Highway Safety: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Implement Changes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Since SAFETEA-LU
Published: 2008-07-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: About 43,000 traffic fatalities occur annually, and another 290,000 people are seriously injured on the nation's roads. To reduce these numbers, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) nearly doubled funding for the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), authorizing $5.1 billion for 2006 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU also added requirements for states to develop strategic highway safety plans that cover all aspects of highway safety, including infrastructure, behavioral (education and enforcement), and emergency medical services projects; develop crash data analysis systems; and publicly report on the top 5 percent of hazardous locations on all their public roads. SAFETEA-LU also set aside funds for a legacy rail-highway crossing program and a new high-risk rural road program. This testimony provides preliminary information on the implementation of HSIP since SAFETEA-LU. It is based on ongoing work that addresses (1) states' implementation of HSIP following SAFETEA-LU, (2) FHWA's guidance and assistance for states, and (3) results of HSIP to date, including for the two set-aside programs. To conduct this study, GAO visited 6 states, judgmentally selected based on highway safety attributes, analyzed plans and reports from these 6 states and 19 randomly selected states, and interviewed FHWA and state safety officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All states submitted strategic highway safety plans and reports listing the top 5 percent of their hazardous locations, according to FHWA. The 25 state plans GAO reviewed generally cover all aspects of highway safety, but the 25 states have not fully developed the required crash data analysis systems. FHWA and state safety officials cited the collaboration that occurred among safety stakeholders in developing the plans as a positive influence on state safety planning. Many of the 25 states lacked key components of crash data analysis systems, including crash location data, roadway characteristics data, and software for analyzing the data. As a result, most states cannot identify and rank hazardous locations on all public roads, determine appropriate remedies, and estimate costs, as required by SAFETEA-LU, and their 5 percent reports often lack required information on remedies and costs. FHWA provided written guidance and training to assist the states, especially in preparing their strategic highway safety plans, and participated in every state's strategic safety planning process. However, FHWA has not required states to submit schedules for obtaining complete roadway characteristics data, and because states lack complete data, FHWA's guidance on the 5 percent reports did not specify a methodology. As a result, states' 5 percent reports vary widely, raising questions about how this report can be used. It is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP as carried out under SAFETEA-LU because states need more time to identify, implement, and evaluate projects they have undertaken since adopting their strategic highway safety plans. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some HSIP provisions may not be aligned with states' safety priorities. First, most states have not taken advantage of a new spending provision that allows states to use some HSIP funds for behavioral or emergency medical services projects, partly because a certification requirement--that all state highway safety infrastructure needs have been met--may make them reluctant to do so. Second, the rail-highway crossing set-aside program does not target the top safety priorities of some states. Lastly, states are still in the early stages of implementing the high-risk rural road set-aside program, and data limitations may make it difficult for some of them to identify qualifying projects, especially for locally owned rural roads. FHWA agreed with GAO's findings.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss  highway safety. My statement today focuses on our ongoing work on the  Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement  Program (HSIP). The program, established in 1973, provides funds through  the Federal Aid Highway Program to states primarily for infrastructure and  other improvements designed to reduce the number of crashes, serious  injuries, and fatalities on the nation’s roads. During 2006, about 43,000  traffic fatalities occurred and 290,000 people were seriously injured.  Congress significantly revised HSIP through the Safe, Accountable,  Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users  (SAFETEA-LU), passed in August 2005. Key revisions include the  following:    The annual authorization for HSIP nearly doubled to about $1.3 billion per  year.
States must now prepare a strategic highway safety plan that addresses all  aspects of highway safety, which include infrastructure improvements,  behavioral approaches such as education and enforcement projects meant  to change drivers’ behavior, and emergency medical services approaches.  Eight types of stakeholders must participate in developing the strategic  highway safety plan.
States must now develop crash data analysis systems that they can use to  identify hazardous locations, potential remedies, and the costs of these  remedies.
To advance public awareness of highway safety, states must now analyze  safety hazards on all their public roads and report the most hazardous 5  percent of these locations, in what is known as the “5 percent report,” to  FHWA for posting on its public Web site.
The act authorized a $220 million per year set-aside of funds for rail- highway crossing improvements under an existing rail-highway crossing  program established in the Highway Safety Improvement Act of 1973.
The act created a new $90 million per year set-aside for infrastructure  projects on high-risk rural roads and defined these roads.
The act added a provision that allows states to transfer, or flex, up to 10  percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and emergency medical services  projects provided the state has adopted a strategic highway safety plan  and certified that it has met all its safety infrastructure needs.
FHWA is not alone in funding state safety programs. NHTSA and FMCSA  administer almost half of federal safety funding through grants provided to  states for their safety programs. These grants are generally for behavioral  projects. The Department of Transportation (DOT) encourages states to  align their NHTSA- or FMCSA-funded programs with the strategic highway  safety plans they develop in implementing HSIP, but such alignment is not  required.
My testimony today addresses (1) the extent to which states have  implemented HSIP requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU, including key  elements of strategic highway safety plans and crash data analysis  systems, (2) the types of guidance and assistance FHWA provided to the  states to support them in planning and carrying out HSIP, and (3) the  results to date of states’ efforts in carrying out HSIP, including the results  of the set-aside programs for rail-highway crossings and for high-risk rural  roads.
My testimony is based on preliminary work we are doing for this  Committee for a review of HSIP scheduled for release later this year. To  examine states’ strategic highway safety planning, we reviewed strategic  highway safety plans and related program reports for a total of 25 states,  including 19 randomly selected states and 6 states we visited—California,  Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. We based our  judgmental selection of these 6 states on our analysis of attributes  associated with highway safety, such as fatalities and roadway  characteristics, in each of these states and based on comments from  highway safety experts. For these 6 states, we also obtained information  on the development of their strategic highway safety plans and state  officials’ views. To identify and assess the types of guidance and  assistance FHWA provided to the states in planning and carrying out HSIP,  we reviewed FHWA guidance and interviewed FHWA headquarters  officials and, in the 6 states we visited, FHWA division and state officials.  To determine the results of the states’ efforts since SAFETEA-LU, we  reviewed strategic highway safety plans and analyzed data from HSIP  annual reports for our 25 selected states. The results of our review of  strategic highway safety plans and associated reports and site visits are  not necessarily representative of all states. To address all our objectives,  we also interviewed other DOT safety program officials and other highway  safety stakeholders. We began this performance audit in May 2007, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings based  on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Strategic Highway Safety Plans Included Key Elements Added by SAFETEA-LU, but States Lack Data for Analysis Specified by the Law
paragraphs: All 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted strategic highway  safety plans to FHWA before October 2007, a deadline established by  SAFETEA-LU. Additionally, the 25 state strategic highway safety plans we  reviewed generally contained the key elements specified in SAFETEA-LU,  such as consideration of all three approaches to improving highway safety,  including infrastructure improvement, behavioral approaches (education  and enforcement), and emergency medical service improvements, and  evidence of involvement by a broad set of stakeholders. For example:    All 25 plans included infrastructure improvement and behavioral  approaches among the emphasis areas or key strategies that states  identified to address their top priorities. Twenty-two of the plans included  emergency medical services improvements.
Our review of the plans indicated that 20 of 25 states consulted with at  least five of the eight specified types of stakeholders, including  representatives of the state agencies that administer NHTSA and FMCSA  safety grants.
As a result, the new planning process helped break down the separation  between engineering and behavioral program planning that existed prior  to SAFETEA-LU. Highway safety officials in states we visited said the  extent of cooperation between stakeholders that occurred when  developing the strategic highway safety plan was a largely new  development after SAFETEA-LU. FHWA officials told us that they believe  this change in planning is the most important result to date of the changes  in HSIP. Likewise, officials responsible for safety programs at NHTSA,  FMCSA, and in the states we visited agreed that HSIP’s strategic highway  safety planning process facilitated more integrated safety planning than  had occurred in the past.
While the state plans we reviewed indicated general compliance with  SAFETEA-LU’s requirements for preparing strategic highway safety plans,  states do not yet have the crash data analysis systems needed to identify  and select possible safety improvements as set forth in SAFETEA-LU.  These systems include crash location data in a geographic format suitable  for mapping and roadway characteristics data—such as lane and shoulder  dimensions—for all public roads, together with software that can analyze  the data. With these components, states can identify hazardous locations,  develop appropriate remedies, and target resources to the greatest  hazards. The requirement to obtain and analyze data for all public roads is  a significant departure from past practice for many states. Before  SAFETEA-LU, states generally had such information only on the roads  they owned, because that information was useful for managing the  maintenance and operation of their state-owned roads. However, state- owned roads account for a relatively small proportion of the public road  miles in most states, averaging 20 percent nationwide. In the six states we  visited, the state-owned portion of all public roads ranged from about 8  percent in Iowa to about 33 percent in Pennsylvania, and the remaining  roads were locally owned. This data gap presents a challenge for states  that may be costly for many to address, but the increased funding  authorized for HSIP is generally available for data improvements as well as  safety projects.
Our review of 25 state strategic highway safety plans and six site visits  indicated that, to varying degrees, states lack key components of crash  data analysis systems:    All 50 states maintain data on the crashes that occur on all public  roadways in the state, but in the 25 states we reviewed, the information on  crash locations was typically not in a geographic format (GIS or GPS)  suitable for mapping. Safety engineers use crash location data to  determine if accidents recur, or cluster, at specific sites. Among the states  we visited, Iowa and California had crash data in a geographic format that  allowed accidents to be located precisely on any public road in the state,  but the other four states did not have such data for nonstate roads.  According to our review of 25 states’ strategic highway safety plans, some  states are working toward improving their crash location data by  upgrading their crash reporting systems with GPS capabilities, yet it is still  common for crash location data to come from handwritten crash reports  that use mile-post markers, intersections, or street addresses to identify  crash locations.
Most of the 25 states included in our review did not have data on roadway  characteristics for all publicly owned roads, especially locally owned  roads. As noted, states generally maintain these data only for roads they  are responsible for maintaining and operating. For example, the  Pennsylvania Department of Transportation originally established, and  now maintains the data for, a roadway characteristics database to support  its management and operation of state-owned roads. The department still  uses the database primarily for this purpose, but the data can also be used  for safety analyses. Furthermore, because it is costly and time consuming  to gather and maintain roadway characteristics data, states generally have  not expanded their roadway characteristics databases to include locally  owned roads. For example, Florida officials estimated that it would  initially cost $300 million and could take 3 years to develop such a  database. In addition, they noted there would be annual maintenance costs  to keep the data current. Of the six states we visited, only Iowa had  roadway characteristics data for all public roads.
Most of the 25 states we reviewed have not developed software or other  analytic tools to use the crash location and roadway characteristics data to  perform the analysis required by SAFETEA-LU. FHWA is developing a  software system, known as “Safety Analyst,” that is designed to help states  use crash location and roadway characteristics data to determine their  most hazardous locations, rank them, identify possible remedies, and  estimate the costs of implementing the remedies. FHWA estimates that it  will complete the development of this software and release it to the states  later in 2008. In the meantime, some states may also be developing their  own approaches. For example, Mississippi is developing its own software,  which is similar to Safety Analyst.
Until states have obtained the necessary data and software, they cannot  conduct the kind of data analysis specified by SAFETEA-LU—namely,  identifying and ranking hazardous locations on all public roads,  determining appropriate remedies, and estimating project costs. This kind  of analysis is also necessary to generate 5 percent reports that fully meet  the requirements for these reports set forth in SAFETEA-LU, including  requirements for information on remedies and costs. Many of the 5 percent  reports we reviewed lack this required information.
section_title: FHWA Assisted States in Preparing Strategic Highway Safety Plans, but Has Not Set Deadlines to Obtain All Needed Data
paragraphs: FHWA provided guidance and technical assistance to states in preparing  strategic highway safety plans, and FHWA division officials participated in  each state’s planning process. FHWA’s guidance included memorandums  describing new HSIP program procedures and a reference guide on  strategic planning. Furthermore, FHWA held training symposiums and  provided technical assistance through its division offices and resource  center. According to our review of 25 strategic highway safety plans and  six site visits, FHWA division staffs were actively involved in the state  planning efforts that resulted in states’ adoption of strategic highway  safety plans and FHWA’s acceptance of these plans.
In its guidance to states on implementing HSIP, FHWA stopped short of  requiring states to gather all the data needed for the type of safety analysis  specified in SAFETEA-LU. FHWA set August 31, 2009, as a deadline for  states to develop the crash location data needed to map crashes on all  public roads. FHWA officials told us that they believe that states will meet  this deadline. However, recognizing the data limitations many states face,  FHWA has not set a date for states to have the other required data on  roadway characteristics for all public roads. Without roadway  characteristics data, states cannot identify remedies and estimate the costs  of infrastructure projects using analytic tools, such as Safety Analyst, but  must instead rely on older approaches that combine data analysis with  field surveys of potential improvement locations, roadway safety audits, or  other information sources.
In its guidance on the 5 percent report, FHWA gave states leeway in  interpreting the act’s requirements and did not specify a methodology.  Recognizing the states’ data limitations, FHWA advised the states to  prepare their 5 percent report using available data. Consequently, states  prepared widely varying 5 percent reports. For example, some reports  included remedies and costs for each location while others showed  remedies and costs only for certain locations or for none at all. In our  review of the 2007 reports for 25 states, the number of locations reported  ranged from 5 to 880, with 3 states reporting 10 or fewer locations and 6  states reporting over 100. Additionally, many reports list locations in a  format that the general public may find difficult to use. For example, the  public may find it hard to identify a hazardous location when it is  identified in the report by the roadway mile marker, as is done in several  reports we reviewed. We found that some states were using their 5 percent  reports to help identify projects for funding, but where the format for  identifying the sites was not readily accessible to the public, it was not  clear whether the reports would enhance public awareness of highway  safety, as intended.
section_title: It Is Too Soon to Evaluate Results of States’ Efforts Since SAFETEA-LU, but Preliminary Evidence Raises Questions about whether Certain Program Provisions Are Aligned with States’ Safety Priorities
paragraphs: As previously noted, federal and state officials told us that the strategic  highway safety planning process improved collaboration and safety  planning, but it is too early to evaluate the results of states’ efforts to carry  out HSIP since SAFETEA-LU’s enactment, especially the results of  infrastructure projects identified through the strategic highway safety  planning process. However, preliminary evidence from our review of 25  states’ plans and six site visits indicates that three provisions in SAFETEA- LU may not be aligned with states’ safety priorities. First, states have  generally not taken advantage of HSIP’s flexible funding provision, which  allows them to use HSIP funding for noninfrastructure projects. Second,  the rail-highway crossing set-aside may target a low-priority type of project  for some states, although other states continue to emphasize this area.  Third, states have just begun to implement the high-risk rural road  program, but data limitations may be making it difficult for some states to  allocate program funds to qualifying projects.
subsections: section_title: More Time Needed to Evaluate HSIP Projects Since SAFETEA-LU
paragraphs: Too little time has passed for states to select and build infrastructure  projects identified in their strategic highway safety plans and, as a result, it  is too soon to evaluate the results of HSIP projects funded under  SAFETEA-LU’s authorization. Given the October 2007 deadline for states  to submit their strategic highway safety plans to FHWA, states finalized  their plans relatively recently—28 states did so in 2006, and the remaining  22 states, plus the District of Columbia, did so in 2007. Because  infrastructure projects can take a year or more to select and build, and  subsequent project evaluations require 3 years’ worth of crash data after  the projects have been implemented, it is too soon to assess the  effectiveness of projects undertaken under the new program.
section_title: Few States Used HSIP Flexible Funding Provision for Behavioral and Emergency Medical Services Projects
paragraphs: States made limited use of the HSIP flexible funding provision that allows  them to transfer up to 10 percent of their HSIP funds to behavioral and  emergency medical services projects if they have adopted a strategic  highway safety plan and certified that they have met all their safety  infrastructure needs. As of the end of June 2008, seven states had applied  to FHWA, and been granted approval, to transfer about $13 million in HSIP  funds to behavioral or emergency medical services projects (see table 1),  according to FHWA data. Though none of the six states we visited has  requested approval to transfer HSIP funds, officials in two of those states  did express interest in doing so. However, these officials noted that their  states could not meet the certification requirement because of ongoing  infrastructure needs and concerns about the potential legal liability a state  could incur by certifying that all its infrastructure safety needs have been  met. Officials in the other states we visited agreed that certification would  be difficult, but did not express interest in transferring funds because they  had enough infrastructure projects to use all the available HSIP funds.
At least in part because of these conditions attached to transferring funds,  most HSIP funding remains focused on infrastructure. In some instances,  the funding allocated between approaches may not be aligned with the  emphasis areas laid out in the state strategic highway safety plan.  Nevertheless, states may use NHTSA and FMCSA grants as well as transfer  HSIP funds to address behavioral and emergency medical services  approaches to improving highway safety. In contrast to HSIP funding,  though, grants from related NHTSA and FMCSA programs are not formally  aligned with the strategic highway safety plan developed as part of HSIP.  In our interviews with federal officials at FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA, we  found that stakeholders from those three organizations were  collaborating, usually informally, but to date, the flexible funding  provision in HSIP has not significantly altered the sources of federal  funding states use to fund infrastructure, behavioral, and emergency  medical services safety projects. Additionally, because states’ NHTSA and  FMCSA grant awards are not formally aligned with states’ strategic  highway safety plans, it is unclear to what extent states have aligned their  total federal highway safety funding with priorities identified in their  strategic highway safety plans.
section_title: Rail-Highway Crossing Improvement Set-aside May Target Low-Priority Projects in Some States
paragraphs: HSIP’s funding set-aside for rail-highway crossing improvements may  target projects that are a low priority and yield low safety benefits for  some states, but other states continue to emphasize rail-highway crossing  improvements. Our review of 25 strategic highway safety plans showed  that improving rail-highway crossings was often a low priority for states.  As noted earlier, states designate their top safety priorities as emphasis  areas in their strategic highway safety plans and identify their most  hazardous locations in their 5 percent reports. Seventeen of 25 states had  not identified rail-highway crossings as an emphasis area. In our review of  the 5 percent reports submitted by these 25 states in 2007, we found that  Oregon alone identified a rail-highway crossing in its 5 percent report of  most hazardous locations.
States’ relatively low emphasis on safety improvements at rail-highway  crossings may be related to their evaluations of the effectiveness of recent  improvements. In reviewing our 25 selected states’ rail-highway crossing  program annual reports for 2007, we found 21 reports that included  before-and-after crash data for rail-highway crossing improvement  locations. In 15 of these 21 states, almost all of the improved locations  showed zero incidents both before and after the improvement.  Nevertheless, West Virginia’s annual crossing report noted that as long as  federal funding through the set-aside program continues, the state’s  strategic highway safety plan will address rail-highway crossings despite  low project benefits.
The six states we visited varied in their views on the set-aside for rail- highway crossing improvements. Officials in two of the states said that the  set-aside may be disproportionately high given the low risk rail-highway  crossings pose compared with other hazardous locations. FHWA Office of  Safety officials agreed that the program’s funding, which accounts for  approximately 17 percent of HSIP authorizations, was high based on the  number of fatalities that occur at rail-highway crossings. Conversely,  officials in Illinois noted that rail-highway crossings are a safety priority  for the state. Additionally, Mississippi demonstrated the importance of  improving crossings through their safety programs by augmenting federal  set-aside funds with state funds.
The SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act provides states with  flexibility to use rail-highway crossing set-aside funds for other types of  HSIP projects if they certify that they have met all their rail-highway  crossing needs. While it remains to be seen how states will respond to this  amendment, they may be reluctant to certify that they have met all their  needs. As noted earlier, some states have been reluctant to make use of  HSIP’s flexible funding provision because they may still have some  infrastructure needs or may have legal concerns about the potential  liabilities of such a certification.
section_title: States Are in the Early Stages of Implementing the High-Risk Rural Road Program, and Data Limitations May Be Slowing Implementation
paragraphs: Many states are still in the early stages of implementing the set-aside  program for high-risk rural roads and have yet to obligate significant funds  for projects, and data limitations may be hindering their ability to target  program funds to eligible projects. SAFETEA-LU created this program  because over half of highway fatalities occur on rural roads. The act  authorizes $90 million per year to address hazards on rural roads defined  as high risk. Projects on roadways that meet the act’s definition are  eligible for funding under the program. According to reports on the  program to FHWA by the 25 states we selected, 23 of these states had  implemented the program to some extent by the end of fiscal year 2007. Of  these 23 states, 16 had already identified projects and approved, funded, or  contracted for at least one infrastructure project, and 7 were still  identifying potential projects, gathering data, or performing other  preliminary activities. Because states remain in the early stages of  implementing the program, obligations made to date are low; for example,  through June 2008, program obligations for all years under SAFTETEA-LU  totaled $50.3 million, compared with almost $270 million authorized  through that time period.
Limited data on rural roads—including data on crash locations and local  roadway characteristics—may be hindering the program’s implementation  by making it difficult for some states to identify roads that conform to the  definition of high-risk rural roads in SAFETEA-LU. Officials in 5 states we  visited noted that limitations in their crash location and roadway  characteristics data made it difficult for them to identify qualifying  roadways and appropriate remedies. Additionally, in our review of 25 state  reports, we found states cited data limitations as a difficulty in  implementing the program. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2007,  Texas had yet to implement the program due to data limitations.
Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, this concludes my  prepared statement. We plan to report in more detail on changes in the  Highway Safety Improvement Program and may have recommendations at  that time. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other  Members of the Committee might have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine A.  Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key  contributions to this testimony were Rita Grieco, Assistant Director;  Richard Calhoon; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann  Moessbauer; John W. Stambaugh; and Frank Taliaferro.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.