use of signals that flash yellow on the main road and red on the side 

street and replace with full-time traffic signals. Cited 78 percent reduction in right angle 

collisions and 32 percent reduction in all collisions during time of operations. Tried.

Coordination of signals Coordinate traffic signals. Noted very few reports on safety benefits, but cited one report 

showing 12 percent reduction in crashes during peak morning and evening driving periods. 

Tried.

Signal controller Upgrade signal controller to allow for traffic actuated rather than pretimed operations. Cited 

28 percent reduction in all collisions. Tried.

Railroad grade crossings

Stopping sight distance Provide adequate ability to see a train and/or the traffic control device at the crossing in 

sufficient time for the driver to safely stop if necessary. Tried.

Signing Use appropriate signing at crossings including Cross Buck signs, signs in advance of the 

crossing, and yield and stop signs. Tried.

Sight distance visibility Provide adequate visibility by such things as removing obstructions, reducing posted 

speed, reconfiguring or relocating the crossing or grade separating the crossing. Tried.

Lighting Add lighting at and adjacent to the rail crossing to increase visibility. Cited a reduction in 

nighttime crashes by more than 50 percent at rural and urban crossings. Proven.

Innovative measures Adopt innovative measures to increase safety at rail crossings such as providing an 

emergency escape lane out of the crossing area for trapped vehicles. Tried.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Roadside hazards Countermeasure

(545038)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00