December 2006

Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. 

Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained 

in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are 

considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality 

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

promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure 

and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviatins and Acronyms..............................................................................

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................

CHAPTER .  INTRODUCTION........................................................................................

Backgroun

Scan Purpose and Participants

CHAPTER .  SCAN DESTINATIONS ..............................................................................

Colorad

Washington State

Pennsylvania

New Yor

Utah

Iow

CHAPTER3  COMMON ISSUES ....................................................................................

Balancing and Funding Needs: Surface Conditions and Safe

Leadership and Institutional Cultu

Measurement and Effectivene

Pavement Consideration

Project Development

Tort Liability

Environmental Regulations and Process

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complianc

CHAPTER .  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES.....................................

CHAPTER .  OBSERVED GOOD PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES ................

Institutional Practice 1 - Integrate Safety into Preservation Projec

Institutional Practice 2 - Establish Multi-Fund Project Track

Institutional Practice 3 - Allow for Flexible Project Development Schedule

Institutional Practice 4 - Strengthen State-Local Partnership

Institutional Practice 5 - Develop a Procedure for Expedient Acquisition of Minor Rights-of

Institutional Practice 6 - Engage Safety Experts in Project Developm

Technical Practice 1 - Identify Targeted Safety Improvemen

Technical Practice 2 - Make Selective Geometric Improvemen

Technical Practice 3 - Install Traffic Control Devices and Guidance

Technical Practice 4 - Improve Roadsid

Technical Practice 5 - Improve Private and Public Access Point

CHAPTER .  SUMMARY...................................................................................................

iii
APPENDIX A fhwa memorandum: preventive maintenance ......

APPENDIX B. scan team members.........................................................................

APPENDIX c. AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ....................................................................

APPENDIX D. KEY CONTACTS INHOST States and counties .............

APPENDIX .  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................

iv
List of Figures

Figure Page

1. NYSDOT elements of State safety strategy. ..................................................................

2. Simplification of WSDOT pavement preservation project development 

 process......................................................................................................................17

3. Incorporating safety improvements in system preservation..........................................

4. Flexible project development cycles.............................................................................25

5. Upgrade climbing lane added with resurfacing in Colorado.........................................2

6. Addition of turning lane in Iowa. ..................................................................................2

7. Before resurfacing and realignment in New York........................................................

8. After resurfacing and realignment to improve intersection sight distance in 

 New York .................................................................................................................2

9. Before resurfacing and cross-section improvements in Thurston Count

 Washington...............................................................................................................29

10. After resurfacing and cross-section improvements in Thurston County,

 Washington. .............................................................................................................29

11 Rumble stripe during construction in Iowa (Note: edge lines are repaint

 after rumble stripe cut).............................................................................................30

12. Centerline and edge rumble strips in Washington State ................................................

13. Sheet delineation on median barrier in Colorado..........................................................3

14. Before placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa.........................................

15. After placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa ............................................3

16. Bridge approach rail, Iowa. ..........................................................................................

17. Traversable culvert grate, Iowa .....................................................................................3

18. Culvert extension in Iowa.............................................................................................

19. Full shoulder pavement with shoulder backup in Pennsylvania ...................................35

20. Safety edge in New York...............................................................................................3

21. Box beam guardrail in New York.................................................................................

22. Guardrail terminal and pavement in Colorado ..............................................................3

23. Crashworthy mailbox installation in Washington State ................................................

24. Close up of a crashworthy mailbox installation in Washington State ...........................

25. Before utility pole relocation in New York ..................................................................

26. After utility pole relocation in New York......................................................................3

27. Safety dike in Iowa........................................................................................................3

28. Realignment of intersecting roadways (reduce/eliminate skew) in New York. ...........

29. Alteration of vertical alignment to improve sight distance at the intersection of two 

county roads in Iowa.................................................................................................4

30. Farm field entrance slope flattening in Iowa .................................................................40

v
List of Tables

Table Page

1. List of States (and dates) visited by Scan Team..............................................................4

2. Example tabulation of split-funded projects .................................................................

vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms

1R Abbreviation for “resurfacing” and generally refers to a category of projects tha

provide for an asphalt overlay with little or no other work.

2R Abbreviation for “resurfacing, and/or restoration” and generally refers to 

category of projects that provide for an asphalt overlay and other minor work.

3R Abbreviation for “resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation.  Some agencie

use this term to describe all projects that provide an overlay of greater than 

1.5 inches. Other agencies use the term to describe the projects to which the

Federally approved 3R design criteria appl

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines

ADT Average Daily Traffic

BHSTE Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (PennDOT)

CA Certification Acceptance

CDOT  Colorado Department of Transport

CRAB  County Road Administration Board (Washingto

CRC  Van Buren County (Michigan) Road

DOT Department of Transportatio

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS Geographic Information Syste

HES Hazard Elimination-Safety, a Federal-aid progr

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Pl

IADOT  Iowa Department of Transporta

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240)

ITS  Intelligent Transportation Syst

LA DOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Developmen

LAG Local Agency Guidelines Manual (WSDOT

LCSI Low Cost Safety Improvement, a PennDOT p

LOSS Level of Service of Safety. A convention used by CDOT reflecting a relationship 

between a roadway segment’s actual and expected crash frequency and severity 

for a specific exposure level, measured in annual average daily traffic.

LPA Local Public Agency

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program

MVM Million Vehicl

NACE National Association of County Engin

vii
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Pro

NPDSE National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportat

PMS Pavement Management Syst

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportatio

PM Preventive Maintenance, as defined by AASHTO as an activity performed to 

extend the functional condition of the pavement without increasing structural 

capacity.

OSR Operational Safety Review 

RAP  Rural Arterial Program (WS

SPF Safety Performance Functions (CDO

SIMS Safety Information Management Sys

UDOT Utah Department of Transportatio

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportatio

viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Including safety improvements in pavement resurfacing and restoration projects is a subject

of long-standing interest. All transportation agencies have ongoing programs to continuously 

improve safety. Likewise, all agencies have ongoing programs to preserve the serviceability of 

pavement surfaces with asphalt overlays and other interventions. The integration of these two 

endeavors is the focal point of historic controversy, ongoing interest, and a domestic scan. The 

scan, cosponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), and the Federal Hig

Administration (FHWA), was conducted to document and disseminate information on good 

practices by State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and local agencies to integrate safety

improvements into resurfacing and pavement restoration projects. 

A scan on this subject was considered timely in light of evolving agency missions and 

legislative developments. The once-separate domains of maintenance and capital construction 

are converging. Successive Federal transportation acts, culminating with the 1991 Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), broadened the eligibility of Federalaid funds. Since ISTEA, FHWA Division Offices, State DOTs, and local governments have 

developed innovative approaches to integrating preservation and safety. The purpose of the scan 

was to identify, document, and disseminate information on these good practices. 

Agencies have multiple objectives and limited resources. Programs and projects are developed 

to balance competing needs and limited funds. Integrating safety improvements into resurfacing

is a resource-efficient method of pursuing infrastructure and safety goals. Resurfacing programs 

are not the only mechanism through which safety improvements are implemented. Further, 

resurfacing programs cannot be the means by which all existing highways are upgraded to meet 

all current criteria and standards related to geometry, traffic control, and safety appurtenances; 

however, incorporating selected, cost-effective safety improvements in resurfacing and 

restoration projects can provide extended public benefits. Attributes of successful programs 

include:

•	 The agency’s resurfacing program is considered to be an element of its overall safety 

strategy.

•	 Agency leadership supports an integrated resurfacing-safety strategy.

•	 Funding of integrated safety improvements is recognized as an appropriate expenditure.

•	 Safety improvements are targeted and cost-effective.

•	 “Scope creep” does not interfere with timely resurfacing.

These success factors were observed in all of the States visited during the scan, albeit to varying 

degrees. Integrated resurfacing-safety programs don’t come into existence instantaneously.

Successful programs are developed over time and may be akin to a journey that involves 

changing organizational paradigms and culture. The States and counties visited are all on a 

journey to the goal of well-integrated programs. Some agencies are further along than others.

This report encompasses both how (i.e., process) integrated programs function and what is 

being accomplished (i.e., completed projects). It is written primarily for Federal, State, and

ix
local agency personnel in appointed and career executive positions, bureau and district/region 

managers that have a role in establishing direction and priorities within transportation agencies.

Scan Team members observed numerous good practices in use by State DOTs and local

governments. These practices have been organized into two broad categories — institutional 

and technical. Some reported practices are widely used; the Scan Team observed others only at 

a single agency. There is, however, one indispensable attribute of a successful program: the 

desire and commitment of agency leaders—appointed and career—to routinely enhance 

safety in conjunction with infrastructure preservation.

x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Legislators, policy makers and transportation professionals face the challenge of allocating 

transportation resources for expenditures that will preserve and extend mobility and those that 

will preserve and improve highway safety. This is not a simple task, and not one for which there 

is a consensus approach. The following relevant background information will help the reader 

understand why there is a range of policies and practices, and the steps taken to formulate the 

scan team and the scan locations. 

BACKGROUND

Through the early 1970s, transportation agencies (and predecessor highway departments) had 

very distinct approaches to construction and maintenance. The scope and definition of highway 

construction were largely determined by applying geometric design criteria and standards, which 

are intended to provide motorists with safe and efficient travel. Engineers made design decisions. 

The fundamental purpose of maintenance has historically been to preserve the serviceability of 

existing facilities. The driving surface (i.e., pavements and bridges) receives primary attention. 

In many States, their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is the sole or prima

mechanism for implementing safety improvement projects.

The clean separation between construction and maintenance processes began to change with 

enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976, which amended the U. S. Code definition 

of “construction” to include resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R). This made 3R wor

on Federal-aid highways eligible for Federal funding. The legislation did not address the design 

standards that should be applied to the 3R projects and this subject was to become a matter of

controversy for years. In significant part, the controversy involved the degree to which safety 

improvements should be included in 3R projects. In the Surface Transportation Assistance Act o

1982, Congress indicated the objective of 3R program was “[t]o preserve and extend the servic

life of highways and enhance highway safety.”

Although the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) attempted to develop national standards for 

Federal-aid 3R projects, these attempts met significant challenges. Instead, individual State 

Departments of Transportations (DOTs) were given the opportunity to develop standards

that, if approved by FHWA, could be used on Federal-aid, nonfreeway 3R projects. The vast

majority of States have FHWA-approved 3R standards. The Intermodal Surface Transportatio

and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) identified preventive maintenance as a new Federal-aid 

eligible activity. Previously, all maintenance was the responsibility of the States. The ISTE

also established the National Highway System (NHS), for which the FHWA establishes design 

standards. Although conformance to design standards (including 3R standards) is not required

for Federal-aid preventive maintenance activities, appropriate ways to maintain or enhance the 

current level of safety and accessibility should be considered. Isolated or obvious deficiencies 

should always be addressed. Safety enhancements can be deferred and included within an 

operative safety management system or included in a programmed future project. Preventive 

maintenance projects may not adversely impact the safety of the traveled way or its users. 

1
Appendix A includes the FHWA policy memorandum on preventive maintenance project 

eligibility.

The provisions outlined above allow for flexibility in the use of Federal funds for resurfacing 

projects. Many FHWA Division Offices now work with State DOTs to develop tailored 

approaches that meet the needs of individual States. For resurfacing projects, integrated 

safety interventions are often selected through analysis of crash data rather than application of 

dimension-based and/or geometric criteria. To some observers, this approach is the third phase 

in the resurfacing project evolution: (1) standards and dimension-based criteria, (2) resurfacing 

only, and (3) integration of selected safety improvements in resurfacing.

The scan report attempts to capture many of the promising organizational processes and technical 

approaches. 

SCAN PURPOSE AND PARTICIPANTS

Federal, State, and local transportation agencies endeavor on a routine and ongoing basis 

to improve the methods by which existing highways are preserved and safety is improved. 

Combining pavement preservation and safety improvements in a single project is potentially

more effective than separate interventions along the same facility. The American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), and National Association of County Engineers (NACE) cosponsored a scan tour

identify and disseminate information on practices that effectively integrate safety improvements 

into resurfacing and pavement restoration projects.

A Scan Team assembled by the sponsoring agencies included personnel with expertise in 

highway design, local government operations, maintenance, pavement management, project 

development, and safety. Additionally, FHWA arranged for a report facilitator. The Scan Team 

met with State DOT and FHWA Division (i.e., local office located in each State) personnel in 

each of the six States and with county engineers in three States. Because of scheduling conflicts, 

the entire Scan Team was not able to visit every scan destination. However, four Scan Team 

members participated in all activities and visits. The Scan Team members provided a wealth of 

knowledge and input to the goal of this report The Scan Team members included the following:

•	 Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais, P.E., Assistant Division Administrator Connecticut Divis

FHWA (Scan Team Co-Chair

•	 Keith Cota, P.E., Chief of Consulting Design, New Hampshire Department

Transportation (Scan Team Co-Chair

•	 Lawrence (Larry) B. Hummel, P.E., County Highway Engineer Manager, Van

County (Michigan) Road Commiss

•	 N. Kent Israel, P.E., Road Design Engineer, Louisiana Department of Transportation 

Development.

•	 Frank Julian, Safety Engineer, Safety and Design Technical Service Team, FHWA

•	 Bernie Kuta, P.E., Pavement and Materials Engineer, Pavement and Material Techn

Service Team, FHWA.

2
•	 Susan G. Miller, County Engineer, Freeborn County, Minne

•	 Harry W. Taylor, Jr., Road Departure Safety Team Leader, FHWA (now retired)

•	 Kevin M. Mahoney, P.E., Senior Research Associate, Pennsylvania State Univers

(Scan Team Report Facilitator)

Appendix  presents biographies of the Scan Team

3
CHAPTER 2: SCAN DESTINATIONS

The scan destinations were identified through a review of available information. The following 

were considered indications of a strong State program:

•	 States have developed written guidance on safety considerations for resurfacing projects. 

•	 Analysis techniques use historical safety performance.

•	 States provide assistance and leadership to local agencies for incorporating safety 

improvement in resurfacing programs.

•	 Safety effects of resurfacing program have been documented.

After reviewing available information related to these factors, a number of strong programs were 

identified. As a practical matter, it was only possible to visit six States. The following States were 

visited during three separate trips, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: States (and dates) visited by scan team.

State Dates visited

Colorado June 20 – 21, 200

Washington State June 22 – 24, 2005

Pennsylvania July 18 – 20, 2005

New York July 21 – 22, 200

Utah August 22 – 23, 2005

Iowa August 24 – 26, 200

A summary and highlights of the visit to each destination are provided below.

COLORADO (June 20 to 21, 2005)

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) issued its Procedures for Addressi

Safety Requirements on Resurfacing, Restoration, Rehabilitation (3R) Projects Design Bulletin

in March 2005. The Design Bulletin applies to all resurfacing projects with an overlay of mor

than 1.5 inches, but does not apply to reconstruction. The new procedures were developed by 

a process development team with representation from CDOT central and region offices and the 

FHWA Division Office. The procedures were developed in response to a Quality Assurance 

Review that found a lack of consistency on the types of safety improvements included in

resurfacing projects. The team that developed the new guidance sought to:

•	 Establish a rational process for determining an appropriate design for a specific set of 

conditions.

•	 Document key decisions without extensive design variance approval paperwork.

•	 Reflect cradle-to-grave project management style and minimize “hand offs.”

•	 Conserve engineering resources

•	 Support tort liability management effort.

4
•	 Fulfill FHWA requirements.

•	 Function for both State-only and Federal-aid funded projects because having separate 

processes would be too cumbersome.

The 3R safety consideration procedure is based on analysis of the facility’s historic safety

performance rather than on dimensional values for specific features. Safety Performance 

Functions (SPF) are used to assess the magnitude of safety problems on highway segments that 

will be resurfaced. The SPF reflects a relationship between traffic exposure (measured in ADT) 

and crash count for a unit of road section. The SPF developed by CDOT provides an estimate o

expected crash frequency and severity, as a function of exposure, for similar facilities. A facility’s 

performance and its amenability to safety improvement are classified using a system referred to 

as the level of service of safety, or LOSS. The LOSS reflects a relationship between a roadway 

segment’s actual and expected crash frequency and severity for a specific exposure level, 

measured in annual average daily traffic. Additional analysis is conducted in the form of pattern 

recognition and direct diagnostics to define specific accident patterns susceptible to correction, 

and proposed improvements within the scope of the project. To expedite project development, 

the safety analysis is recommended to be accomplished prior to the scoping.

The CDOT central office’s Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch, in conjunction with the 

Region design team, formulate the safety analysis and recommendations. Additionally, the

CDOT central office’s Pavement Management System section provides input to the resurfacing 

project selection process. The regional offices have primary responsibility for project delivery 

and considerable discretion. Project development is results oriented and expedient. When needed, 

an environmental specialist is included in scoping field views to render decisions. The roles of 

CDOT region and central office organizations appeared complementary and cooperative. 

The Colorado Transportation Commission establishes funding levels for specific programs, 

including the Surface Treatment Program and Safety Enhancement Pool. The primary purpose of

the Surface Treatment Program is to maintain the condition and drivability of the State highway 

system. A limited number of activities are eligible for this funding. In addition to paving and

surface improvements, Surface Treatment Program funds may be used for minor safety work 

(i.e., signing, striping, delineation etc.), shoulder-up work, guardrail adjustments, and other 

items needed to complete the surface treatment are also eligible. Additionally, Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements are met with Surface Treatment Program funds. 

Enhancements that are desirable or mandated (e.g., upgraded bridge rail and guardrail) can also

be implemented, but are not eligible for Surface Treatment Program funds. The annual Surface 

Treatment Program allocation is approximately $143 million. Approximately 11 percent of 

these funds ($16 million) are expended for essential safety items associated with the resurfacing 

work, including work zone traffic control, raising guardrail, and adding or reapplying pavement 

markings. The Safety Enhancement Pool funds safety improvements included in resurfacing

projects are not eligible for the Surface Treatment Program. Safety Enhancement funds are in the

range of $4 to $7 million annually. 

5
WASHINGTON STATE (June 22 to 24, 2005)

Government in Washington State, at the State and county level, is very engaged in transportation, 

and resurfacing and pavement restoration programs are quite refined.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approach to project development

and design, including consideration of safety improvements, is provided in the DOT Design 

Manual. The DOT Design Manual includes five design matrices; each provides applicable 

standards and criteria for various project types (e.g., preservation, improvement) and highway 

facility elements (e.g., NHS route, mainline; non-NHS route, mainline). “Basic Safety” is 

generally provided for preservation projects and refers to a list of required and discretionary 

items, including delineation; rumble strips in accordance with roadside safety policy; adjustment 

of existing features affected by resurfacing; replacement of deficient signing; relocation, 

protection, or provision of breakaway features for sign supports, luminaires, and electrical 

service poles inside the design clear zone; sight distance restoration at intersections and curves; 

nonstandard bridge rail upgrades; and barrier terminals and bridge end protection, including 

transition upgrades in accordance with traffic barrier policy. Other improvements are also 

considered such as spot safety improvements and roadside safety hardware. 

WSDOT operates with specific allocations and eligibility directives. Preservation is a 

legislatively established program; Pavement Preservation was funded at $255.1 million for 

the 2003 to 2005 biennium. For the same period, $140.3 million was provided for the Safety 

Improvement program. WSDOT was directed by its legislature to use a project selectio

process that preserves the existing State highway system and restores existing safety features, 

while giving consideration to lowest life-cycle cost. This mandate applies to the approximately 

19,000 lane miles of State-maintained pavements. The objectives of the Safety Improvement

program are to provide the safest possible highways with the available resources and to 

improve pedestrian safety. Safety Improvement-funded projects typically consist entirely of

safety measures and extend along a corridor or throughout an area. Safety Improvement funds

are not normally used for resurfacing projects, although a project may be funded from both 

the Preservation and Improvement programs when the work can be completed within the

Preservation program cycle time. Approximately 12 percent of Pavement Preservation funds are 

expended on safety restoration; they consist mostly of Basic Safety, as previously described. 

Local governments in Washington State have a significant role in transportation. There are 

39 counties in Washington State, all of which have legislated responsibilities for highway 

maintenance and improvement. Counties obtain funds from several sources including local taxes,

Federal-aid (i.e., FHWA-administered funds passed through WSDOT), and State resources. I

2005, approximately $250 million in Federal-aid highway funds was suballocated to Washington 

State local governments (i.e., counties, cities, towns, port districts, and Native American tribes). 

This amount is approximately 50 percent of all the Federal funds allocated to Washington State; 

100 percent of Federal-aid Hazard Elimination-Safety (HES) funds are passed through to loca

governments. 

The County Road Administration Board (CRAB) is an independent entity of Washi

State created by State statute. The mission of the CRAB is to preserve and enhance counti

transportation infrastructure by providing standards of good practice, fair administration of 

6
funding programs, visionary leadership, and integrated progressive and professional technical 

services. The CRAB and WSDOT are separate organizations that cooperate in several ar

related to county highway programs. To receive State and State-allocated funds, a county must 

comply with certain organizational and accountability requirements. State law requires that 

each county have a properly staffed road organization, headed by a professional engineer who 

serves as the county engineer. The CRAB issues annual certificates of compliance for county 

road programs that are found to meet all requirements. In those cases where the CRAB d

not issue a certificate of compliance to a specific county, the governor may withhold funds. The 

CRAB also administers the Rural Arterial Program (RAP), which funds reconstruction of r

high-volume arterials. The RAP was established in 1983 by the Washington State Legislature to

mitigate the effects of heavy freight (e.g., timber) traffic on rural arterials caused by rail system 

abandonment. RAP funding is derived from 2 percent of the 28-cent-per-gallon State gas tax.

County engineering departments have relationships with, and accountability to the CRAB 

WSDOT.

PENNSYLVANIA (July 18 to 20, 2005)

The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) is a decentralized organization. Central office bureaus 

provide specialized expertise and organization-wide services (e.g., crash database organization, 

network-level safety analysis and screening, pavement management). Each of the 11 districts

develops and executes a business plan. The plans include numerous components that address 

PennDOT’s five strategic focus areas, including those related to infrastructure preservation 

and safety. There is substantial variety in district priorities, capital and maintenance budgets, 

customer expectations, and staffing. During the scan, the team visited two district offices; this 

report is based on observations at those districts.

PennDOT has jurisdiction for about 40,000 of the approximately 120,420 roadway centerline

miles in Pennsylvania. Two-lane rural roads comprise much of the highway network, including 

the State system. Many miles of roadway were constructed with 18-ft wide bases and usable

roadways of approximately 16 ft; 33-ft rights-of-way are common. District 3 has been pursuing 

a multiyear program to attain a 20-ft minimum roadway within existing rights-of-way, in 

conjunction with resurfacing. Roadway segments have been prioritized based on traffic volumes. 

Much of the work is completed with State forces through a phased approach. Early work consist

of extending culverts, base widening and clearing; follow-on activities are paving, pavement 

markings, and appurtenance installation. Approximately 30 to 47 highway miles are widened 

within District 3 annually. The 5-year plan has specific goals and is updated annually.

Contract resurfacing projects are common in all PennDOT districts. Generally, the resurfacin

program is initiated and managed by the maintenance manager for a geographic area. Pavement 

conditions, known performance problems, and input from external sources are considered 

in developing the program. Senior district managers, including a design manager and bridge 

engineer, field view the designated route segments. This group determines the scope, specific 

features to be addressed or provided, and identifies potential problems. Crash histories are 

reviewed as part of project definition.

Resurfacing work is funded primarily with State maintenance and capital funds. Capital fund

are programmed and maintenance funds are distributed for State highways in each county on 

7
the basis of a legislated formula. Except for Interstate routes, Federal-aid is used infrequentl

for resurfacing. Generally, a conceptual scope is determined first and funding options are 

then considered based on eligibility. A final determination on scope and funding is made after 

scheduling and project development (e.g., criteria, environmental, right-of-way) factors are 

considered. Projects involving geometric improvements require environmental review and 

are generally developed over a 2-year period if no additional right-of-way is required. When 

geometric alterations are not proposed, the development process is expedient and nearly always 

performed by State forces. Safety improvements are considered for all resurfacing projects, with 

or without geometric improvements. PennDOT has a Low Cost Safety Improvement (L

program with a 2005-2006 budget of $10 million. However, this is not the upper limit (i.e., 

maximum permissible level) of expenditures for the safety strategies identified in the LCSI 

program. The same LCSI strategies are often incorporated in capital and maintenance project

and funded through other programs. The LCSI implementation guidance identifies 12 crash 

categories and 32 suggested countermeasures, with each crash category having from one to six 

countermeasures. 

PennDOT has adopted the national safety goal to reduce fatalities to 1.0 per 100 millionvehicle miles (100 MVM) by 2008. Each district’s plan identifies strategies to be executed (e.g.,

intersection improvement, tree removal, curve legend replacement, rumble strips) on an annual 

basis in pursuit of the goal. The calendar year 2004 rate of 1.40 fatalities per 100 VM was 

all-time low for Pennsylvania. Each district has a Safety Review Committee that reviews proje

scopes and design exceptions.

NEW YORK (July 21 to 22, 2005)

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) delivers programs through

decentralized organization using very systematic and process-oriented approaches. Centralized

responsibilities include policy setting, coordination, technical assistance, and information 

systems functions. Technical guidance and procedures for its programs are quite sophisticated. 

Project development and operational functions are executed primarily in NYSDOT’s 11 regiona

offices. These general characteristics and division of responsibilities extend to the scan topics. 

The NYSDOT’s Main Office has established a set of programs and promulgated corresponding 

procedures related to the incorporation of safety improvements in resurfacing projects.

The New York State safety strategy is comprehensive and involves several agencies. Figure

1 shows the NYSDOT elements of the strategy. Development, maintenance, and ongoin

improvement of the Safety Information Management System (SIMS) are centralized functio

As shown, the safety goal is pursued through a series of routine operations (e.g., resurfacing) 

and proactive strategies. 

SIMS is used to identify Priority Investigation Locations, which are roadway segments 

intersections targeted for review because of their crash history. SIMS is also used to analyze th

safety record of segments targeted for resurfacing. Pavement conditions, operations and safety 

are principal considerations in determining project types (i.e., 1R, 2R, and 3

8
Figure 1. NYSDOT elements of State safety strategy.

The NYSDOT project development guidance is fairly specific guidance on what safety 

treatments should be considered or provided and when the safety features should be completed. 

Safety measures are designated for completion in one of the following three time frames:

• Before the paving contract.

• During the paving contract.

• Before, during, or as soon as possible following completion of the paving contract.

Project development and delivery cycles vary for the array of resurfacing program types. The 1

projects are implemented in 4 to 6 months and even less time when the work is added to ongoing 

contracts. The 2R projects generally proceed from inception to construction in less than a year,

whereas 3R projects take 2 to 3 years.

NYSDOT’s regional offices are responsible for project development. The Scan Team observed 

a number of completed NYSDOT and county resurfacing projects in the field, including a 

completed safety edge (30o to 35o asphalt fillet). This recently developed technique is used to 

mitigate the edge drop-off that can result from resurfacing without backing up the adjacent 

shoulder.

9
UTAH (August 23 to 24, 2005)

Within the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), project design, including plan

development for resurfacing projects, is delegated to four regional offices. Several functions 

and controls remain at the central office, including bridge design, right-of-way acquisition, and 

management of the traffic and safety program.

UDOT fund categories are designated on the basis of primary purpose. Approximately $50

million, consisting of Federal and State funds, is programmed annually for surface preservation. 

Approximately $11 million is available for traffic and safety work, of which approximately 

$7 million funds traffic signals and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Projects with 

multiple funding sources are rare. The scan focused on surface preservation projects, which may 

incorporate safety improvements. 

UDOT has three different sets of procedures and guidance for various scopes of resurfacing

projects. The Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation Standards for Non-Freeway Systems

were issued in January 2005. The Purple Book is a guidance document for only resurfacing 

work, which is a subset of 3R projects. Projects developed using the Purple Book must fit a

fairly specific profile. In addition to pavement work, which may involve overlays up to 4 inches 

of resurfacing, curb ramps that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility 

Guidelines (ADAAG), and selected safety improvements are included in these projects. The 

safety features are identified through an Operational Safety Review (OSR). The Orange Book is 

the third guideline. The Orange Book addresses pavement preventive maintenance, primarily thin 

overlays and surface treatments; geometric improvements or enhanced safety features are not 

provided. Both Purple Book and Orange Book projects are completed within existing rights-ofway, which are generally wide enough to accommodate geometric and roadside improvements.

The UDOT is working on programmatic Federal-aid eligibility for both Purple Book and Orange

Book projects. 

The OSRs are prepared by the UDOT central office Traffic and Safety unit and include a review 

of infrastructure conditions (e.g., geometry, appurtenances, traffic control devices, etc.) and 

safety history. Three years of crash count data are collected. Historical crash rates and severities 

are computed and compared to expected rates. Single-vehicle crashes are broken into more 

specific types (e.g., wild animal, domestic animal, run-off-road, etc). Safety recommendations 

are formed on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Typical improvements include a variety of traffic 

control (e.g., signing, delineation) and roadside (e.g., mail box supports, culvert extension, and 

guardrail) treatments. Generally, when guardrail meets NCHRP 230 crash requirements, it is no

replaced. If an installation does not meet NCHRP 230 but is warranted, NCHRP 350 compl

guardrail is installed. 

UDOT has adopted the national safety goal to reduce fatalities to 1.0 per 100MVM by 20

Highway fatalities have declined steadily in recent years. Ironically, this positive trend has

increased the challenge of securing safety funds as some high-level decision makers consider 

recent safety performance to be adequate. 

The State of Utah provides assistance to counties and incorporated municipalities under the Class

B andC Road Program. Apportionments are made on the basis of road and street mileage op

10
to public travel, over which a two-wheel drive vehicle may travel. Fund distribution is based 

50 percent on population and 50 percent on weighted road miles. One paved road mile has a

weight of five (5); a gravel road mile has a weight of two (2); and other road types carry a weight 

of one (1) per road mile. Class B and C Road Program funds may be used for construction; 

maintenance; equipment purchases and rental; engineering and administration; right-of-way; 

Federal fund match; ancillary buildings; and yards. The Class B and C Program is administered 

by UDOT through its Local Government Liaison Unit. Technical assistance is available from the

Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) centers. 

The Scan Team was not able to meet any local government officials or visit any locally 

administered projects, but members did learn about the UDOT Roadway Safety Improveme

program that uses Federal-aid Hazard Elimination-Safety (HES) funds to assist counties t

improve warning and regulatory signing. The UDOT provides both technical assistance (e.g.,

reviewing designs) and sliding-scale funding. The actual match required by participating counties 

is sometimes less than 7 percent. The UDOT has a goal of assisting two counties per year under

this program.

IOWA (August 24 to 26, 2005)

Over the past several years, Iowa Department of Transportation (IADOT) has changed 

3R program development approach. State highway resurfacing project typically entails a 4

inch overlay (two lifts of 2 inches each) with an anticipated service life of 20 years. Annual 

Statewide 3R program expenditures are approximately $60 million. As of March 2001, IADO

six district offices are responsible for scoping, designing, and delivering the 3R program. 

Previously, the central office was also involved in project development. The IADOT Central 

Office staff developed and executed a transition plan to assist in decentralizing 3R project 

delivery. District office staffs were trained on conducting inventories and project scope concepts. 

After the decentralization was complete, the Office of Traffic and Safety conducted a quality 

improvement program (referred to as 3R Safety Audit Field Reviews). This was not an audit i

the conventional sense or a compliance review; rather, it is a proactive educational and advocacy 

initiative. The audit team consisted of personnel from the IADOT Office of Traffic and Safety, 

FHWA Division Office, Iowa State University Center for Transportation Research and Education, 

and an independent safety consultant. Resident IADOT district office staff also participated. 

The six district offices were visited between November 2001 and October 2004. Written reports 

of each district visit and a Statewide summary report were prepared. Observations, strengths,

and potential improvements were noted. In addition to the 3R Safety Audit Field Reviews, t

IADOT Office of Traffic and Safety delivers an ongoing educational program of instruction and 

workshops for project-level decision makers. Several safety-related courses are offered annually.

The following safety countermeasures are considered for all 3R projects

•	 Improving superelevation on horizontal curves

•	 Extending small culverts with openings in the shoulders or fore slope, where right-of-way

permits.

•	 Upgrading guardrail, including bridge approach guardrail.

11
•	 Adding two to six ft paved shoulders and shoulder rumble strips.

•	 Adding offset turn lanes.

•	 Flattening transverse driveway entrance slopes.

•	 Constructing safety dikes opposite T-intersections

•	 Removing fixed objects within the clear zone.

•	 Placing chevrons on horizontal curves.

•	 Replacing warning signs with the florescent-yellow signs.

In addition to the above, the following additional improvements are considered on NHS routes

•	 Widening of narrow travel lanes.

•	 Upgrading granular shoulders with surface treatments.

•	 Converting existing four-lane undivided urban streets to three-lane facilities

Safety improvements are selective rather than “all or nothing.” Individual hazards and

corresponding improvements are assessed individually. Crash analysis is a routine part of these

evaluations and project development. 

The proportion of 3R expenditures for safety features was previously estimated at 3 percent,

mostly for guardrail. Subsequent to that review and estimate, the type of safety improvements 

and proportion of 3R expenditures has increased

There are approximately 113,518 centerline miles of roadways in Iowa of which approximately

8,881 are under IADOT jurisdiction. Counties own approximately 88,740 miles of the 102,81

(86.3 percent) mile rural system. Local government units (e.g., counties, cities, towns) own 

approximately 9,956 of the 10,706 (93.0 percent) centerline miles of roads and streets within 

urban areas. IADOT and the 99 counties have substantial rural highway maintenance an

enhancement responsibilities. IADOT has an active outreach and partnership with loca

government units. Training, policy and technical guidance (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, guardrail 

systems), and crash data and analysis are provided at no cost. A series of County 3R Safet

Workshops were delivered under IADOT leadership and assistance from Iowa State Universi

and consultants. County personnel are provided with hard copy crash location maps and

instructed on how to generate additional crash reports. Local Systems Engineers located in each

IADOT district participated in the workshops and provide ongoing, routine assistance to countie

and municipalities.

12
CHAPTER 3: COMMON ISSUES

All visits were coordinated in advance with host agencies. Appendix  contains the set of

amplifying questions provided in advance of the scan visits. The agenda and format for visits 

varied somewhat but typically included an entrance conference at the State DOT headquarters

featuring an overview of the scan’s purpose and scope by one of Scan Team cochairs. 

Representatives from FHWA Division Offices and DOT headquarters accompanied the Scan 

Team throughout the visits. The Scan Team met with personnel of DOT offices in all States, 

either at the district/region or central office. The involvement of project-level personnel provided 

useful insights into the development, design, and implementation of resurfacing projects. 

Additionally, the Scan Team met with county engineers in Washington State, New York, and

Iowa. Appendix D includes the names and contact information for key contacts in host States and

counties.

All transportation agencies have some similarities; yet, each is also distinctive. Climate, cultural, 

demographic, economic, governance, and terrain factors all influence the operating environment, 

mission, and methods of a transportation agency. A number of factors that shape an agency’s 

operating environment and its performance related to the scan subject are discussed below.

BALANCING AND FUNDING NEEDS: SURFACE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY 

There are insufficient resources to address either all pavement preservation needs or all safety 

needs. Therefore, allocating resources among pavement and safety needs is difficult for all 

agencies. 

The degree of emphasis—and level of investment—agencies commit to incorporating safety 

improvements in resurfacing varies substantially, even among the States visited. The degree of 

discretion that agency leaders and individual professionals exercise also varies. For several State 

DOTs, the level of safety investment is determined at the State level. For example, DOTs i

Washington State and Colorado are guided by agency-wide safety expenditure amounts.

The eligibility guidance used by the NYSDOT and PennDOT are less specific. Geometric 

improvements that are made as part of resurfacing are not necessarily attributed to a safety 

improvement fund.

For States with less specific and definitive guidance, agency decision makers at all levels 

exercise substantial discretion. Extensive safety investments were made in some programs and

projects; in other cases, safety improvements were modest. The differences related to perceptions 

about needs and priorities. 

LEADERSHIP SUPPORT AND INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE

Every agency endeavors to preserve its roadways and improve safety; however, not every 

agency pursues these goals through integrated processes. Incorporating safety improvements into

resurfacing involves consideration of funding, priorities, observable results, delivery schedules, 

13
and tort liability issues). In the face of competing objectives, resource allocations must align with

public priorities. The Scan Team noted that leadership is needed to force resolution of priorities 

among competing needs and to integrate separate functional domains (e.g., maintenance and 

safety bureaus). Leadership can also play a critical role in securing resources and determining 

eligibility. In the States visited, career professionals and executives have successfully developed

and implemented programmatic approaches to balancing and integrating their pavement 

preservation and safety improvement goals.

The evolution and development of agency practices were 

discussed with several of the agencies visited. In some

States, integration of safety into resurfacing is outlined 

in the DOT-FHWA Stewardship Agreement. In othe

cases, it was determined that an integrated strategy was 

the logical means to pursue two goals. Resurfacing is

often the only improvement an agency will make to a 

road segment during a 5- to 20-year period. Therefore, 

resurfacing projects are the best (and perhaps only practical) opportunity to enhance safety. 

Mobilization, traffic control, and contract administration costs are not substantially increased 

by incremental contract items. Agency executives with cross-functional responsibilities, either 

Statewide or for a specific geographic area, were generally supportive of integrating safety into 

resurfacing. 

DOT staffs in the States visited also tended to embrace both functions (i.e., pavement

preservation and safety improvement) as inherent organizational responsibilities. For some 

agencies, the notion of integrating safety into pavement projects was deeply ingrained and 

unquestioned. Other agencies are in transition and working through the policy and technical

issues related to making safety investments through a program with a traditional infrastructure 

focus. 

MEASUREMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS 

Agencies have to account for resources and demonstrate progress toward established goals. All 

State DOTs visited had information systems related to infrastructure conditions (e.g., pavement

management systems) and safety. Pavement-related measures include lane-miles paved, tons of 

asphalt placed, and ride quality (typically measured using the International Roughness Index

DOTs also have safety goals and plans. Example safety measures are crashes per reporting perio

(typically one year), crash rates, annual fatalities, fatal crash rates, pedestrian-involved crashes, 

pedestrian fatalities, and impaired driver-related crashes. 

In general, agencies can readily relate pavement preservation investments to outcomes. The

type and interval of resurfacing and restoration interventions are the dominant factors affecting 

pavement conditions. Conversely, the link between specific safety outcomes and investments is 

less certain. Reported safety statistics are influenced by many factors, such as legislation (e.g., 

seatbelt and helmet use, speed limits), enforcement efforts, weather patterns, and reporting 

thresholds. These factors, and the random nature of crashes, make it very difficult to isolate 

the effect of safety countermeasures, especially over short intervals (e.g., year-to-year) and 

at specific locations. Consequently, reported safety improvements are often stated in terms of 

14
investments and visible features. For example, agencies may report rumble strip installation 

(measured in units of length) as a measurable safety improvement. There is little doubt that 

rumble strips, in aggregate, prevent crashes and the associated consequences. However, it is 

a difficult and subjective exercise to estimate the number of fatalities and injuries averted by 

the installation of specific rumble strips during a reporting period. One agency safety manager 

indicated that the absence of clear safety investment-results relationships makes it difficult to 

attain additional resources.

During the scan, detailed measurement plans were observed in New York, Pennsylvania, and

Washington State. PennDOT uses a business planning process and relevant parts of the two

district business plans were reviewed during the scan. The plans tend to be outcome oriented and 

tied to the organization’s global goals, which include specific safety objectives and maintenance 

outcomes. WSDOT has a rigorous reporting process and submits quarterly reports, known as

Grey Notebooks to the Washington State Transportation Commission. These reports provide

information on capital program expenditures, system performance and condition, safety, and 

a host of other measures. Pavement conditions are reported as the percent of pavements in 

good condition; for 2003, the level was at 90 percent. Washington State traffic fatalities and 

fatality rates are reported, along with a comparison to other States. Each of the States visited

monitors and reports basic performance and results but the detail and frequency of reports varies 

substantially.

PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Resurfacing and pavement restoration projects are initiated with a primary purpose of improving

roadway surface conditions and extending the utility of existing pavement structures. This is 

true in every State and county visited. NYSDOT also has a program to resurface roadways wit

high wet-road crash levels and low skid resistance. The role of Pavement Management Systems

(PMS) in resurfacing project initiation varies by DOT. The UDOT uses its PMS to identify 

next scheduled pavement intervention for every State-maintained road segment. This information 

is organized into a Plan for Every Section of Road and serves as the primary basis for the annua

resurfacing program. In Colorado, each CDOT regional office identifies resurfacing project 

priorities. These priorities are reviewed by the central PMS section. The regional office and PMS 

section lists typically do not match identically and the two groups collaborate to develop a final 

list. The PMS section attempts to have 70 percent of its recommended mileage programmed.

For most States, PMS condition data is one of several sources of information considered

in developing the annual resurfacing program. The observations of maintenance personnel 

and input from the public and elected officials are also factors in programming projects. 

PMS includes extensive inventory data, including valuable safety management and project

development information. PennDOT’s PMS provides information on pavement edge drop-offs

Pavement resurfacing and restoration strategies range from surface treatments to multicourse 

overlays. Several States use their PMS for preliminary identification of intervention alternatives. 

The final determination of a pavement strategy is typically based on field observations and, in 

some cases, materials testing and analysis. Superpave mixes are commonly used for overlays. 

Stone Matrix Asphalt mixes are used occasionally for resurfacing major routes in Washington

State.

15
Inadequate pavement cross slopes and superelevation rates are often addressed in conjunction

with resurfacing. Pavement edge drop-offs are typically, but not always, addressed with either 

shoulder backup or sloped pavement edges (e.g., Safety Edge)

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Each agency has a unique approach to scoping and designing resurfacing and restoration

projects. For transportation agencies, project development is a business process. As such, the 

project development process covers the assignment of roles, funding amounts and eligibility, 

timing of actions and schedules, and a host of technical guidance. 

All State DOTs visited are decentralized organizations; however, the distribution of roles and 

responsibilities between headquarters and field offices varies from State to State. Agencies 

attempt to involve personnel with the necessary skills and perspectives and still deliver projects 

in a timely fashion. Nearly all Iowa and Pennsylvania resurfacing project development decisions

are made by local DOT units (e.g., regions/districts). Colorado and Utah DOT Traffic and Safety 

headquarter personnel perform project safety 

analyses and develop recommendations. In

the WSDOT process, headquarters develops

design guidance and approves project definition 

(Program Management is a headquarters

bureau). Figure 2 provides a simplified flow 

chart of WSDOT’s pavement preservation

project development process. 

16
Figure 2. Simplification of WSDOT pavement preservation project development process.

17
Several agencies have different types of pavement restoration programs and distinct project 

development processes exist for each. For capital-funded 3R projects, PennDOT uses the projec

development process and criteria in its Design Manual. Less formal procedures, which vary 

by district, are employed for maintenance-funded projects. NYSDOT has project developmen

guidance for each restoration program (i.e., 1R, 2R, nonfreeway 3R, freeway 3R). A series

factors (e.g., pavement needs, safety record, scope of improvement, right-of-way needs, impacts, 

controversy) are used to determine which program a specific project should be processed under. 

At the time of the scan, UDOT was developing a process diagram for resurfacing projects to be

used in lieu of the current flow chart, which applies to all projects but is considered unnecessarily 

complex for resurfacing projects. 

TORT LIABILITY

The specter of tort liability looms over every transportation agency. The influence of tort claims 

on resurfacing project decisions varies substantially among the agencies visited and is largely a 

result of the prevailing legal climate (e.g., statutory limits on the nature and magnitude of agency 

liability). In general, agency procedures and project-level documentation were viewed as an

integral part of the agency’s tort management strategy. 

Numerous transportation agency personnel indicated concern about litigation and expressed the 

opinion that a litigious environment contravenes public interest. Several engineers expressed 

reluctance to make any geometric improvements unless all applicable criteria were attained. 

Several engineers expressed the opinion that simple resurfacing involves less tort exposure than 

projects that alter infrastructure but do not result in attainment of all applicable criteria. Even

well-informed, well-considered, and well-documented deviations (e.g., design exceptions) are 

considered risky. Tort concerns were expressed most strongly in New York and Washington

State.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PROCESSES

Roadway infrastructure modification can trigger environmental processing and permitting 

requirements. Several transportation engineers indicated that the substantive environmental 

protection requirements were considered out-of-balance with seemingly minor impacts. 

Implementation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Pha

II Stormwater Program is particularly challenging. Various States indicated that NP

implementation provisions discourage cross-section improvements (e.g., widening, paving 

shoulders). The time and staff effort needed to develop documentation and secure permits is at 

cross purposes with transportation agency goals of expedient project development and delivery. 

The Scan Team observed several measures to manage the environmental process for resurfacing 

projects. CDOT includes environmental specialists on project teams and WSDOT is developi

geographic information systems (GIS) overlays to identify environmentally sensitive areas (e.g.,

threatened and endangered species habitat, wetlands). Programmatic permits, where applicable, 

are very beneficial.

18
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE

Compliance with the ADAAG is a major cost and organizational challenge for many agencies,

including all State DOTs. The status of compliance and strategies for attaining compliance

varies substantially among the States visited. As a result of litigation, the UDOT is developing

an inventory of curb ramps along State highways that will be used to identify noncompliant 

facilities. After the inventory is complete, dedicated contracts will be let to install compliant curb 

ramps. CDOT provides ADA compliance measures in other projects, including resurfacing. 

number of ADA measures were observed in CDOT resurfacing projects during the scan. Whe

included in resurfacing projects, the cost of ADA compliance items is typically assessed to the 

same fund category.

19
CHAPTER 4: LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES

Local governance structures and emphasis on highways vary across the States visited. In all

except one State visited, counties have significant levels of highway ownership. In Pennsylvania, 

a small fraction of rural highway mileage (less than 0.1 percent) is under county jurisdiction. 

In contrast, counties in Washington State are responsible for over 35,000 centerline miles

(approximately 57 percent) of rural roads and nearly a quarter of the State’s urban mileage. State 

DOTs provide varying levels and forms of assistance to local agencies. The LTAPs operate in

all States. Some DOTs provide substantial financial resources to local governments and have 

dedicated organizational units to facilitate effective and eligible expenditures. In some States,

the level of State-local interaction appears low, at least with respect to resurfacing programs and 

associated safety considerations.

The Scan Team met with county engineers in Iowa, New York, and Washington State. Fundin

for local public agency (LPA) resurfacing is derived from three sources: (1) Federal-aid passed 

through the State DOT, (2) State-aid, and (3) locally generated revenues (e.g., property, sales

taxes). All of the county personnel were engineering professionals and displayed a high level 

of commitment to safety improvement. The counties have systematic processes to maintain and 

improve infrastructure and safety. 

LPAs in Washington State are very active in the transportation arena. Substantial Federal-aid 

and State-aid is provided to LPAs. The Scan Team met with 17 representatives from 15 counties, 

including nine county engineers. The WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division have a

principal mission of assisting local governments use their Federal-aid funds efficiently and in 

compliance with applicable requirements. A member of this WSDOT division participated in the

entire Washington State scan visit. The arrangements between WSDOT and local government

units appear to be extremely cooperative and productive. Key mechanisms used to provide 

assistance to local agencies are noted below.

Certification Acceptance (CA) is a method of delegating certain Federal-aid highway program

decisions to non-Federal transportation agency partners. State DOTs routinely accept these

responsibilities, duties, and authorities. In Washington State, approximately 100 local agencies,

including all counties, operate under CA. These agencies can expedite project delivery by selfapproving many items (e.g., location and design, utility agreements, public hearings, plans,

specifications and estimates, contract awards, construction administration) that would require 

WSDOT and/or FHWA approval if the administering agency did not have CA

WSDOT has developed Local Agency Guidelines Manual (LAG) and City and County Design

Standards (published as Design Manual, chapter 42). The LAG outlines procedures for the 

following phases:

•	 Programming.

•	 Environmental

•	 Right-of-way

•	 Consultant selection

•	 Design.

20
•	 Contract documents (plans, specifications and estimate).

•	 Construction

•	 Project maintenance.

The City and County Design Standards contains design criteria and guidance for three types 

of projects: (1) new construction and reconstruction, (2) 3R projects, and (3) 2R projects

The publication pertains to facilities classified as principal arterials, minor arterials, and 

collectors. Separate committees develop the city and county standards, each comprised of 

six representatives from the relevant level of government unit (i.e., city or county). Other

participants include representatives from WSDOT, the FHWA Division Office, and four other 

organizations. The joint committee is chaired by a WSDOT Highways and Local Programs

representative, who has approval authority for the document. 

The Washington State counties range widely in population, geography, and demography. King 

County has a population of approximately 1.8 million, while Wahkiakum County has about 3,80

residents. The larger counties tend to incorporate all anticipated improvement in resurfacing 

projects. Conversely, larger, urban LPAs often develop separate projects for basic paving and

specialty work that provide for one or a few items (e.g., guardrail, pavement reflectors, or signs). 

Some LPAs use rigorous pavement management systems to identify needs and projects. Other

local counties plan resurfacing programs using a fixed cycle and treatment (e.g., chip seal every 7 

years). Despite the variations, a number of comments were common to several county engineers:

•	 Documentation of key decisions (e.g., design report) is extremely important.

•	 Upgrading all geometry and roadside features is not feasible in conjunction with routine 

resurfacing.

•	 Sight distances are reviewed as part of scoping and sometimes improved.

•	 Crash data are typically reviewed as part of scoping; county personnel are often acutely 

aware of serious crash locations. 

•	 Clearly discernible “crash clusters” are rare.

•	 In some counties, low-severity crashes are underreported

•	 Noncrashworthy mail boxes are a technical and public relations challenge.

•	 Efforts to consolidate access points are sometimes successful

•	 Sign vandalism is a problem.

County personnel in several States noted the lack of in-house technical specialists. Each Stat

has an LTAP center, supported by Federal 

and State funds, which provides technical 

assistance to local governments on transportation 

matters. Each State center operates somewhat

differently but most provide training programs, 

an information clearinghouse, newsletters and 

personalized technical assistance. The LTAP 

centers and State DOT personnel can provide

valuable specialized technical knowledge. 

21
Resurfacing and safety programs are principal areas of subject areas for all LTAP centers.

Additionally, the State DOTs in Iowa and Washington State have prepared technical publication

related to LPA-administered resurfacing projects. These publications were frequently mentioned 

in discussions with agency personnel.

Budget and cost considerations motivate innovation. This is especially true for local agencies and

the Scan Team observed several low-cost measures. An example is the use of plastic pipe side 

drains in conjunction with slope flattening.

As noted, the Scan Team met with county engineers in Iowa, New York, and Washington State

all of whom obtained crash data from the State and used this information to identify safety 

problems. County engineers also had close working relationships with law enforcement agencies,

sheriffs and local units of State police. These relationships are useful in working on short- and 

long-term traffic safety problems. 

Many of the institutional practices and all of the technical good practices observed could be

useful to local government transportation organizations. 

22
CHAPTER 5: OBSERVED GOOD INSTITUTIONAL 

AND TECHNICAL PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES

During the scan, numerous good practices were observed, some used by one agency and some 

used by several or all agencies visited. They are classified as either institutional or technical good 

practices and are discussed below.

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES

Institutional Practice 1 - Integrate Safety into Preservation Projects

The scan confirmed the premise that integrating safety improvements into resurfacing and 

restoration projects is generally an effective and efficient method of simultaneously pursuing 

two transportation goals. In many cases, resurfacing projects are the only regular (or quasiregular) road improvement activity. A number of “base” actions are needed to develop and

implement a resurfacing project. Base actions include an inventory of existing conditions and

features, development of specifications, contract bidding and award, contractor mobilization, 

and construction administration. The cost of these items is substantial and does not change 

significantly with modest scope expansion. The intersection area in figure 3 represents shared 

base costs that result in economy of effort and cost. 

Figure 3. Incorporating safety improvements in system preservation.

However, there are situations where separate projects for pavement and safety improvement are 

advantageous, such as area- or corridor-level focused safety projects (e.g., rumble strip, barrier 

placement). When safety improvements are the sole or primary scope of the project, unit costs 

are often lower than where the same treatment is included in a resurfacing project.

Institutional Practice 2 - Establish Multifund Project Tracking

Transportation funds are suballocated into numerous categories corresponding to a primary 

purpose, system, or mode. Flexibility varies. In some cases, categorical allocations are

legislatively prescribed and explicitly define eligible expenditures and amounts. In others 

cases, agency leaders and managers have substantial discretion on proportional allocation and 

eligibility. The addition of safety improvements to resurfacing projects may be viewed by some 

as misappropriation. All operational units of transportation agencies have target expenditure 

levels for major program areas. As indicated by table 2, when a single activity is intended 

23
to accomplish multiple purposes (e.g., pavement preservation and improved safety), the cost 

associated with each improvement should be attributed to the appropriate program.

The absence of this capability will inhibit cost-effective multipurpose projects and encourage 

delivery of only single-purpose projects. The ability to distribute the cost of a single project to 

multiple cost centers is an important asset. 

Table 2. Example tabulation of split-funded projects.

Project

Pavement 

preservation 

share

Safety 

improvement 

share

Other fund

share Total Cos

SR 56, Sect 5B 358,215 57,551 36,875 452,6

SR 114, Sect 6G 876,284 45,842 922,12

SR 765, Sect 15E 982,057 78,452 258,138 1,318,6

SR 595, Sect 23D 591,882 53,985 35,807 681,67

SR 88, Sect 13F 1,298,125 99,212 1,397,33

SR 302, Sect 9B 487,381 85,368 128,375 701,1

SR 472, Sect 3C 584,682 78,318 663,0

TOTAL $5,178,626 $498,728 $459,195 $6,136,54

Institutional Practice 3 - Allow for Flexible Project Development Cycles

Resurfacing projects are awarded each and every year. Ideally, the need to meet targete

awards should not result in projects that exclude cost-effective improvements. However, if the 

time allowed for project development is very short (e.g., 4 to 8 months) and all projects in the 

development phase are needed to attain contract award goals, then safety improvements may 

be omitted when they require longer preconstruction phases. Some resurfacing projects can be 

properly developed in a short period of time; however, additional time may be needed to include 

cost-effective safety improvements. During the scan, several techniques were observed that 

provide for additional development time when needed and still allow the agency to attain its 

resurfacing and contract award goals. Annual lettings are comprised of projects with a variety of 

development periods as conceptually illustrated in figure 4, where project development ranges 

from 1 to 3 years. To implement this concept, all resurfacing projects are scanned to estimate 

their needs and scope. These estimates are used for tentative plans (i.e., programming and letting 

schedule). To compensate for unanticipated delays in the delivery of some projects, additional 

“clean” projects (i.e., no complicating factors and amenable to rapid development) are added to the 

program. This approach is common, but not universal. 

The NYSDOT resurfacing program involves different categories designated as 1R, 2R, and

based on the pavement and nonpavement scope. Development periods vary. The 1R projects

involve routine maintenance activities and can be delivered in as little as 4 months. The 2

projects, which involve more extensive pavement work (i.e., multiple layer overlay) and other 

potential improvements (i.e., cross-section improvements), can often be delivered in 12 months. 

24
The 3R projects often entail substantial pavement improvements, including sections of

reconstruction, and geometric improvements. The development process may be complicated 

(e.g., substantial right-of-way, public involvement) and generally requires 2 to 3 years for 

completion. For several other agencies, the resurfacing program is developed from project 

identification through construction in 12 months or less. For IADOT, the typical timeframe from 

identification to construction of 3R projects is 3 years.

Figure 4. Flexible project development cycles.

Institutional Practice 4 - Strengthen State-Local Relationships

Local government units (e.g., counties, towns, cities) have jurisdiction over approximately 75 

percent of the public highway mileage in the United States. Ownership of two-lane rural roads

is even more highly concentrated with local governments. State DOTs have direct responsibility

and control over only a fraction of the facilities with the highest crash rates. Yet States can

substantially influence local transportation efforts. 

In addition to direct responsibility for State-owned highways, State DOTs provide valuabl

leadership and support to local transportation organizations. DOTs can support local efforts in

many ways including funding, technical assistance, and identification of high-crash locations on 

locally owned highways and streets. 

Most State DOTs assist local government units with the development of Federal-aid and Stateaid projects through dedicated units/staff (e.g., local systems office, municipal services) tha

provide technical services and act as liaisons. Given the extent of locally owned highways, 

the Scan Team noted the importance of efforts to educate and share information with local 

jurisdictions. The benefits of information and analysis systems can be magnified by extending 

their application to local agencies. Many LTAP centers offer courses in low-cost safety

improvements, resurfacing, pavement management and traffic safety. These topics are the 

basic building blocks for integrating safety improvements into resurfacing. A collaborative 

effort by DOT local government liaison units and LTAP centers would provide institutional

encouragement and technical support for local government efforts.

25
Institutional Practice 5 - Develop a Procedure for Expedient Acquisition of Minor 

Rights-Of-Way 

Right-of-way acquisition is often time consuming. When an otherwise desirable safety

improvement is found to require additional right-of-way, the agency must decide between a delay 

in project delivery or omitting the improvement. Some agencies have a categorical policy: no 

right-of-way is to be acquired for resurfacing projects. Therefore, the combination of limited 

rights-of-way and a time-consuming acquisition process are a major impediment to improving 

safety through resurfacing projects. A streamlined process for acquiring small areas and slivers 

is very useful and increases the range of improvements that can practically be considered in 

resurfacing projects. NYSDOT has this authority (known as “de minimis”), and routinel

employs it as part of resurfacing, especially for 2R projects.

Institutional Practice 6 - Engage Safety Experts in Project Development

Transportation agency missions have transitioned from system construction to system 

preservation and enhancement. Transportation organizations have evolved to meet the new 

mission. Responsibilities are being reassigned from headquarters to local DOT units (e.g.

district/region offices) that are closer to the point of delivery. Deploying the needed expertise to 

local DOT offices is a challenge because technical specialists have traditionally been located in 

centralized bureaus. Safety analysis is a complex and evolving discipline. Specialized knowledge 

is required to identify cost-effective safety improvements. During the scan, a spectrum of 

arrangements was observed for engaging safety expertise in project development. In some

State DOTs (e.g., Colorado, Utah), the central office bureaus are responsible for conducting the 

analyses and formulating recommendations, In other State DOTs, the central office safety office 

serves in an advisory and instructional role. For example, IADOT has decentralized 3R proje

delivery. The Office of Traffic and Safety, which previously had direct involvement in project 

development, was recast into an educational and resource role. In recent years, this office has 

worked diligently and successfully to instill a safety ethic and skill set within the district office 

design groups. Periodically, safety audits are conducted of completed resurfacing projects by 

teams of personnel from several organizations. In other States, safety analysis responsibilities

are distributed between central and district/region offices. Both NYSDOT and PennDOT 

perform certain crash analysis functions and screening centrally and provided to the district/

region offices. Each PennDOT district office has a safety review committee. The review and 

concurrence of these committees is needed for each 3R project.

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

Technical Practice 1 - Identify Targeted Safety Improvements

Selective safety upgrades can be integrated into resurfacing projects. Universal improvement 

to meet all current new-construction standards is not feasible from a cost or scheduling 

perspective. Identifying specific and cost-effective safety improvements requires consideration 

of infrastructure and crash data. PMS and other input are used to schedule pavement restoration.

Comprehensive and accurate crash data is a valuable asset to safety analysts. Several States

visited are systematically improving crash data through multiple location coding options (e.g., 

26
GPS, route and mile marker, street address), additional descriptive data fields, and electronic 

reporting and retrieval. During the scan, the Team observed several promising crash record and 

statistical analysis techniques. 

The CDOT designs resurfacing projects through a unique approach. Safety improvement

are identified largely on the basis of crash data analysis, rather than dimensional criteria. 

The Empirical Bayes statistical method is used to combine safety performance functions fo

categories of roadways and observed accident frequencies into a single estimate of the expected 

accident frequency. This analysis leads to a LOSS determination, which reflects the likelihood of 

improving safety through intervention. 

In Iowa, crash data and analysis are developed and distributed to State and local agencies. Som

reports on trends, year-to-year comparisons, and specific categories (e.g., motorcycle, fatal) are 

developed on a bi-weekly basis. The IADOT has a close and productive relationship with th

Iowa State University, Governor’s Traffic Safety 

Bureau, and the enforcement community. The Iow

Traffic Safety Data Service is a product of that 

partnership and provides users with readily available 

crash data analysis resources and uses geographic 

information systems technology. IADOT centra

and district offices, counties, and the enforcement 

community are principal users of these data and 

analyses.

Pennsylvania has an ambitious Low Cost Safety Improvement program. The implementatio

guidance developed by PennDOT’s Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) 

identifies 12 crash categories and 13 suggested countermeasures, with each crash category 

having from one to five countermeasures. These safety improvements can be self-standing 

(i.e., safety only projects) or integrated into other projects, such as resurfacing. The BHSTE i

developing additional analytic capabilities based on historical safety performance that assist in 

the selection of appropriate safety countermeasures. The UDOT Traffic and Safety unit prepares 

Operational Safety Reports for certain resurfacing projects. These safety reports recommen

safety improvements and provide the benefit/cost ratio associated with implementation.

Technical Practice 2 - Make Selective Geometric Improvements

The Scan Team observed that agencies visited during the scan invest in a range of geometric 

improvements as part of resurfacing projects. Common improvements include

•	 Auxiliary lanes (turn lanes and climbing lanes).

•	 Cross-slope improvement

•	 Drainage (additional inlets, improve cross drain capacity).

27
•	 Segment roadway cross-section improvements:

o	 Traveled way widening.

o	 Shoulder addition and widening.

o	 Paving aggregate shoulders, full or part width.

•	 Sight distance improvements by vegetation clearing and slope work. 

•	 Sight distance improvements by lengthening vertical curves. 

•	 Superelevation improvement.

Figures 5 through 10 illustrate examples of some of these types of improvements. 

Figure 5. Upgrade climbing lane added with resurfacing in Colorado. 

Figure 6. Addition of turning lane in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

28
After

29
Technical Practice 3 - Install Traffic Control Devices and Guidance

All agencies visited routinely install and/or upgrade selected traffic control devices in 

conjunction with resurfacing projects, including the following specific measures:

•	 Edge rumble strips

•	 Centerline rumble strips

•	 Curve delineation/warning (pavement markings and chevrons)

•	 Pavement markings. 

•	 Reflective pavement markers.

•	 Sheet delineation (on median barrier).

•	 Signs.

•	 Signal upgrades.

Several examples of these treatments are provided in figures 11 through 15.

Figure 11. Rumble stripe during construction in Iowa.

(Note: edge lines are repainted after rumble stripe cut.).

(Source: Courtesy of IAD

30
Figure 12. Centerline and edge rumble strips in Washington State.

Figure 13. Sheet delineation on median barrier in Colorado.

31
Figure 14. Before placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa.

(Source: Courtesy of IAD

Figure 15. After placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa.

(Source: Courtesy of IAD

32
Technical Practice 4 - Improve Roadsides

All States visited on the scan are aware of how important the roadside is for rural highway safety. 

The roadside safety principles outlined in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide are considered

in developing resurfacing projects. Specific conditions (e.g., slopes, drainage structures, mail 

boxes, existing barrier systems) are addressed through a combination of policy, analysis and 

judgment.

PennDOT District 3 employs two strategies worthy of note—selective clearing and “Ground to

Sky.” Trees are part of the natural environment but pose a threat to errant vehicles when located 

close to a roadway. PennDOT has an initiative of selectively removing trees within the rightof-way. Locations and corridors are identified using GIS data. A dense forest canopy prevents

sunlight from reaching the road surface and contributes to slick driving conditions, including 

black ice. The Ground to Sky treatment removes trees and branches thereby allowing sunlight to 

reach the roadway surface. Public opposition to tree removal (for both strategies) is sometimes 

strong. PennDOT has instituted procedures to reduce negative reactions. Adjacent landowners

are provided with advance notice of removal and may be allowed to retrieve the harvested wood. 

PennDOT tracks the safety records of roadways where tree countermeasures are used and reports

positive results.

All agencies evaluate and selectively include countermeasures in resurfacing projects to reduce 

the frequency and severity of run-off-road crashes, which are overrepresented on two-lane rural 

roads. The following strategies were observed during the scan:

•	 Bridge rail, connection and transition improvements

•	 Culvert end treatments (traversable)

•	 Culvert extensions

•	 Installation of side drains (in swales) and slope flattening.

•	 Edge drop-off mitigation (shoulder backup, safety edge)

•	 Flattening transverse (driveway, median turnaround) slopes.

•	 Guardrail installation.

•	 Guardrail replacement.

•	 Guardrail adjustments.

•	 Guardrail terminal upgrades.

•	 Headwall replacement (with inlets).

•	 Mailbox (control or replacement)

•	 Obstacle removal

•	 Obstacle delineation

•	 Removal of unwarranted barriers

•	 Rigid barrier installation and adjustment

•	 Selective clearing.

•	 Slope stabilization.

•	 Utility pole relocation.

Figures 16 through 26 show several examples of roadside interventions.

33
Figure 16. Bridge approach rail, Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

Figure 17. Traversable culvert grate, Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

34
Figure 18. Culvert extension in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

Figure 19. Full shoulder pavement with shoulder backup in Pennsylvania.

35
Figure 20. Safety edge in New York.

Figure 21. Box beam guardrail in New York. (Source: Courtesy of NYSD

36
Figure 22.Guardrail terminal and pavement in Colorado.

Figure 23. Crashworthy mailbox 

installation in Washington State.

Figure 24. Close up of a crashworthy 

mailbox installation in Washington State.

37
Technical Practice 5 - Improve Private and Public Access Points

Access points are locations of inherent conflict. At-grade intersections and property access design 

techniques can be employed to eliminate or manage conflicts. The following types of access 

improvements are included in resurfacing projects by agencies visited during the scan:

•	 Safety dikes.(1)

•	 Intersection reconfiguration (horizontal and vertical realignment).

•	 Commercial entrance consolidation

•	 Commercial entrance reconfiguration.

•	 Farm drive consolidation.

•	 Farm drive reconfiguration.

•	 Lighting.

An agency’s ability to change existing access points and regulate additional access is based 

primarily on statutory and regulatory authority. Agencies with limited authority may request but 

1 A safety dike is a clear zone created on the far side of a T-intersection by relocating utility poles, making the ditch 

slope traversable, and removing other fixed objects to lessen the severity of a crash if a motorist fails to stop at the 

intersecting side road.

38
not require modification, consolidation, and elimination of access points. Of the States visited, 

Colorado has the most legislative authority to control access. CDOT routinely modifies access 

points as part of its resurfacing projects. IADOT also strives to improve existing access point

Figures 27 through 30 illustrate a selection of access modifications.

Figure 27. Safety dike in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

Figure 28. Realignment of intersecting roadways (reduce/eliminate skew) in New York.

(Source: Courtesy of NYSD

39
Figure 29. Alteration of vertical alignment to improve sight distance at the 

intersection of two county roads in Iowa.

Figure 30. Farm field entrance slope flattening in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IAD

40
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY

Every State and local transportation agency resurfaces roadways to preserve their functional

serviceability. Likewise, every transportation and public works agency takes steps intended to 

improve safety. The resources devoted to each function, and the extent to which these initiatives 

are integrated, can vary substantially. The scan was undertaken to identify and disseminate 

information on practices that effectively integrate safety improvements into resurfacing and 

pavement restoration projects. 

Through a review of published materials, an e-mail survey, and outreach to professional contacts, 

six States were identified as scan destinations. Visits were conducted during three separate twoState trips in June, July, and August 2005. The Scan Team coordinated with the host DOTs and

FHWA Division Offices in advance to clarify the nature and scope of the visits. Host agencies 

were gracious and extremely cooperative in developing itineraries. Each destination was unique,

but most visits involved meetings at DOT headquarters with personnel in bureaus (e.g., design,

pavement management, programming, safety) and local DOT units. The Scan Team met with

county engineers in Iowa, New York, and Washington State

Every agency operates in a unique environment that influences how it approaches the 

incorporation of safety in resurfacing. One of the most significant factors is the allocation 

of resources between surface conditions and safety needs. The “balance point” is reached 

differently within each agency. In some cases, funding for infrastructure preservation and safety

improvements are allocated separately, with specific eligibility guidance applying to each. Other 

agencies operate with fewer programmatic fund sources, less precise eligibility criteria, and 

generally greater discretion on defining and scoping resurfacing projects. 

The extent of support by an agency’s leaders and its institutional culture are critical factors in 

determining the degree to which safety improvements are incorporated into resurfacing. All 

agencies and many individuals exercise some level of discretion over how limited resources are 

invested. These decisions reflect judgments on the proper use of funds and relative priorities. 

All of the personnel encountered during the scan believe that safety should be improved in 

connection with resurfacing projects. Some personnel and agencies consider it essential to 

integrate safety improvements in resurfacing projects. Others consider safety improvements

desirable but are reluctant to extend project development time or make substantial discretionary 

expenditures to attain the improvements. 

All agencies are accountable for achieving progress toward infrastructure and safety goals. 

Accountability methods and measurement vary. Measurements may be expressed as output

(e.g., lane miles treated, guardrail installed) or outcomes (e.g., ride quality, crashes per year). 

Pavement restoration has an immediate measurable effect on ride quality, which allows the 

effects of paving investments to be reliably measured. It is far more difficult to measure the 

results of safety investments as crashes are rare, even at high-risk locations, and affected by 

many factors beyond the roadway infrastructure. 

Resurfacing programs are driven by pavement conditions; this is true for every DOT and 

county visited during the scan. The process of defining a project’s elements, including the 

41
scope of pavement and safety work, varies substantially. The techniques, personnel involved 

and timeframe for resurfacing project development also vary. All of the DOTs visited are

decentralized organizations and local DOT units are responsible for project delivery. DO

headquarter units participate in advisory or decision-making roles in the areas of pavement 

management, safety analysis and countermeasure identification and programming. The observed 

agency relationships were all deemed to function fairly well, leading to the conclusion that 

there is no single right way to assign roles or distribute responsibilities within a decentralized 

organization. 

In most States, local governments (e.g., counties, cities, towns) own the majority of roadways.

However, individual local government units may have very limited jurisdiction, perhaps just 

a few miles. In addition to funding, States have institutional and technical capabilities that

are of great value to local government. Each State supports an LTAP center to provide local

governments with technical assistance. Several of the DOTs work very closely with counties,

substantially increasing the effectiveness of county efforts and expenditures.

Tort liability is a substantial concern of many transportation agencies, State and local. This 

concern weighs on managers and individual professionals in determining the scope of resurfacing 

projects. There is a sentiment that designing projects with no improved features results in less 

liability exposure than projects that provide some improvements but fall short of meeting all 

applicable criteria. Tort concerns were expressed most strongly in New York and Washington

State.

Integrating safety improvements into resurfacing can be an effective way to preserve both

mobility and safety. Based on DOT visits, leadership support is needed to develop an

implement an integrated strategy, because it may involve new priorities and direction. 

Revamped organizational processes and operational guidance will be needed to articulate policy,

expectations, and methods of pursuit. The Scan Team identified the following good practices that 

support attainment of pavement preservation and improved safety: 

Institutional Practices: 

Integrate Safety into Preservation Project

Establish Multifund Project Tracki

Provide for Flexible Project Development Cycle

Strengthen State-Local Relationship

Develop an Expedient Procedure for Minor Right-of-way Acquisit

Engage Safety Experts in Project Developme

Technical Practices:

Identify Targeted Safety Improvemen

Selectively Improve Geometr

Install Traffic Control Devices and Guidance

Improve Roadsid

 Improve Private and Public Access Poin

The good practices have been noted as either institution or technical. Institutional practices are

related to the capabilities, culture, and priorities of an agency. Agencies do not necessarily have 

42
the ability to adopt these practices on their own. Some (e.g., expedited right-of-way acquisition) 

may require legislation, rulemaking, or negotiation with stakeholders (e.g., contractor 

associations, local governments). Technical practices tend to be matters that are wholly or 

substantially within the purview of transportation agencies. 

39
44
Appendix A

FHWA Memorandum

Preventive Maintenance Eligibili

October 8, 200

45
Subject: ACTION: Preventive Maintenance Eligibility Date: October 8, 

From: /s/ Original signed by:  Refer T   HI

King W. Gee

Associate Administrator for Infrastructur

 To: Directors of Field Services

Division Administrators

Federal Lands Highway Division Engineer

Timely preventive maintenance and preservation activities are necessary to ensure proper performance 

of the transportation infrastructure. Experience has shown that when properly applied, preventive

maintenance is a cost-effective way of extending the service life of highway facilities and therefore is 

eligible for Federal-aid funding. By using lower-cost system preservation methods, States can improve

system conditions, minimize road construction impacts on the traveling public, and better manage 

their resources needed for long-term improvements such as reconstruction or expansion. Preventive 

maintenance offers State DOT’s a way of increasing the return on their infrastructure investment

During the 1990’s, Congress incrementally broadened, through legislation, the applicability of Federalaid funding to preventive maintenance activities. Congress’ acknowledgement of preventive maintenanc

activities as an eligible activity on Federal-aid highways is a logical step that reinforces the importance of 

implementing a continuing preventive maintenance program. Each of these actions was conveyed to the

field through a series of memoranda. This policy memorandum supersedes the related memoranda listed 

in the attachment.

The FHWA division offices have an important role in promoting system preservation and are encouraged 

to work closely with their State DOT counterparts to establish a program that identifies eligible 

preventive maintenance measures for all roadway assets on Federal-aid highways. The AASHTO defined 

preventive maintenance “as the planned strategy of cost effective treatments to an existing roadway 

system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or 

improves the functional condition of the system without increasing structural capacity.” Projects that 

address deficiencies in the pavement structure or increase the capacity of the facility are not considered 

preventive maintenance and should be designed using appropriate 3R standards. Functionally, Federal-aid

eligible preventive maintenance activities are those that address aging, oxidation, surface deterioration, 

and normal wear and tear from day-to-day performance and environmental conditions. Preventive 

maintenance activities extend the service life of the roadway asset or facility in a cost-effective manner.

Division offices should proactively work with their State partners to establish a preservation component, 

which is composed of various preventive maintenance activities and treatments. These include roadway 

activities such as joint repair, seal coats, pavement patching, thin overlays, shoulder repair, restoration 

of drainage systems, and bridge activities such as crack sealing, joint repair, seismic retrofit, scour 

countermeasures, and painting. Many other activities that heretofore have been considered routine

maintenance may be considered Federal-aid eligible on an area-wide or system-wide basis as preventive 

maintenance (i.e., extending the service life). This might include such work items as regionwide projects 

for periodic sign face cleaning, cleaning of drainage facilities, corrosion protection, spray-applied sealant 

for bridge parapets and piers, etc. These typical preventive maintenance work items are not intended to be 

all-inclusive but are rather a limited list of examples.

46
The final eligibility determination should be the result of collaboration between the division and the State 

DOT. This determination should be based on sound engineering judgment and economic evaluation,

allowing flexibility in determining cost-effective strategies for extending the service life of existing 

pavements, bridges, and essential highway appurtenances on Federal-aid highways.

All preventive maintenance projects should consider appropriate ways to maintain or enhance the 

current level of safety and accessibility. Isolated or obvious deficiencies should always be addressed. 

Safety enhancements such as the installation or upgrading of guardrail and end treatments, installation 

or replacement of traffic signs and pavement markings, removal or shielding of roadside obstacles, 

mitigation of edge drop offs, the addition of paved or stabilization of unpaved shoulders, or installation of 

milled rumble strips should be encouraged and included in projects where they are determined to be a cost 

effective way to improve safety. To maintain preservation program flexibility, and in accordance with 23 

U.S.C. 109(q), safety enhancements can be deferred and included within an operative safety management

system or included in a future project in the STIP. In no way shall preventive maintenance type project

adversely impact the safety of the traveled way or its users.

As with any Federal-aid project, adequate warning devices for highway-rail grade crossings within the 

project limits or near the terminus shall be installed and functioning properly per 23 CFR 646 befor

opening the project to unrestricted use by traffic. For projects on the NHS, all traffic barriers shall comply 

with the FHWA September 29, 1994, memorandum entitled Traffic Barrier Safety Policy and Guidance, 

signed by E. Dean Carlson. This work can be accomplished by force account or through other existin

contracts prior to final acceptance.

The FHWA supports the increased flexibility for using Federal-aid funding for cost-effective preventive 

maintenance. The Maintenance Quality Action Team (MQAT) is developing technical guidance o

preventive maintenance activities and transportation system preservation as a whole; that technical 

guidance is under development and will be issued in the near future. For further information please 

contact Christopher Newman of the Office of Asset Management, at (202) 366-2023 or Christopher.

Newman@fhwa.dot.gov, or visit the Transportation System Preservation website at 

 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/preservation/index.htm

Attachment

Attachment: Memoranda Superseded by Preventive Maintenance Memorandum

• 01/27/04 Stewardship of Preservation and Maintenance

• 01/11/02 HBRRP Funds For Preventive Maintenance (23 U.S.C. 116

• 10/30/98 Implementation of TEA-21 Interstate Maintenance Guideli

• 08/19/98 Phase Construction for Safety Consideration

• 06/18/97 Transportation System Preservation 

• 03/21/96 Preventive Maintenance Revision to 23 U.S.C. 1

• 10/12/93 Safety and Geometric Considerations for Interstate Maintenance Program Projec

• 06/14/93 Interstate Maintenance Progra

• 07/27/92 Preventive Maintenance

47
5/21/92 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Implementation 

Interstate Maintenance Progr

•

48
Appendix 

Scan Team Member

49
Ernest (Ernie) J. Blais, P.E.

Scan Team Co-chai

Assistant Division Administrator 

Connecticut Division, FHW

Ernest (Ernie) is currently the State of Connecticut Divisi

Administrator to administer the total Federal-aid highway program. 

Mr. Blais has served with FHWA for more than 30 years. Prior t

his current assignment, he served as Chief, Engineering Service

Section of the California Division; Program Operations Engineer, Statewide Systems & 

Operations Engineer, District Engineer and Planning & Research Engineer in the Ohio Division; 

Implementation Manager in the Washington DC Implementation Division; Research Engineer, 

Area Engineer and Assistant Area Engineer in the California Division; and Highway Engineer, 

Washington DC Office of Policy Planning Mr. Blais is a registered Professional Civil Engineer in 

California and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Mr. Blais earned a B.

Civil Engineering from University of Massachusetts, Dartmou

Keith Cota, P.E.

Scan Team Co-chai

Chief of Consultant Desi

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Keith Cota manages, administers, and supervises consultant staff

and consultants in the design of intermodal State and municipal 

transportation improvement projects. He was appointed a member in the 

AASHTO Technical Committee on Roadside Safety (TCRS) in 1

and became its chairman in 2004. Mr. Cota earned a B.S. in Civil 

Environmental Engineering in 1978 from Clarkson College of Technology at Potsdam, 

York, and began his career with the New Hampshire DOT in summer 1978. He is a registere

Professional Engineering in New Hampshire.

Lawrence (Larry) B. Hummel, P.E.

County Highway Engineer Mana

Van Buren County Road Commi

Lawrence, Michiga

Lawrence (Larry) B. Hummel oversees the day-to-day operations

of the road commission and implementation of its preservation, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction efforts. Mr. Hummel began his career

as a highway engineer with the Van Buren County Road Commis

(CRC). In 1999, he was appointed the Grand Region Bridge En

for the Michigan DOT. He returned to th CRC in 2002. Mr. Hummel received a B

Civil Engineering from Michigan Technological University in 1993, and a Master of Pub

Administration from Western Michigan University in 2005. He is a registered Professional

Engineer and a Licensed Residential Builder in the State of Michig

50
51

N. Kent Israel, P.E.

Road Design Engine

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA 

DOTD

N. Kent Israel has served LADODT for 34 years, currently a

the Road Design Engineer Administrator. His expertise include

road design activities, geometrics design, road side safety, project 

management and project financing. Mr. Israel received a B.S. in 

Civil Engineering from Louisiana Tech University in 1969, and is a licensed professional Civ

Engineer in the State of Louisiana.

Frank Julian

Safety Enginee

FHWA Resource Cent

Safety & Design Technical Service Team 

Mr. Julian began his FHWA career in 1986 with an assignment in the

Florida Division as a highway engineer. . Mr. Julian was promoted

to the Regional Safety Engineer for in 1996, and the following yea

participated in a national program that placed an FHWA engineer in 

the NHTSA Regional Office for a year. In 1998, Mr. Julian returned to the position of Regional 

Safety Engineer in FHWA, which subsequently became a FHWA Resource Center. Mr. Jul

graduated from Auburn University with a B.S. in Civil Engineerin

Bernie Kuta, P.E.

Pavement and Materials Engine

FHWA Resource Cent

Pavement & Material Technical Service Team

Mr. Kuta’s expertise and current duties are in the areas of pavement

construction/materials, pavement warranties and specifications 

development, pavement life-cycle cost analysis and quality assurance 

programs. Mr. Kuta has 17 years with FHWA, including 7 years of experience in Division

Offices as highway engineer and Pavements & Materials program manager. Mr. Kuta received 

the B.S. in Civil Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines in 1988, and is a Professi

Engineer in the State of Utah.
Susan G. Miller

County Engine

Freeborn County, Minneso

In her current position, Ms. Miller manages more than 600 miles 

roadway and 179 bridges. She has been in her current post for 5 years 

and also serves as Vice President, North Central Region, NACE.

is a registered Professional Engineer. Ms. Miller holds a B.S. in C

Engineering from North Dakota State University.

Harry W. Taylor, Jr.

Road Departure Safety Team Leader (Retire

FHWA Office of Safety

Harry Taylor joined FHWA in 1965, and is a graduate of the Highway 

Engineer Training Program. In 1975, he transferred to FHW

Headquarters in Washington, DC. Mr. Taylor’s long service i

FHWA’s Safety Office includes participating in a variety of programs 

and initiatives. He graduated from Tennessee State University with 

a B.S. in Civil Engineering and subsequently earned a Masters

Engineering Administration from George Washington University

Kevin M. Mahoney, P.E.

Report Facilitator

Kevin Mahoney joined the Penn State University in 1999, where he

is currently a senior research associate and associate professor civil 

engineering. He previously worked for 12 year with the FHWA and 

as a private consultant for 7 years. He works primarily in the areas of 

project development, work zones, design, and the effects of design 

decisions on performance. Dr. Mahoney, a registered Professional

Engineer in several States, served as the scan report facilitator

52
53

Appendix 

Amplifying Questions
I. Project Level Decision Making

1. Do you have written procedures for developing resurfacing projects? [If yes, can we

have copies?]

2. Is the Design function for your agency centralized or decentralized (e.g., districts

regions)?

3. Can you describe the complete development process (programming, design

construction/implementation) for resurfacing projects?

4. What is the approximate time frame for resurfacing project development (from 

programming to construction/implementation)?

5. What information, in addition to pavement condition data, is used in resurfacing 

project development?

6. Does a project ever begin (at programming) as resurfacing and subsequently get 

converted to another type? [If yes, what are common reasons?

7. Can you describe any roadblocks you’ve encountered while trying to includ

safety features in a resurfacing project?

8. Did you obtain public input on the scope of resurfacing projects before 

construction? [If yes, describe what approach was taken and how this affected the

resurfacing projects.]

9. Does your resurfacing project development process use benefit-cost analysis or 

similar approach to evaluating safety cost effectiveness? [If yes, what is the source of

the crash reduction factors?]

10. Is your resurfacing project development guidance fairly objective/deterministic i

terms of including safety features? (i.e., if two design teams had the same project 

information, would they usually end up including the same safety improvements?)

11. If you undertake a resurfacing project and defer or phase safety improvements, wha

are typical timeframes for completing the safety work after the resurfacing?

12. What superelevation criteria/guidance do you apply to resurfacing projects? What 

field control measures (e.g., inspection) do you employ to assure the designated 

superelevation is attained during construction?

54
55

II. Project/Program Evaluation

1. How long has your agency been using the current resurfacing project development 

process?

2. How was your resurfacing development process developed?

3. Has your resurfacing program been the subject of any reviews or studies (e.g., internal 

quality improvement initiative, research evaluation, legislative body inquiries)? [If

yes, can you provide a copy of the results/documentation?]

What quality control procedures are used on resurfacing projects to ensure that safety and 

operations have not been adversely affected by the resurfacing such as reduction in the 

superelevation or increase in pavement drop-offs. 
Appendix D

Key Contacts in Host States and Counti

56
Name Agency/Unit Phone email

Colorad

Bryan Allery CDOT/Traffic & Safety, HQ 303-757-9967 bryan.allery@dot.State.co.u

Bob Garcia CDOT/Region 4 Traffic Engineer 970-350-2121 robert.garcia@dot.State.co.u

Paul Jesaitis CDOT/Project Development, HQ 720 497-6961 paul.jesatis@dot.State.co.

Corey Stewart CDOT/Pavement Mgmnt, HQ 303-757-9299 corey.stewart@dot.State.c

Marcee Allen FHWA/CO Division, Safety 720-963-3007 marcee.allen@fhwa.dot.

Iow

Troy A. Jerman IADOT/ Traffic & Safety, HQ 515-239-1470 troy.jerman@dot.iowa.gov

Tony Lazarowicz IADOT/ District 3 Design 712-276-1451 tony.lazarowicz@dot.iowa.g

Thomas M. Welsh IADOT/ Traffic & Safety, HQ 515-239-1267 tom.welsh@dot.iowa.go

Richard Storm Woodbury County Engineer 712-279-6484 dstorm@siouxcity.

Jerry Roche FHWA/IA Division, Safety 515-233-7323 jerry.roche@fhwa.dot.g

New 

Yor

Dave Clements NYSDOT/Safety, HQ 518-457-3537 dclements@dot.State.ny

Barbara O’Rourke NYSDOT/Safety, HQ 518-457-1910 borourke@dot.State.

Norm Schips NYSDOT/Design, HQ 518-485-8611 nschips@dot.State.ny.

Bruce Smith NYSDOT/Safety, HQ 518- 457-0271 basmith@dot.State.ny

Rick Wilder NYSDOT/Design, HQ 518-457-5922 rwilder@dot.State.ny

Fred Howard Rensselaer County Engineer 518-283-0973 fhoward@rensco.

James A Growney FHWA/NY Division, Safety 518-431-4125 jim.growney@fhwa.dot.go

Pennsylvania

Michael Baglio PennDOT/ Traffic & Safety, HQ 717-705-1706 mbaglio@State.pa.

David Burkhart PennDOT/District 3, Maintenance 570-368-4226 daburhart@State.pa

Bill Crawford PennDOT/ Traffic & Safety, HQ 717-705-1437 wicrawford@State.pa.

Dan Dawood PennDOT/Pavement Mgmnt, HQ 717-787-4246 ddawood@State.pa.

John Hess PennDOT/Highway Quality, HQ 717-787-3518 johhess@State.pa.u

Eric High PennDOT/District 3, Design 570-368-4372 ehigh@State.pa.

Robert Hippenstiel PennDOT/District 3, Maintenance 570-368-4259 rhippensti@State.pa

Michael Keiser PennDOT/District 8, Design 717-787-2692 mkeiser@State.pa.

Alan Keller PennDOT/District 3, Safety 570-368-4260 alankeller@State.pa.u

James Kendter PennDOT/District 3, Executive 570-368-4200 jkendter@State.pa.

Brian Leighow PennDOT/District 3, Maintenance 570-387-4266 bleighow@State.pa

Leon Liggitt PennDOT/District 3, Design 570-368-4346 lliggitt@State.pa.u

Sunil Patel PennDOT/District 8, Safety 717-783-3927 srpatel@State.pa.u

Glenn Rowe PennDOT/Traffic & Safety, HQ 717-787-3620 glen@State.pa.u

Brian J. Toseki PennDOT/District 3  Maintenance 570-368-4266 btoseki@State.pa

Tim Wentz PennDOT/District 3, Traffic 570-368-4210 towentz@State.pa.us

Michael Castellano FHWA/PA Division, Safety 717-221-4517 mike.castellano@fhwa.dot.g

57
Name Agency/Unit Phone email

Utah

John Leonard UDOT, Traffic & Safety, HQ 801-965-4045 jleonard@utah.gov

Robert Hull UDOT, Traffic & Safety, HQ 801-965-4273 rhull@utah.go

Richard Miller UDOT, Preconstruction, HQ 801-965-4289 richardmiller@utah.

John Njord UDOT, Executive Director, HQ 801-965-4028 jnjord@utah.go

Craig Haskell UDOT, Region 3 Design 801-222-3405 chaskell@utah.

Roland Stanger FHWA/UT Division, Safety 801-963-0078 roland.stanger@fhwa.dot.go

Washington

Dick Albin WSDOT/Design, HQ 360-705-7451 albind@wsdot.wa.go

Mike Gribner WSDOT/Eastern Region 509-324-6095 gribnem@wsdot.wa

George Hilsinger WSDOT/South Central Region 509-577-1700 hilsing@wsdot.wa.

Dave Mounts WSDOT/ Local Programs, HQ 360-705-7379 mountsd@wsdot.wa.g

Dave Olson WSDOT/Design, HQ 360-705-7952 olsonda@wsdot.wa.g

Harold Peterfeso WSDOT/Design, HQ 360-705-7230 peterfh@wsdot.wa.gov

Doug Bramlette Thurston County Asst Engineer 380-786-5133 bramled@co.thurston.wa

Ross Kelly Spokane County Engineer 509-477-3600 rkelly@spokanecounty.

Randy Hart County Road Administration Board 360-753-5989 randy@crab.wa

Don Petersen FHWA/WA Division, Safety 360-534-9323 don.petersen@fhwa.dot.gov

58
59

Appendix 

ACKNOWLEDG
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The FHWA acknowledges AASHTO and NACE for their support in cosponsoring this scan, 

well as their ongoing activities to enhance highway safety.

The FHWA appreciates the time and effort provided by the Scan Team members to ensure a 

document on good practices would be developed as envisioned.

The FHWA also recognizes the hosts and participant departments of transportation for their 

support, and cooperation to share information with the Scan Team:

Colorad

Iow

 Woodbury Count

New Yor

 Rensselaer Coun

Pennsylvania

Utah

Washington State

 Spokane County

 Thurston Count

Finally, FHWA salutes all of our transportation partners in their commitment to reduce the 

number of fatalities and injuries on their highways.



Publication No. FHWA-SA-07-001 

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety

400 Seventh Street, SW, HSSD

Washington, DC 20590

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov