more projects were included in a reserve project list in case more funding
becomes available. The selected projects were approved by OTC to be placed
in the STIP at their May 2007 meeting. The projects were amended into the
STIP on March 5" 2008 after in depth project scoping was performed.

4. ODOT has completed detailed scoping of the selected and reserve projects.
The selected projects are currently completed or will be completed by 2015.

For the Transition period from 2013-2016, ODOT regions will be in charge of working
with local stakeholders to determine projects and determining which are eligible for HR3
funding.

H. Assessment of HR3 Project Effectiveness
ODOT is responsible to report to FHWA regarding the effectiveness of crash

solutions that are implemented using HR3 funding. To prepare this report it is
important that HR3 project sponsors provide information as listed in the bullets below
to ODOT related to the crash solution(s) implemented and their effectiveness.

« Location/identifier for project—Basic information on the roadway where
the project occurred
¢ Type of improvement(s) implemented
¢ Cost of improvement
e “Before” and “After” crash results—At least 3 years of “before” and 3 years
of “after” data should be used.
Evaluation Results—Show whether the project achieved its purpose using benefit-cost or
other approved methodology.

17


Using the overall reduction in crashes statewide as a surrogate for the variability of
crashes, the projects at these locations appear to have had a measurable effect on
Safety.

In Appendix A, an additional seventeen (17) safety projects were also evaluated which
were funded using other safety funds under different criteria. These safety project
evaluations are shown for information only to assist in improving ODOT’s data driven
decision making process when developing future safety projects. In the future, all
highway safety projects, regardless of funding (state or federal) will now follow the same
guidance for project eligibility as outlined in the ODOT Highway Safety Program Guide.

Table 2 (Shaded in gray) Summary of 6 HSIP Project Evaluations

Reduction or Pe Percent Change
Crash Type Before After Increase in Change Statewide (09-
Crashes 9 2012)
Fatal 4 4 0 0% 0.00%
Injury 291 248 43 14.8% +10%
PDO 209 213 +4 +1.9% +14%
Total 504 465 39 7.7% +11%
Table 3 Summary of 17 Other Safety Project Evaluations
Reduction or Percent Percent Change
Crash Type Before After Increase in Chani Statewide (09-
Crashes ge 2012)
Fatal 2 1 -1 - 50% 0.00%
Injury 463 469 +6 41.3% +10%
PDO 510 504 6 -1.2% +14%

Total 975 974 -1 0.1% +11%

1


Appendix B: High Risk Rural Roads Program Data

21


INTRODUCTIO

This report, required by Sections 152 and 148 of Title 23 of the United States Code,
summarizes the progress made in implementing the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) in Oregon from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, the state fiscal year (SFY
2015). Included are projects under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP). Attached in Appendix A is the
standard reporting form that contains evaluation data for HSIP completed projects and
Appendix B provides additional High Risk Rural Roads Program data. Also included is
Appendix C which provides a 5-Year moving average of fatalities and serious injuries for
drivers and pedestrians age 65 and older.

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federally funded program that
mandates each state to conduct and systematically maintain a safety management
system of all public roads. The Traffic-Roadway Section (TRS) of the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses engineering tools such as the Safety Priority
Index System (SPIS) to identify segments of state highways that have a higher crash
history and may require safety improvements. SPIS is a method developed by ODOT
for identifying potential safety problems on state highways. Citizen complaint submittals
and routine inspections by ODOT District and Region personnel indicate other possible
safety concerns.

The purpose of the program is "to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries on public roads”. Section 148 of Chapter 23 of the United States
Code (USC) outlines how state and local governments will spend federal dollars
toward improving safety on public roads or any public transportation facility. Prior to
Federal SAFETEA-LU legislation the HSIP program was commonly referred to as the
Hazard Elimination Program (HEP), Section 152 of Chapter 23 of the USC.
SAFETEA-LU redefined the HSIP and the requirements. On July 6, 2012, the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) was signed into law.
MAP-21 creates a streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to
address the many challenges facing Oregon's transportation system. MAP-21
builds on and refines many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs
and policies established in 1991.

The Traffic-Roadway Section has a HSIP project guideline (2010 Highway Safety Program
Guide) to assist the Region Traffic offices. The program guide has its own criteria and
requirements to tailor the Highway Safety Program to match Oregon's needs. In general,
for a project to meet both the federal and state requirements, it must:


18






determine if there is sufficient available funding to cover the overrun. If
adequate funding is not available, or if the reason and purpose of the overrun
does not sufficiently meet HR3 Program goals, the Project Sponsor retains
responsibility for the overrun.

E._Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Prospectus

HR3 projects are federally funded; therefore the current FHWA/ODOT/Local
Agency project development and delivery process must be used to expend these
funds. Funds obligated for local road safety during the transition period will likely
be overseen and developed by ODOT.

F. Statewide Fatal and Serious Injury “A” Crash Rate Information

in 2004 the total number of fatal and serious injury “A” (F&A) crashes on Oregon’s rural
public roads classified major collectors and below was 430. Using an inventory of
47,860 miles for these classifications of roads and an annual estimate of 14.2 million
vehicle miles per day, the statewide average for these class of roads is 8.3 F&A
crashes/ HMVM (crashes per hundred million vehicle-miles).

Below are some examples of sections of roadway that meet or exceed the
statewide average based on the following formula:

Crash Rate = (# of Crashes * 100 million)/ (ADT * Length in Miles * Number
of Years * 365 days/year)

Average Length

Crashes Teafhe seston Rate
(in3yrs) (ADT) (miles) (crash/HMVM)

3 6600 5 8.3

2 4000 5 9.1

1 2000 5 9.1

1 1500 7 8.7

1 1000 10 9.1

1 500 20 9.1

1 250 40 9.1

Note: As ADT or Length increases Crash Rate decreases.
As ADT or length decreases Crash Rate increases.

15


barrier to implementation. A finalized list of prioritized projects was then produced with
the best solution and the best cost.

Once the list is prioritized and a final 100% list is produced ODOT Region’s worked with
Jurisdictions to determine the delivery methods, delivering agency and timelines
(applicable funding year). For projects involving local agencies, the ODOT Regions
worked with Jurisdictions to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement. The delivering
agency is accountable for timely and fiscally responsible delivery.

Timing of the Process

The process for ARTS project selection ran concurrently with the new Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development process for the 2018-2021
STIP scheduled to begin in late 2014. The process included funding for 2017-2018
projects (in the current STIP) as well as 2019-2021 funding (in the new STIP), five years’
of funding in all. The draft STIP list was completed by the end of March 2015.

Federal Match

The Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) currently requires a 7.78%
match for projects. During the Transition ODOT committed to 100% funding for most
projects to assist local agency participation in the program because of a lack of advance
notice. Within the ARTS program ODOT will require participating agencies to contribute
match to the project. This will require local agencies to come up with the 7.78% non-
federal cash match. ODOT Regions should develop written criteria by which they may
decide to negotiate the match requirement.

All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program

Funding subdivided to Regions based on F&A

Regions meet with LPA’s to share program purpose and goals

Regions share data with Local Agencies

Hot Spot Process Systemic Process

ODOT Regions draft potential list of All Agencies submit applications for
projects Systemic funds

ODOT shares list with LPAs Draft list based on B/C

LPAs given opportunity to submit ODOT Regions desk scope 150% list
additional projects

ODOT refine list ODOT Regions refine B/C
Finalize scoping list Finalize scoping list
Final Steps

Multi-disciplinary Assessment of projects to verify solution





000°8zz'9

Sve'vo6's

812901 390fo1d peyaI9S|

000'062 ger'L9c vLOz/oE/t EL0z/L/0b EL0Z/97/6 (sald SUL) Pslosd WeIpIENS Py SIUBISH AleUDy Pu HO UNMOUSTO ‘SHOM oIGNd Aung ose hy) O1leb
000'0S2 os9'l69 LLOZ/L/0L LOG bioesdiy Palold Jayu] ID Ssumoig) SPOM dGNg AuNoD ose) V82sh
‘000° 6yF OSt' bbl 't eb0zey LLOZ/ZL/ZL bhozeab WeUUBesy Peoy OE-0'% dA Pedy |anyoeIq| ‘spedy Aunog vosyoer| O8ZSl
‘000'99S"} SOL bor L SLOzZ/9 SLOP SLOce/S ‘SUSWIAOIGUT] VORDESIE}U] PY SBaIOO 0} Py WEGOH Woy Py UEIPLS/|| ‘SHJOM dian AunoD woLey] i251
ooNNEZ S| ease poze | vocses | plozisas Welelg WSUAAOIGU Peoy USULSUIUZ| iq Aunop seureypeio| —SZZS
000'SZE oss'0ee bbOZ/L EL LbOZsre LLOZEZO Pelosg [eIpleNd peoy uEeUeD| "yaq peoy Aunod eiquinjoD} TOLeL

2002s usseW gus oun Oyu) Poptiouly = s128/01g pajoajeg-

SWVYN LOaroud:

“AINNOS LNVOrTday ar,

$102 ASS HOS
si Loarodd Sdvow Twand SId HOIH



ODOT is currently transitioning into the “All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)

program http:/Awww.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/ARTS.aspx .
Here is a brief outline of the ARTS program:

Background

ODOT is moving towards a jurisdictionally blind safety program. ODOT met with
representatives from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon
Counties (AOC) to discuss the need for addressing safety on all roads in Oregon. The
outcome of the meetings was a Memorandum of Understanding detailing the principles
and purpose of the program. The result is the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)
Program.

The ARTS Program is intended to address safety needs on all public roads in Oregon.
About half the fatal and serious injuries occur on non-state roadways. Only by working
collaboratively with local road jurisdictions (cities, counties, MPO’s and tribes) can ODOT
expect to increase awareness of safety on all roads, promote best practices for
infrastructure safety, complement behavioral safety efforts and focus limited resources to
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes in the state of Oregon. The program will be data
driven to achieve the greatest benefits in crash reduction and will be blind to jurisdiction.

Purpose
The ARTS program primarily uses federal funds from the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP). The principles and purpose of ARTS and HSIP are:

e The program goal is to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.
e The program must include all public roads.

« The program is data driven and blind to jurisdiction.

e The process will be overseen by ODOT Regions.

e Both traditional “hot spot” methodology and systemic methodology will be used.

Criteria

The objective of ARTS and HSIP is to significantly reduce the occurrence of fatalities and
serious injuries. A data-driven approach uses crash data, risk factors, or other data
supported methods to identify possible locations to achieve the greatest benefits. The
key to any good safety program is identifying the best candidate locations for investment.

All Projects shall:


e Bean eligible highway safety project (as defined below);
e Have committed matching funds of 10% of the project cost (for federal funding);
e Be able to meet all applicable guidelines and standards for construction;
e Meet one of the following eligibility criteria:
1. Positive Benefit/Cost (B/C) Ratio of 1.0 or greater;
2. Top 10% Safety Priority Index System (SPIS);

3. Justified by Risk Narrative (used on bicycle/pedestrian improvement
projects).

TRS also has responsibility for annual reports of the programs progress and ODOT's
Project Safety Management System (PSMS). The PSMS includes tools for identification
and analysis of the safety problems like our recently completed ODOT Highway Safety
Investigation manual, which is used to assist our Region Traffic Investigators
http:/Awww.oregon.govw/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/highway_safety.shtml.

The Transportation Safety Division is responsible for the development of the Oregon’s
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The Region Traffic Offices have the
responsibility of following the guidelines when selecting appropriate safety projects and
identifying potential remedies to safety problem areas. ODOT's Highway Finance Office
is responsible for management of HSIP funds along with the Region STIP Coordinators.

The HSIP process begins when a State or local agency identifies a safety problem.
Possible safety project locations are identified from a variety of sources including crash
records, ODOT’s Safety Priority Index System, systemic plans covering emphasis areas
(Roadway Departure, Intersection and Pedestrian/Bicycle, systemic plans link:
http:/Awww.oregon.gow/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-
ROADWAY/pages/safety_management_system.aspx), local citizens,
enforcement/emergency response personnel, and road maintenance crews. ODOT
Region Traffic offices review proposed safety projects and determines eligibility based on
the “ODOT Highway Safety Program Guide”. Before the Regions proposed safety
projects can be added to the STIP, they must get approval from the State Traffic
Engineers office that the selected safety projects follow ODOT’s Highway Safety
Program Guidelines.


Each application must contain information that confirms the project location crash
history and rate and should use three or more years of crash data.

Fatalities are used for participants who die as a result of injuries sustained in the crash.
Injury “A” (Serious or Incapacitating injury) is used for participants who suffer severe
injuries. An incapacitating injury is a non-fatal injury which "prevents the injured person
from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of
performing before the injury occurred”.

G. Application and project selection process.

1. The ODOT Local Government Section sent requests to prospective applicants
for HR3 projects in July 2006. They were required to submit a HR3 Notice of
Intent to determine if the project met the program eligibility requirements before
submitting a full application. Required documentation for the Notice of Intent
was:

a. A completed Notice of Intent Form

b. An attached letter or narrative (1 page max.) explaining the need for
the project, type and extent of proposed work, funds requested and
matching funds available, and the role of any co-applicants or
partners.

c. An attached vicinity map and site map or other appropriate graphics (1
or 2 pages).

2. ODOT reviewed the Notice of Intent submittals and determined which projects
met the program eligibility requirements. ODOT notified all applicants if their
project met the eligibility requirements. Full applications (see Appendix B) for
projects meeting the program minimum requirements were then requested from
the Project Sponsors.

Required documentation for the included:

a. Project justification

b. Proposed solution

c. Detailed Cost Estimate that includes 15% PE, 15% CE, 40%
Contingencies and 20% for Mobilization & Traffic Control. For example,
including these items at these percentages for a project with $100,000 of
construction costs will make the final total project cost and funding request
$190,000.

3. The HR3 Steering Committee (comprised of ODOT staff and local agency
representatives) reviewed the applications, develop a prioritized list, and suggest
possible project groupings of eligible projects. The final selected project list was

prioritized based on available funding with 5 projects receiving full funding. Four
16


Funding

The Safety funds are split to each region based on the amount of fatalities and serious
injuries occurring in the region on all public roads. Regions will be required to spend a
minimum of 50% of their funding on Systemic projects.

Systemic funding is intended to be used for Roadway Departure, Intersections and

Pedestrian/Bicycle type projects. At the statewide level the split in F&A between

Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike is about 40%/40%/20% respectively.

Regions will be given the flexibility to determine the appropriate splits between systemic

types of projects for their regions. It is suggested:

e That at least one project per year be developed for each type, if possible.

e Region splits of systemic funds for each systemic type be roughly equivalent to
the proportion of F&A occurring in the region

Process

There are two separate processes used, one for Hot Spot projects and a different one for
Systemic projects. ODOT Regions met with local jurisdictions within the Region and
shared the program purpose and the details of both processes. ODOT distributed data
on Hot Spots and Systemic Plans to help determine potential locations for improvement.

The process for Hot Spots projects consisted of each ODOT region developing a draft
list of potential projects for all roads including both state highways and non-state
highways. The Regions shared their draft lists with the agencies to engage local
jurisdictions in collaboration to look for gaps or missing potential projects. The agencies
were given the opportunity to submit projects with justification that it met the program
purpose. The number of submittals were limited because of limited funds. Regions
categorized projects based on the project's ability to reduce fatal and serious injury
crashes and the benefit cost of the project, and finalized a draft list for field scoping.

The process for Systemic projects was an application process. Each jurisdiction,
including ODOT, was invited to submit projects for systemic improvements from a large
list of low cost proven countermeasures. These submittals were for three systemic
categories of funding, roadway departure, intersections and pedestrian/bicycle. Regions
checked all applications for program purpose and correctness, worked with the
submitting agencies when necessary in order to develop a potential list of projects. The
intent was that the ODOT Regions would refine the list of submitted projects and desk
scope about a 150% list. The ODOT Regions prioritized the project list based on
program purpose of reducing fatal and serious injuries and benefit cost, in order to
finalize a draft list for field scoping.

Once the refined lists were ready, all projects (both hot spot and systemic) went through
a multi-discipline assessment to verify the solution. A multi-disciplinary team, including
the owner of the facility, assured the best countermeasure is chosen to mitigate fatal and
serious injury crashes. The project was also scoped to verify the costs and any possible




Department of Transportation
Traffic-Roadway Section

4040 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, MS 5
Salem, OR 97302-1142

Telephone: 503-986-3568

Fax: 503-986-3749

August 26, 2015 Tra10-21-02-08

Chris Woods

Federal Highway Administration, Oregon Division
The Equitable Center, Suite 420

530 Center Street NE

Salem, Oregon 97301

Annual Highway Safety Improvement Program and High Risk Rural Roads
Program Reports for SFY 2014

Enclosed is the State of Oregon's annual report on the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and the High Risk Rural Roads Program (HRRRP), which documents
the effectiveness and implementation of the HSIP and HRRRP Programs. In the
HRRRP report is documentation regarding the process for the High Risk Rural Roads
Program. Also included in this report is Appendix C which provides a 5-Year moving
average of fatalities and serious injuries for drivers and pedestrians age 65 and older.
These reports are required under Sections 148(g) and 152(g) of Title 23 of the United
States Code. The Railway-Highway Crossing report will be submitted separately by
ODOT'’s Rail Division.

If you have any further questions, please call me at (503) 986-3572.

cen

\s

Tim Burks 91 DO

Highway Safety Engineering Coordinator ENN
gat

Enclosures and letter sent electronic cow s9))

cc: ODOT Region Traffic Managers ore

Doug Bish, Traffic Services Engineer

Troy Costales, Transportation Safety Division Administrator
Bob Pappe, State Traffic/Roadway Engineer

Rick Shankle, Crossing Safety Sec. Manager

Zackary Hunter, Crossing Compliance Specialist


Summary of HSIP Projects

This section summarizes the number of projects under construction, the type of
projects applications reviewed and the effectiveness of projects with sufficient crash
data for comparison. For the purposes of this report, HSIP projects are classified into
these general categories:

Intersection Improvements—channelization and turning lanes, new or upgraded
traffic signals, red light running cameras, and illumination.

Signing and Delineation—traffic signs and pavement marking and/or delineation
where these project activities are the predominant safety improvement.

Roadway/Structure Improvements—lane widening, lane additions, rumble strip
installation, median strip installation, shoulder widening/improvement, roadway
realignment, skid treatment, and safety-related bridge and other structural
improvements.

Roadside Improvements—flattening slopes, the elimination of roadside obstacles
(e.g. drainage structures), the installation of breakaway signs and utility poles, and
the construction, for safety purposes, of sidewalks and bikeways.

Safety Appurtenances—upgrades to bridge approach guardrail and railings,
guardrail and median barrier improvements, impact attenuators, and safety fencing.

Traffic Calming Projects—specific traffic calming projects including, but not limited to,
curb extensions, lateral/horizontal shifts in the roadway, raised devices (e.g. speed
humps), and diverters.

Safety Projects Obligated in SFY 2015

In SFY 2015, there were twenty-nine (29) safety projects totaling $17.8 million which
were obligated for construction using HSIP funds. The HSIP fund consists of all safety
projects with an ODOT program code of LS30, MS30 or MS3E. This also includes
projects funded by Section 164 penalty money (TSP0, TSP1, MS32 money transferred
from the highway funds to Transportation Safety Division, then redirected for safety
projects that comply with HSIP guidelines). The types of projects obligated or under
construction are classified in Table 1 by general category of improvement.


Field scoping to verify cost

Finalize B/C

Finalize priority and 100% list with LPA’s

Regions determine delivery methods and timelines

Regions work on IGA

Responsible agency develops and delivers project

Timeline of events for ARTS:

ODOT met with AOC and LOC in 2012

ODOT signed Memorandum of Understanding with AOC and LOC in February 2013
Introduced the ARTS program in April 2013.

Held meetings with local jurisdictions to discuss a transition process in May 2013.
Completed project selection for the Transition in the fall of 2013.

Scope Transition projects in summer and fall of 2014.

Begin Transition project development in 2014 through 2015.

Transition Projects begin construction in 2015 through 2016.

Funding for the ARTS process was reserved in Regions budgets for 2017-2018.

In 2014 ODOT worked to develop the ARTS process.

Regions met with Local Agencies to discuss program purpose and goals in the fall of
2014.

ODOT Regions use ARTS process to develop project lists in collaboration with local
agencies, starting in fall of 2014

Field scoping began in June of 2015

Final lists for STIP due March 2016 (following closely with the STIP development
process for the 2018-2021 STIP).

Amend 2015-2018 STIP with Safety projects for 2017 and 2018 (anticipate this can
be done in mid-2015).

Follow 2018-2021 STIP process to incorporate Safety projects for 2019, 2020 and
2021 (anticipated to be complete in 2017).

Delivery timeline of individual projects dependent on schedule, funding and responsible
agency (anticipate agencies will complete PS&E in the funding year).


Oregon Department of Transportation - Transportation Development Division
Transportation Data Section - Crash Analysis & Reporting Unit

5-Year Moving Average of Fatalities and Serious Injuries for Drivers and Pedestrians Age 65 and Older

Table 1: Older Driver & Pedestrian Fatalities and

Serious Injuries by Year Table 2: Population per 1,000 Table 3: Five-Year Averages

2007 72 148 220 2007 130 2007-2011 1.36 14

2008 44 102 146 2008 133 2009-2013 1.34 1.3

2009 48 113 161 2009 135 * formula per FHWA MAP-21 Section 142, Attachment 1
2010 46 140 186 2010 139

2011 50 162 212 2011 143

2012 48 170 218 2012 149

2013 56 134 190 2013 154

* source: FARS Encyclopedia or Intranet *** source: FHWA MAP-21 Section 142, Attachment 2

** source: ODOT Statewide Crash Data System (CDS)

2013 to 2009 => (190/154) + (218/149) + (212/143) + (186/139) + (161/135) / 5 = 1.34

2011 to 2007 => ((212/143) + (186/139) + 161/135) + (146/133) + (220/130)) / 5 =1.36

Appendix C:




e Address a specific Safety problem contributing to fatalities and serious injuries

« Use proposed countermeasures that correct or substantially improve the fatal
and serious injury problem
Use ODOT crash data to establish the Benefit/Cost ratio
Use ODOT Benefit Cost method
Be prioritized or categorized based on the Benefit/Cost Ratio for developing the
150% list

e Use only countermeasures from the approved ODOT Crash Reduction Factor list
(a written process was developed for considering new measures)

e Projects must include written support from the Road Jurisdiction if the project is
proposed by another agency

e Benefit Costs will be based on the most recent available three to five years of
crash data

The traditional approach to safety is to identify “hot spot’ locations, and then identify
measures to implement by diagnosing the “hot spot’.

Hot Spot Projects shail:
e Address a location with a crash history of at least one fatal or serious injury crash
within the last five years

The systemic approach identifies a few proven low-cost measures to be widely
implemented, then implements the measures where there is evidence that they would be
most useful. The systemic measures have been proven to successfully reduce the
occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes. The sites may be selected from ODOT's
list of priority corridors for Roadway Departure, Intersections or Pedestrian/Bicycle
crashes.

Systemic Projects shall:

e Use only approved “Systemic” countermeasures as listed in the Crash Reduction
factors list

e Not require the acquisition of significant amounts of right of way (more than 10%
of project costs), preferably no right of way.

e Use the ODOT Risk Benefit Cost ratio method for Bicycle or Pedestrian
improvements

Systemic Projects should:
e Have a history of fatal or serious injury crashes or a risk of high severity crashes
and preferably used on priority corridors from Systemic plans.

Transition
To bridge the gap between no funding for non-state roads and the ARTS program, $16
million in funding for the “Transition” (2014-2016) was allocated, primarily to focus on a
few systemic low cost fixes that can be implemented in the shorter timeframe on non-
state roads.


Appendix A: Standard Reporting Form

19


OREGON ‘THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (HSIP)

STANDARD REPORTING FORM OF EVALUATION DATA FOR COMPLETED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012)

Cost of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
oor |-ObOT Safely Salely__| Evauaied Number of Crashes eval Volume —| “Rural | Namber| Divided
Region | ~Kay #] Line | improvement| “Classifeation | Tnprovement Tats Before Aer istaus_| Before | Afr [or [of | or
Program [7 Gods 70007 Toa [ Fat [PAT inp B [nC [POO [TOTAL] Mon] Fat [pA [ we [aC | PDO [TOTAL

[Key No fal ral fel mteatm [CT Tay | tay | 15]

12580 1° | 164 “45 2,532 u|afolole|s|ajl«, 2 |ofa[7f.faf[a

3te2 | 3 | HR 3K 493 oo | u|[axflofofofofofof #2 [ofofofofafo
2 | 13050 | 4 | omer 1F 103 ao | x|w«|olf: fe |f2{aofe| « |o| 1 | 2/ wl] s |
2 | 13662 | 5 | other 3M 748 2a | w [wl o |e | || a|or| ao | + | s | s2 | vm | 123 | 295] F | 32900 | 20600] uman| 4 | Undivided
2 | 14580 | 7 | 164 16 4,927 2.00 x |] 2] 9 | s | is] 2 | ao] as | o | 7 | a | 104] 240 | 452] F | zatoo | 25.200] unan| 4 | Undivided
5 | 14675 | ® | otner 1A 682 ro |x] afofofaf{«f7][2{ « [| ofof:s [a] «6 |e | & | 4000 | 6000 | uman| 2 | Undivided
5 | sacs | 2 | omer 1c 637 ao | xf{*fofo|[s}{s]7|*f 2 [ofo [21] 2s] & [ e100 | 9500] mwa] 2 | undivided
2 | ra7e7 || 164 38 27 oa |u| oe]ofiai{1f4f{ulwf 3 [of off 4]7 [2] & { 5100 | 5700] rua] 5 | Undwided
>| wor || 108 38 4,123 os [mu [of ofo]s|oli{]s] 2 |ofofol|1{o|+ |r | esc | seco | mua | 2 | undvided
2 | 15303 | 8] other SF oat 4,00 rfwelofofifs [7] 33 of ofofs |e | 2] © | 6250 | 9250 | uron| 2 | Undivided
2 | 15454 | 75 | other 5A 4,322 wo [| r{wlofol2{of2f4] 2 [ofof.+|a|2 [4 [ & | tse | 14200] umen| 2 | undnices
4__|157e1 | 7 | ure 1c 339 om | m|«fofofofs|ofs ofa{ofol+ {elf — | — | mwa] 2 [| Undviaea

~

+ | eras | 19] 166 1¢ 432 ov | m | a] o | o | «| s7 | 60 | 144 s | 7 {| 6 | st | 120 | F | 29,100 | 20.500] Urban] 4 | Undivided
2 | 17083 | 29 | other 4A 3207 vr [mu {| x~fofofofof:]|4 ofofz{[s|sf{r]{ — [| - [umm] 2 | unavices
a | 170s | 2° | other 4c 145 vo [ul ~«i{ofofolfolfs|as ofof2{saf]s6f{erf _ [ _ [ura] 2 | undvicd
4 [avn | 2] otter 4D 234 058 w[s*[ofof[ofof:|[4 of o | of o | o | F | t6100| 13.200] umen| 2 | Undivided
3_| 170 [23 | otner 1A 302 20 [x {sfofofi]1f2|4 ofofofol]o|r | — [| — | rua] 2 | navies

Note: The 6 projects highighted in dark gray shade are HSIP projects (L830)
' projects wore funded with the 164 ponstl Tunds (TSPO)
2 projects were funded with the High Risk Rural Roeds Program (HR3)

‘The remaining 10 safety projects evaluated were funded using other safety funds are shawn for information only to assist In improving ODOT's data driven decision making process when developing futue safety projects.

* A change inthe minimum reporting value for PDO crashes from $500 ta $1,000 occured In 1988 and in 2003, the minimum reporting value for PDO crashes changed again from $1,000 to $1,500.

‘C:\Users\Chris. Woods\AppData\LocallMicrosofi\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\XVSE4HFXIHSIP 2015 Standard Reporting Form HSIP Attachment "A" 2015


SAFE
TEA-LU
MAP-21
ARTS
PS&E
IGA
B/C
LPA
Loc
AOC
MOU

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21% Century
All Roads Transportation Safety

Plans, Specifications and Estimate
Interagency Agreement

Benefit/Cost ratio

Local Program Agencies

League of Oregon Cities

Association of Oregon Counties
Memorandum of Understanding


HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM (HRRRP’

A. Overview

The High Risk Rural Road Program (HRRR) in SAFETEA-LU (called HR3 in
Oregon) is a sub-program of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a
federally-funded program managed by the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). Approximately one million dollars of federal funding is available each
federal fiscal year in Oregon for High Risk Rural Roads.

B. Mission of HR3

The mission of the HR3 is to carry out safety improvement projects on rural roads,
with identified safety issues, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and
serious injuries.

C. Core Principles

1. The High Risk Rural Roads safety provision is dedicated exclusively to rural
roads.
The HSIP includes a set-aside for construction and operational improvements to
address safety problems and opportunities on High Risk Rural Roads. This set-
aside of $90 million (nationally) each fiscal year for high risk rural roads is limited to
roadways functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or as a rural local
road.

2. High Risk Rural Roads are identified as follows:

a. Roadways functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or as a
rural local road.

b. Roadways that have a crash rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries
exceeding the statewide average for those functional classes of roadways.

c. Roadways whereby future traffic volumes are projected to increase causing a
projected increase in the crash rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries
exceeding the statewide average.

3. Acceptability of HR3 funding for project development.
As long as the project will ultimately involve a construction or operational
improvement which is identified as part of a State’s HSIP process, funds from the
set-aside for high risk rural roads for preliminary engineering (including right of way,
environmental approvals and final design) would be eligible for federal
reimbursement.

12


2. The roadway must have a crash rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries (serious
injury A) that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of

roadways.

3. Roadways are also eligible if future traffic volumes are projected to increase causing
a projected increase in the crash rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that
exceeds the statewide average.

ELIGIBILITY NOTES:

a. Roadways with similar characteristics in the vicinity of an area of
identified fatal or serious injury crash history may be included in the
project limits. Applicants are encouraged to develop projects that will
address similar crash types or characteristics on eligible roadway
sections.

b. The intent of Oregon’s implementation is to focus on County roads,
however, qualified State Highways or roads identified as public under 23
CFR 460.2, with a history of fatal or serious injury A crashes may apply
for HR3 funding.

c. Projects in counties subject to loss of revenue due to reduction or
elimination of Federal School Safety Net Funds may be given special
consideration.

d. When all projects are submitted, the HR3 Steering Committee will assess
the possibility of combining projects, of a similar nature, on a Regional or
Statewide basis.

e. Eligible roadways with ADT’s less than or equal to 400 will be given
special consideration.

f. Roads with high crash rates, in addition to fatal crashes and serious
injury A crashes, and having an assessment by the local engineer that
there is potential for serious injury A crashes or fatal crashes to increase
will be given special consideration.

C. Local Match Requirements
The Local Match requirement for HR3 projects is 7.78% of the total project cost.

D. Project Non- Participating Costs and Overruns

1. Project Sponsors are responsible for 100 percent of the cost of any item which is
not eligible for federal participation.

2. Project overruns, unless authorized by the HR3 Steering Committee, are the
responsibility of the Project Sponsor. Project Sponsors may submit a request
for consideration of additional authorization for reimbursement of project
overruns by submitting a detailed overrun justification to the HR3 Steering
Committee. The HR3 Steering Committee will review the submittal and

14


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) .
PROJECTS OBLIGATED IN SFY 2015 .....sssscescsessersees
Applications Received.
Projects Evaluated........
HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS PROGRAM (HRRRP).
Oregon Process to Utilize HRRRP Funds.........000++

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 HSIP PROJECTS OBLIGATED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN SFY 2015
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF 6 HSIP PROJECT EVALUATIONS FROM APPENDIX A
TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF 17 OTHER SAFETY PROJECT EVALUATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICIES

Appendix A: Standard Reporting Form of Evaluation Data for Completed Safety
Improvement Projects

Appendix B: High Risk Rural Roads Program Data
Appendix C: 5-Year moving average of fatalities and serious injuries for drivers and
pedestrians age 65 and older
LIST OF ACRONYMS

FHWA _ Federal Highway Administration

HRRRP _ High Risk Rural Roads Program

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

PDO Property-damage-only crash

SFY State Fiscal Year

TRS Traffic-Roadway Section

HSEC Highway Safety Engineering Committee

TSD Transportation Safety Division

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

HEP Hazard Elimination Program

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan


Appendix C: 5-Year Moving Average of Fatalities and Serious Injuries for

Drivers and Pedestrians Age 65 and Older


Oregon Department of Transportation

Lathe, |
>
<

O46 |
| ve |

Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)

ry

ie

Annual Report on the Progress of the
Highway Safety Improvement and High
Risk Rural Roads Programs for SFY 2015

is

OREGON DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION Traffic-Roadway Section
August 2015




Table 1 HSIP Projects Obligated for Construction in SFY 2015

Number of Project Cost

Category Projects Estimates

Intersection Improvements 8 $4,813,000
Signing and Delineation 4 $199,000
Roadway/Structure Improvements 13 $7,214,000
Roadway Improvements 3 $750,000
Safety Appurtenances 2 $400,000
Traffic Calming Projects 2 $4,450,000
Total Projects 29 $17,826,000

Note: These figures refiect changes to the existing safety projects in the STIP for SFY 2015

Applications Received/Reviewed

In SFY 2015 (July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015) the Region Traffic Offices were required to
get final approval from the State Traffic Engineer’s office that their selected safety
projects follow ODOT’s Highway Safety Program Guidelines before they are added to
the STIP.

All highway safety projects, regardless of funding (state or federal) will now follow the same
guidance for project eligibility as outlined in the ODOT Highway Safety Program Guide
http:/Avww.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/highway_safety_program.shtml.

The proposed program year of the HSIP safety projects approved varies depending on
the STIP cycle. The final selection of projects for construction is the responsibility of the
Region Traffic Engineer and the Region Traffic Manager.

Projects Evaluated

A total of six (6) HSIP projects were completed between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012
and had 3 years of before and after crash data available for evaluation where possible.
Details for each project can be found in Appendix A. A similar number of before and after
crash months were compared for each project. This simple before-after evaluation only
considered total crashes and did not examine target crashes (the crashes the project
was designed to mitigate). The evaluation indicates that there was a 14.8% decrease in
injury crashes from the before to the after evaluation period. During the evaluation
period, statewide fatal crashes remained flat at 0% and injury crashes increased by 10%.
The evaluation indicated it remained flat at 0% in fatal crashes.

10


Il. OREGON PROCESS TO UTILIZE HR3 FUNDS

A. General

1.

HR3 was originally funded as is a 4 year $1.1 million annual federally funded
program designed _to carry out safety improvement projects on rural roads, with
identified safety issues, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and
serious injuries. As SAFETEA-LU was extended for 3 years the available
funding in HR3 increased by approximately 3.3 million dollars. Part of these
funds were used to fully fund under funded projects.

Under MAP-21 the HR3 program is discontinued, but there are still remaining
funds from this program. At this time it is planned that the remaining funds in
HR3 will be used to fund eligible projects within the local road safety program.
ODOT is transitioning to a Jurisdictionally Blind program of safety for all public
roads in 2017. From 2013-2016 will be a transition period where ODOT is using
HSIP and HR3 program funds to fund safety on local roads (off of state
highways).

HR3 funding is federally funded; therefore projects need to conform to AASHTO
standards. The AASHTO Low Volume Road Guide is the AASHTO standard for
very low volume rural, e.g. roads with ADTs less than or equal to 400.
Exceptions to AASHTO standards will be processed using the current
FHWA/ODOT/Local Agency design exception process.

Since HR3 projects are intended to meet a specific safety need, the scope of work
is limited to features that are directly impacted as a result of addressing this
specific need. Each feature constructed in a HR3 project must be built to the
applicable standard for new construction. Elements of HR3 projects that are not
directly being impacted need not be brought up to current standards. For example,
a signing upgrade along a rural corridor will generally not necessitate shoulder
widening.

B. Eligibility Criteria

Oregons eligibility criteria mirrors the federal guidelines as stated in Section 1-C-2
above. These criteria are:

1. Roadways functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or as a rural local

road are eligible.

13